The Sensible Australian Election Thread
Aug 13th 2010, 12:19 am
#451
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
With the NBN are Labor guaranteeing 100Mb availablility to all household connected by FO? Or is this their eventual 'target'?
It would be interesting to see which other countries have 100Mb to ALL homes connected by FO.
It would be interesting to see which other countries have 100Mb to ALL homes connected by FO.
Aug 13th 2010, 12:21 am
#452
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,442
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
Aug 13th 2010, 12:28 am
#453
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,555
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
Dean you seem to be making this up as you go.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-nbn-co...band-made-easy
http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-nbn-co...band-made-easy
Broadband Made Easy
The digital economy has the potential to transform every aspect of our lives including business, health, education and government services. The means to unlock this potential is broadband, the core infrastructure of the new century.
The digital economy has the potential to transform every aspect of our lives including business, health, education and government services. The means to unlock this potential is broadband, the core infrastructure of the new century.
Aug 13th 2010, 12:48 am
#454
You call that a moustache
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Heading West..
Posts: 2,060
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
Additionally, notes Gartner analyst Phil Redman, LTE shouldn't be compared to WiMAX in its current incarnation. In all likelihood, he says, LTE will be deployed at around the time that WiMAX has upgraded to the 802.16m standard, which is expected to deliver download speeds of 100Mbps for mobile applications. From this perspective, LTE and WiMAX stack up very well against one another, since LTE is also expected to deliver peak download speeds of 100Mbps.
Physics seems to be redefined to meet my supposition that 100mbps is available *today* in wireless.
Physics seems to be redefined to meet my supposition that 100mbps is available *today* in wireless.
Could you please try to redefine time next so that I can get to work a little bit later each day.
Anyhoo, WiMAX from an article in Feburary 2010
Vivid falls short in WiMax coverage
IT's been a long time coming. But Australia is about to get its first real taste of widespread WiMax: wireless broadband technology originally designed to replace Wi-Fi. Kerry Stokes's Vividwireless, part of his Seven Network group, will next month launch a mobile WiMax network in Perth that pretty well blankets the city. It will be for data only: laptops and netbooks welcome, mobile phones not.
Within 12 months, Vivid plans to launch smaller WiMax networks in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney.
WiMax seemed a wonderful visionary idea when it was first proposed in 2003. It would work a bit like Wi-Fi hotspots, we were told, but WiMax signals would span up to 50km, compared with Wi-Fi's 150m or so, and deliver the internet to your laptop at up to 144 megabits per second. A few base stations would blanket a city, and you'd never be out of touch.
The latest version of this vision, as revealed by Ryan Stokes, Kerry's son and the chairman of Vividwireless, at a conference in Sydney the other day, turns out not quite so utopian.
Vivid's WiMax will run at a "theoretical" 20Mbps. But real-life speeds are more likely to be in the 4-10Mbps range: much the same as 3G mobile services offered by the likes of Telstra and Optus.
IT's been a long time coming. But Australia is about to get its first real taste of widespread WiMax: wireless broadband technology originally designed to replace Wi-Fi. Kerry Stokes's Vividwireless, part of his Seven Network group, will next month launch a mobile WiMax network in Perth that pretty well blankets the city. It will be for data only: laptops and netbooks welcome, mobile phones not.
Within 12 months, Vivid plans to launch smaller WiMax networks in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney.
WiMax seemed a wonderful visionary idea when it was first proposed in 2003. It would work a bit like Wi-Fi hotspots, we were told, but WiMax signals would span up to 50km, compared with Wi-Fi's 150m or so, and deliver the internet to your laptop at up to 144 megabits per second. A few base stations would blanket a city, and you'd never be out of touch.
The latest version of this vision, as revealed by Ryan Stokes, Kerry's son and the chairman of Vividwireless, at a conference in Sydney the other day, turns out not quite so utopian.
Vivid's WiMax will run at a "theoretical" 20Mbps. But real-life speeds are more likely to be in the 4-10Mbps range: much the same as 3G mobile services offered by the likes of Telstra and Optus.
Source
I'll throw you a bone though, someone should ask if Conroy has changed his NBN customer termination from PON to direct fiber
Last edited by ex_exile; Aug 13th 2010 at 12:54 am.
Aug 13th 2010, 12:59 am
#455
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
1Gb FO today is to be superceded by 100mb WiMAX in the future? Nice one mate, now you are trying to redefine Mathematics.
Could you please try to redefine time next so that I can get to work a little bit later each day.
Anyhoo, WiMAX from an article in Feburary 2010
So *todays* technology gets you 20mbps under ideal conditions *not* the 100mbps as you so boldly state, and only 4-10mbps in real life. Wireless is a very tricky technology unlike fiber.
Source
I'll throw you a bone though, someone should ask if Conroy has changed his NBN customer termination from PON to direct fiber
Could you please try to redefine time next so that I can get to work a little bit later each day.
Anyhoo, WiMAX from an article in Feburary 2010
So *todays* technology gets you 20mbps under ideal conditions *not* the 100mbps as you so boldly state, and only 4-10mbps in real life. Wireless is a very tricky technology unlike fiber.
Source
I'll throw you a bone though, someone should ask if Conroy has changed his NBN customer termination from PON to direct fiber
Aug 13th 2010, 1:00 am
#456
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,555
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
What is the latency and packet loss like with wiMax? My experience of wireless networking is that it falls short on quality and is inconsistent. It is like a road full of pot holes.
Aug 13th 2010, 1:04 am
#457
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,442
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
Im not going to debate what I do for a living with you or who I work for but that is firmly in the ballpark of what I did in the last 12mths.
