Why doesn't the NBN consider Wireless?

> 10 years ago
Reply
Register to post, see what you've read, and subscribe to topics.
evlPanda
evlPanda
NSW
9207 posts
NSW, 9207 posts
23 May 2011 4:13pm
Because fibre absolutely, without a doubt kicks its ass and then drags the carcass around as a love doll.

26 Terrabits/sec:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13469924

Once that ultimate medium is installed we can just keep going faster and faster. It's the same way dial-up modems kept getting faster and faster over the copper lines. Basically better methods of encoding the data.

Also, while I'm at it here is a really, really good breakdown of the costs. Worst-case scenario: 1bn/year. That's only 4x the school chaplaincy costs.
www.abc.net.au/news/2010-08-20/nbn-laid-bare/953288

Speed of light kids. The speed of light. Do it right the first time.

lightwood
lightwood
VIC
392 posts
VIC, 392 posts
23 May 2011 4:25pm
I have no problem with the whole thing bar this.

b) The NBN will probably cost more than expected and likely take years longer to complete than the Government has stated.


There is absolutely no need to include probably in that sentence.
felixdcat
felixdcat
WA
3519 posts
WA, 3519 posts
23 May 2011 2:34pm
I am one of the lucky few with fibre we are on a "Telstra smart community" it really kicks arses can download a 700mb movie in 15 to 30 minutes (should say could as I would not do any of that illegal stuff ) and apparently it is capped! Could be way faster! I have all on the cable: tel. line, free to air TV, internet, foxtel. Telstra gave us a $ 2000 credit on our first bill to use toward wiring the house, great!
dusta
dusta
WA
2940 posts
WA, 2940 posts
23 May 2011 2:59pm
felixdcat said...

I am one of the lucky few with fibre we are on a "Telstra smart community" it really kicks arses can download a 700mb movie in 15 to 30 minutes (should say could as I would not do any of that illegal stuff ) and apparently it is capped! Could be way faster! I have all on the cable: tel. line, free to air TV, internet, foxtel. Telstra gave us a $ 2000 credit on our first bill to use toward wiring the house, great!


700mb in 15-30 minutes is ****house . just another example of why telstra are ****ing ****s when it comes to internet . I get better download speeds on my iinet naked adsl2 connection .

poor relative
poor relative
WA
9106 posts
WA, 9106 posts
23 May 2011 3:09pm
felixdcat said...
700mb movie in 15 to 30 minutes


LOL
felixdcat
felixdcat
WA
3519 posts
WA, 3519 posts
23 May 2011 3:15pm
dusta said...

felixdcat said...

I am one of the lucky few with fibre we are on a "Telstra smart community" it really kicks arses can download a 700mb movie in 15 to 30 minutes (should say could as I would not do any of that illegal stuff ) and apparently it is capped! Could be way faster! I have all on the cable: tel. line, free to air TV, internet, foxtel. Telstra gave us a $ 2000 credit on our first bill to use toward wiring the house, great!


700mb in 15-30 minutes is ****house . just another example of why telstra are ****ing ****s when it comes to internet . I get better download speeds on my iinet naked adsl2 connection .



yes but remember that most of the time I have 5 to 6 download at the same time and I am as fast as the other end is slow! If I download from the Telstra server it is at light speed!

GPA
GPA
WA
2529 posts
GPA GPA
WA, 2529 posts
23 May 2011 3:23pm

700mb in 15-30 minutes is ****house . just another example of why telstra are ****ing ****s when it comes to internet . I get better download speeds on my iinet naked adsl2 connection .


Agreed - downloaded via iiNet on the weekend at a 1000kb/sec - took about 3min to get a 350Mb file... however I acknowlege that depends on the serving infrastructure... My web page views could be substantially quicker than they are now!!!



Mark _australia
Mark _australia
WA
23684 posts
WA, 23684 posts
23 May 2011 7:44pm
OK I am a computer retard, but if you can keep getting faster and faster with fibre, or copper, just due to better data encoding can't also do that with better data encoding on wireless?

Also, when some peanut cuts the cable it is a very lengthly process to fix it (took a week where I am, and that was just the poxy one we have now, not the NBN standard cable)

I do believe that wireless signals also travel at the speed of light, Panda

oz surf
oz surf
WA
407 posts
WA, 407 posts
23 May 2011 8:19pm
I do believe that wireless signals also travel at the speed of light Panda


What is the speed of light Panda?
Mark _australia
Mark _australia
WA
23684 posts
WA, 23684 posts
23 May 2011 8:27pm
oz surf said...

I do believe that wireless signals also travel at the speed of light Panda


What is the speed of light Panda?


Well, faster than a heavy Panda?

Yeah, you got me, comma now inserted.

FormulaNova
FormulaNova
WA
15105 posts
WA, 15105 posts
23 May 2011 8:38pm
Mark _australia said...

OK I am a computer retard, but if you can keep getting faster and faster with fibre, or copper, just due to better data encoding can't also do that with better data encoding on wireless?

