Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I want the NBN

iwantthenbn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: I want the NBN

#61

Post by XorNot »

another-one-off wrote: post #54
XorNot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the problem: That $2000 is per house. But its not about the people living in the house, it's about the physical premises being connected to the wider network, just divided up on a "per house" level. That's a piece of infrastructure which will exist 50 years from now. In fact, if technology is any guide, even with upgrades it'll likely exist 200 years from now even if the light going through it is used for very…

(edits: clarity) I divided $43 billion [1] by a population of 22 million, although now I see now that $1,500 would have been better (I read the wrong cost :[). Anyway, it was meant to be a per person, not per house, figure. The NBN would be a good piece of long-term infrastructure, no argument there. It is better than a cash handout. I don't think it is sensible to divide up-front cost by years of service. $100/year…

Except the project is deployed over a span of 10 years anyway, so the upfront cost is already divided by that. You mention "you want fiber, but not your family" - but again, you're ignoring the fact that you and your family likely won't live in that house, with what opinion, for the next 40 years.

It's saving $20 billion, but still spending $20 billion and possibly more. Spending 2/3rd's the cost, with no upgrade path (FTTN does not upgrade to FTTP easily) is a terrible deal. We're keeping power and maintenance costs of the old copper network, you're splitting the type of plant you need to keep (since you have fiber, copper and coax all over the place), and you still haven't escaped the need to trench cable (since a huge amount of that copper needs to come out of the ducts to ever support 25mbit ADSL2, or needs to be completely rerouted to get the distance to the exchange to under 1.5km).

One huge benefit of fiber is that we don't need to worry about distances from exchange to premise - as long as it's under about 60km it'll work.

Re: I want the NBN

#62

Post by kef »

jacques_chester wrote: post #41
shelf wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given they mostly have business / law / academic backgrounds, I am not sure that anybody has ever put the case for fibre speeds to the Libs in terms other than 'this is what people want, and it is good.' The use cases used in Labor promotions were patronising to the extreme. Don't be surprised that they've concluded it is simply a 'nice thing' that people want but will loathe paying for. To be honest with you, the th…

> Given they mostly have business / law / academic backgrounds Lawyers or former law students are the most numerous profession in Parliament. Gillard was a lawyer. Abbott studied Law as an undergraduate, as did Howard and Hawke. The professional training of a lawyer equips them to vigorously argue a case they may not themselves agree with, and to do so in forensic detail. The skillset and subject matter has a strong…

I'm thinking the Mad Scientists Party might stand a chance of a seat in the senate next time around.

Re: I want the NBN

#63

Post by joezydeco »

XorNot wrote: post #60
joezydeco wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much upstream bandwidth is coming from servers and multimedia producers in residences, and how much is coming from mobile devices?

802.11n in your house is 100mbit. Mobile devices have been used as misdirection throughout the NBN debate, because very few people are uploading large YouTube videos from their smartphones over 3G and for anything that's got some level of production to it they'll be working on it on laptops and desktops at home and the like.

So the future of Australia's economy, and the reason that an entire continent should be wired with FTTH, hinges on citizens being to efficiently upload to YouTube from their homes?

Re: I want the NBN

#64

Post by XorNot »

joezydeco wrote: post #63
XorNot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

802.11n in your house is 100mbit. Mobile devices have been used as misdirection throughout the NBN debate, because very few people are uploading large YouTube videos from their smartphones over 3G and for anything that's got some level of production to it they'll be working on it on laptops and desktops at home and the like.

So the future of Australia's economy, and the reason that an entire continent should be wired with FTTH, hinges on citizens being to efficiently upload to YouTube from their homes?

Yes. Clearly no value of any sort has ever been created from the digital economy, and the richest companies in the world definitely produce nothing to do with content creation and distribution over the internet.

Re: I want the NBN

#65

Post by joezydeco »

XorNot wrote: post #64
joezydeco wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the future of Australia's economy, and the reason that an entire continent should be wired with FTTH, hinges on citizens being to efficiently upload to YouTube from their homes?

Yes. Clearly no value of any sort has ever been created from the digital economy, and the richest companies in the world definitely produce nothing to do with content creation and distribution over the internet.

But this "raging" is over the fact that your passenger jet can only do Mach 0.75, not Mach 0.85? In the big picture, a hell of a lot can be done with 25 mbit and at this point in history you're hitting diminishing returns by jumping another order of magnitude.

Maybe in the future we'll all need 1 gbit backbones, but not today.

Re: I want the NBN

#66

Post by XorNot »

joezydeco wrote: post #65
XorNot wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Clearly no value of any sort has ever been created from the digital economy, and the richest companies in the world definitely produce nothing to do with content creation and distribution over the internet.

But this "raging" is over the fact that your passenger jet can only do Mach 0.75, not Mach 0.85? In the big picture, a hell of a lot can be done with 25 mbit and at this point in history you're hitting diminishing returns by jumping another order of magnitude. Maybe in the future we'll all need 1 gbit backbones, but not today.

But we can't do 25mbit. 25mbit today is the extreme upper end that you never achieve. My household connection can do about 12mbit. I can't buy a faster service even if I want to, I'd have to literally buy a commercial building in the CBD to get that type of access. And the upload speeds on that will never exceed 1mbit a second.

If we were talking about enabling everyone to buy say, 10/10 or 20/20 symmetric service then I would not particularly care - in fact a lot of people advocating for FTTH would be placated. But it is not possible to do that with current infrastructure because current infrastructure sucks. Symmetric DSL tops out at 2/2 for about $600 a month.

Post reply on HN