If you run a tender that specifies a component for a price, and you purchase something that is 10x that capability and its the same price, then you *are* carrying downstream cost without a doubt. Whether its maintenance fees, power consumption in the data center, long term capacity constraints (because you could've saved that 1gb and distributed it amongst 10 people instead of giving it all to one you've now cut your capacity long term by 10).
Face it mate - Gillard probably took what was a fly-away comment from Conroy that "ooh this stuff goes up to 1gb" and made it an election comment. They can never have specified '1gb to every home' with all the back end routing capacity to accomodate it. Your comment that 'technology changes' is ridiculous. Yes it changes - which means 100meg gets cheaper - not 1gb gets 'free'. I stand by my point, which is that if its suddenly 1gb and they didnt spec 1gb in the pricing then they are being robbed blind. OR rather, we are because its our tax that pays for this shennanigans.
*nobody* needs 1gb right now there is no application in the country that can drive 1gb , nor is there the investment to build it. Are we going to be shipping peoples live x-ray pictures to their homes? no... Full high-def videoconferencing? (That only requires 24megabits per second) for 60" video at high def, how about iptv that only requires a paltry amount of bandwidth.
There is nothing on earth right now available for a population en-masse that drives these speeds. There *IS* huge huge huge investment in wireless technology that even now delivers 100meg speeds wirelessly without fixing the infrastructure and its upgradable, its mobile, you can take it with you , you can cover vast swathes of population, you dont have to put new trenches, you dont have to build it into new housing estates, you put up a tower and blanket the country.
My point on this whole project is that it is being bandied around as a 'job creation' - in what segment? a few hundred govt funded IT jobs to run it - I'd prefer they were running hospital IT thanks. and 43b isnt good value for a few hundred jobs. It will *not* make a difference to *the vast amount* of industry if they have fibre to the home, and if you are relying on network for your company then you chose somewhere where it has the resources to support you - in a bsiness park that has fibre already, not in a residential street, and if you are too dumb to make that choice - then you are too dumb to be running a company . Building a water mill that is away from a stream is a folly, and so is opening a company that relies on high bandwidth in an area that doesnt have any.
The simple fact that no company, no investment fund, nobody, will take a punt on this demonstrates its a flawed loss leading proposition. Its junk and we're paying for it.
If you run a tender that specifies a component for a price, and you purchase something that is 10x that capability and its the same price, then you *are* carrying downstream cost without a doubt. Whether its maintenance fees, power consumption in the data center, long term capacity constraints (because you could've saved that 1gb and distributed it amongst 10 people instead of giving it all to one you've now cut your capacity long term by 10).
Face it mate - Gillard probably took what was a fly-away comment from Conroy that "ooh this stuff goes up to 1gb" and made it an election comment. They can never have specified '1gb to every home' with all the back end routing capacity to accomodate it. Your comment that 'technology changes' is ridiculous. Yes it changes - which means 100meg gets cheaper - not 1gb gets 'free'. I stand by my point, which is that if its suddenly 1gb and they didnt spec 1gb in the pricing then they are being robbed blind. OR rather, we are because its our tax that pays for this shennanigans.
*nobody* needs 1gb right now there is no application in the country that can drive 1gb , nor is there the investment to build it. Are we going to be shipping peoples live x-ray pictures to their homes? no... Full high-def videoconferencing? (That only requires 24megabits per second) for 60" video at high def, how about iptv that only requires a paltry amount of bandwidth.
There is nothing on earth right now available for a population en-masse that drives these speeds. There *IS* huge huge huge investment in wireless technology that even now delivers 100meg speeds wirelessly without fixing the infrastructure and its upgradable, its mobile, you can take it with you , you can cover vast swathes of population, you dont have to put new trenches, you dont have to build it into new housing estates, you put up a tower and blanket the country.
My point on this whole project is that it is being bandied around as a 'job creation' - in what segment? a few hundred govt funded IT jobs to run it - I'd prefer they were running hospital IT thanks. and 43b isnt good value for a few hundred jobs. It will *not* make a difference to *the vast amount* of industry if they have fibre to the home, and if you are relying on network for your company then you chose somewhere where it has the resources to support you - in a bsiness park that has fibre already, not in a residential street, and if you are too dumb to make that choice - then you are too dumb to be running a company . Building a water mill that is away from a stream is a folly, and so is opening a company that relies on high bandwidth in an area that doesnt have any.
The simple fact that no company, no investment fund, nobody, will take a punt on this demonstrates its a flawed loss leading proposition. Its junk and we're paying for it.
Aug 13th 2010, 1:21 am
#461
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
Motorways are good for business.
They are good for the military as well. One of the reasons they were first built. Even the missing link on the M40 was stimulated by problems experienced in the Falklands conflict.
They are good for the military as well. One of the reasons they were first built. Even the missing link on the M40 was stimulated by problems experienced in the Falklands conflict.
Aug 13th 2010, 1:23 am
#462
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
Yes, the Interstate highway system in the US was started by President Eisenhower to enable the military to move around quicker.
Aug 13th 2010, 1:29 am
#463
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,442
Re: The Sensible Australian Election Thread
Dean you seem to be making this up as you go.
http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-nbn-co...band-made-easy
http://www.nbnco.com.au/about-nbn-co...band-made-easy
"Broadband access enables consumers to take full advantage of new communication tools and next generation applications."
"The NBN will connect 90% of all Australian premises with fibre-based services"
By premises I take that to mean homes as it is a Fibre To The Home network.
Also this link is quite interesting: "Australia begs residents to accept free fibre connection"
Apparently the uptake for the NBN in Tasmania isn't what the govt hoped. Looks like the demand isn't there.
http://australian-national-broadband...er-connection/