Also, when some peanut cuts the cable it is a very lengthly process to fix it (took a week where I am, and that was just the poxy one we have now, not the NBN standard cable)

I do believe that wireless signals also travel at the speed of light, Panda




Mark, you will always get better throughput with a direct connection, whether it is fiber or copper.

With radio/wireless, you need to setup timeslots or channels, and when there are multiple stations using the same channels, you lose bandwidth based on the contention for multiple users to use those channels. It works well when you have the majority of traffic downloading and only a small amount uploading, and with minimal stations using the same bandwidth, but not so good when you are uploading large amounts.

With radio, you can only get a certain amount of data across a specific frequency. Sure, better encoding methods come up, but at the end of the day you are always going to have better bandwidth on a dedicated connection than a shared one. So wireless will always be slower than a dedicated connection, unless you supply a pico-cell for each user, and that's just not cost effective.

I would hope that the connections for the NBN are done in a way that they have redundant/diverse cables to the local point at which your individual fiber comes from. If this is done properly, you won't even notice the interruption to one cable.

I for one, thought that it might be wiser to run 'fiber to the node' rather than 'fiber to the home', but I guess someone has made the decision that it was better to go direct to the home, for good PR if nothing else.

I have worked in a telco before and I can tell you that they will never deliver better wireless or wired services for you unless there is extra money to be made, whether they charge you more or steal your custom from another telco. Don't believe that they would ever offer the same service as what you will be able to get from an NBN. The suggestion that wireless is the way they would do this is just an attempt to stop the NBN from affecting their income stream.


FormulaNova
FormulaNova
WA
15105 posts
WA, 15105 posts
23 May 2011 8:46pm
GPA said...


700mb in 15-30 minutes is ****house . just another example of why telstra are ****ing ****s when it comes to internet . I get better download speeds on my iinet naked adsl2 connection .


Agreed - downloaded via iiNet on the weekend at a 1000kb/sec - took about 3min to get a 350Mb file... however I acknowlege that depends on the serving infrastructure... My web page views could be substantially quicker than they are now!!!




I think you might have your numbers wrong there. I think 1000Kbits a sec will give you a lot longer than 3 minutes. For 3 minutes, a 350Mbyte file, probably means you are getting close to 16Mbps, which is pretty good! You must have a reasonable line or be reasonably close to the exchange.

Usually if its something the ISP caches, then you will get a much faster download, so it helps if it is a common file that other people have already downloaded through your ISP. I expect that the NBN is going to see a lot more deployment of these caches to really provide high speed downloads.


Little Jon
Little Jon
NSW
2115 posts
NSW, 2115 posts
23 May 2011 10:59pm
oz surf said...

I do believe that wireless signals also travel at the speed of light Panda


What is the speed of light Panda?


300,000 km per second
FlySurfer
FlySurfer
NSW
4460 posts
NSW, 4460 posts
23 May 2011 11:34pm
Fiber rocks, the wranger sucks and Australia is loaded.
Mark _australia
Mark _australia
WA
23684 posts
WA, 23684 posts
23 May 2011 9:41pm
FormulaNova said...

Mark _australia said...

OK I am a computer retard, but if you can keep getting faster and faster with fibre, or copper, just due to better data encoding can't also do that with better data encoding on wireless?

Also, when some peanut cuts the cable it is a very lengthly process to fix it (took a week where I am, and that was just the poxy one we have now, not the NBN standard cable)

I do believe that wireless signals also travel at the speed of light, Panda




Mark, you will always get better throughput with a direct connection, whether it is fiber or copper.

With radio/wireless, you need to setup timeslots or channels, and when there are multiple stations using the same channels, you lose bandwidth based on the contention for multiple users to use those channels. It works well when you have the majority of traffic downloading and only a small amount uploading, and with minimal stations using the same bandwidth, but not so good when you are uploading large amounts.

With radio, you can only get a certain amount of data across a specific frequency. Sure, better encoding methods come up, but at the end of the day you are always going to have better bandwidth on a dedicated connection than a shared one. So wireless will always be slower than a dedicated connection, unless you supply a pico-cell for each user, and that's just not cost effective.

I would hope that the connections for the NBN are done in a way that they have redundant/diverse cables to the local point at which your individual fiber comes from. If this is done properly, you won't even notice the interruption to one cable.

I for one, thought that it might be wiser to run 'fiber to the node' rather than 'fiber to the home', but I guess someone has made the decision that it was better to go direct to the home, for good PR if nothing else.

I have worked in a telco before and I can tell you that they will never deliver better wireless or wired services for you unless there is extra money to be made, whether they charge you more or steal your custom from another telco. Don't believe that they would ever offer the same service as what you will be able to get from an NBN. The suggestion that wireless is the way they would do this is just an attempt to stop the NBN from affecting their income stream.





Ok, makes sense. Never thought about sharing of the radio waves (my simple terms lol)

With regards the last paragraph - it is the same with health care, water supply and god knows what else. If the Govt doesn't fund it, privates will provide and it will be expensive.
Thus my aversion to spending a phenomenal amount on a luxury when we can't adequately fund essentials like heath, water supply, education, or replacing all the power poles in rural Australia that cause fires and kill people.

I'd rather spend DOUBLE on my internet cost each month, than have old people cold at night due to power costs, or even just one person die on a hospital waiting list.

State of the art hospital in Perth being built now - $8bn.
And we are spending over 5x that - that is a shedload - on internet. Strewth.

But we have had that thread, so sorry...

dinsdale
dinsdale
WA
1227 posts
WA, 1227 posts
23 May 2011 9:51pm
I'm on terrestrial wireless broadband, coz that, 3g and satellite are my only options. I'm on a 2mbit/sec connection - the fastest available. Compare that with the 20+mbit/sec which is standard ADSL2. It also costs me about double the price of a land line ADSL2 connection, for a very limited download allowance. $100/month for an unreliable 2mbit/sec with 20gbyte/month download allowance - and that's the top plan!

Wireless is slow and expensive! 3g is supposed to be a little faster than terrestrial wireless, whereas satellite is considerably slower and is "laggy", but both are even more expensive.

Btw, I suspect that there might be a little confusion between bits and bytes in his discussion. 8 bits = 1 byte. 1000Kbytes/sec (1Mbyte/sec) is entirely possible on a good ADSL connection. Even faster would be common for some. Theoretically, a 24Mbit/sec connection would proffer 3Mbytes/sec. You won't get that in practice, but a friend of mine with servers in Perth gets >2Mbytes/sec all the time.

The real problems with the NBN as it's happening now are:
1. It's already old technology - see Sth Korea.
2. It's going to cost >$5,000 per household
3. It puts the gummint in control of ALL of your internet enjoyment - "Hello, I'm from the gummint and I'm here to help you". There is only 1 avenue of truly free press left and your friendly gummint wants to control it. The Obamanation is moving to do similar in the US.

Oh no not a conspiracy theory?
bjw
bjw
QLD
3691 posts
bjw bjw
QLD, 3691 posts
24 May 2011 12:24am
Opportunity cost. How much will this cost?

A new Hoover dam that produces renewable energy for ever without pollution, or
fast porn.

I Choose option B.
FormulaNova
FormulaNova
WA
15105 posts
WA, 15105 posts
23 May 2011 10:36pm
dinsdale said...

I'm on terrestrial wireless broadband, coz that, 3g and satellite are my only options. I'm on a 2mbit/sec connection - the fastest available. Compare that with the 20+mbit/sec which is standard ADSL2. It also costs me about double the price of a land line ADSL2 connection, for a very limited download allowance. $100/month for an unreliable 2mbit/sec with 20gbyte/month download allowance - and that's the top plan!

Wireless is slow and expensive! 3g is supposed to be a little faster than terrestrial wireless, whereas satellite is considerably slower and is "laggy", but both are even more expensive.

Btw, I suspect that there might be a little confusion between bits and bytes in his discussion. 8 bits = 1 byte. 1000Kbytes/sec (1Mbyte/sec) is entirely possible on a good ADSL connection. Even faster would be common for some. Theoretically, a 24Mbit/sec connection would proffer 3Mbytes/sec. You won't get that in practice, but a friend of mine with servers in Perth gets >2Mbytes/sec all the time.

The real problems with the NBN as it's happening now are:
1. It's already old technology - see Sth Korea.
2. It's going to cost >$5,000 per household
3. It puts the gummint in control of ALL of your internet enjoyment - "Hello, I'm from the gummint and I'm here to help you". There is only 1 avenue of truly free press left and your friendly gummint wants to control it. The Obamanation is moving to do similar in the US.

Oh no not a conspiracy theory?


I'm for one hope I am not confused about bits and bytes. Usually the convention is that b is for bits and B is for bytes, but usually link speeds are expressed in bits per second, and file sizes are usually expressed in bytes.

What's South Korea got? One thing that is always important to remember is a lot of these countries have a much higher population density than us, so it is always going to be hard to provide the same service.

'Old' Technology or not, 1Gbps is huge, when 10Mbps for most people is more than enough. 100Mbps is just a bonus.

24Mbps is the theoretical maximum for ADSL 2, and I think you would have to be living very close to the exchange to get that. I am about 3kms away and I get 14Mbps.

I don't know about the cost, but I haven't costed electricity delivery, water delivery, or the cost of roads either.

Please separate any idea of the government net filters from the NBN. My understanding is that NBN are providing the services as a wholesale service to ISPs. This is to avoid putting the ISPs out of business and to allow some sort of competition. You will still be using the same ISPs, but with the link to your home being part of the NBN, which the ISP effectively rents from NBN. The ISP also provides something similar to an ADSL router to terminate the service, which 'probably' is going to be used to limit link speeds so they can charge you different rates.

I saw something on the TV the other day that reminded me that even though we think of the Internet as 'free', it is not a public service, and in reality the ISPs can probably manipulate it as much as they want to. They can delay VoIP traffic to make it useless, and they can keep trying to stop file sharing sites for all they want. The only thing that makes the Internet 'free' is market competition.

Its funny how most people take broadband for granted, including wireless. I worked on some 1-way and 2-way satellite internet services a few years ago and at the time they were fast and way better than you could get from a modem. Now, you expect that service or better everywhere...





Please Register, or first...
Topics Subscribe Reply