Having spent many years designing and building electrical and automation systems, I have installed more than a few networks of various protocols.

For the high speed business systems, the typical configuration is to have a fibre back bone between the major nodes, and CAT 6 copper cable to computers etc.

The fibres are capable of speeds in excess of 10 000 megabits / second, while the cat6 can only do 1000Mb/S. However, whilst most Internet connections fall below 10Mb/s this is generally not a problem.

The major network problems are not the hold hold connections, but the back bones. While existing phone lines to homes are not cat5 or Cat6 cable, they are still mostly capable of speeds in the 10-20Mb/s.

An earlier proposal for the NBN was to upgrade the backbone to street corners, and continue to use the existing phone lines. This would have given 90% of Australian customers the same service that the New super delicious network proposed by Stephen Conroy has proposed.

The cost difference is massive. The proposed backbone upgrade was estimated to cost $5bn, whereas the Conroy version is to cost $43bn.

Having fibre to my home, would also mean that I would need an expensive fibre to copper converter, as PCs don't take Fibre. PCs are configured to take up to 1000Mb/s so the 10Gb/s capability of the fibre is wasted. I have a 30GB monthly plan. At 10Gb/s I could theoretically use up my entire monthly allowance in 24 seconds. However, the reality of connections to the outside world would require that speeds be truncated to levels not much higher that 10Mb/s.

The difference between the cost of the two scenarios is about $7500 per house hold, which whether we like it or not, we will have to pay for.

The agreement with Telstra and the NBN is that when the fibres are pulled in, the copper is removed, so is the choice.

Some valid points SM.

I also worked in the industry for AT&T. I was in Southern California in 1992 when the first very large scale FO bundles were laid as part of the “Information Super Highway”. We also laid Asia to North America sea bed FO and launched a few satellites.

I’d like to know if, in your view, the NBN could be replaced by wireless technology before nationwide installation is completed; it just seems such dated technology.

I hear much about the speed of FO broadband to the home. My experience is that many home PC’s run pathetically slow for no other reason than their “Windows” operating systems are “clogged” with temporary internet files and viral infections. Nothing to do with internet access speeds

Do I understand correctly that in a few years (if Labor is elected) I will no longer be able to use my existing copper-based phones at home, only because of this stupid internet-thing?

Do I also understand correctly that I will be charged much much more just to be able to have a basic telephone at home, or for the occassional web-access for banking/shopping/E-mail/OLO, all together well under 1GB/month, all due to those mega entertainment-services which I have no use for and rather read a good book instead?

Do I understand correctly that nobody will even want to talk to me, face-to-face any more when I'm old, because everyone will be totally absorbed and glued to their technology-thingies?

Optic-fibres to eat, optic-fibres to drink, optic-fibres to wear, optic-fibres to cover, I guess this robotic government simply decided to get rid of real people, which they consider a nuisance.

Spot on.

SM
There are issues to be answered with the NBN and it's a valid topic but 'White Elephant?' come on!

Do we really need to discuss wire technology V OF? i.e.Maximum ADSL2 on copper is only available to those within a limited geographical range of the Exchange. Also give the exchange is a Telstra one the cost is several times that of other providers.
This hobbles my son's activity sending drafting blue prints. Pricing him to be marginal value when competing with others who have OF.

Radio technology internet is currently slow and outrageously expensive.

Your argument has some *short term validity* and smacks of Political inspired Ludditism. In truth there will be options by the time it's up and running.
I see NBN as both strategic planning and practicality like the switch over from analogue To Digital TV. Those who think it's worthwhile will do the switch those who don't won't i.e. I still have my clunker TV with a box on the top, it suits my need untill "COVET" dies I see no reason to consider the move.

Additionally I have no doubt that some entrepreneur will be flogging a cross over interim technology.

I understand that OF technology is being integrated now.
Clearly you have forgotten that computer speed/technology is accelerating at a rate of doubling every 6-12 months. Worrying about current computer technology being able to maximize OF speeds is a load of cobbles.

What we're dealing with is planning for the future or stop gap that will cost more later...I remember reading the arguments about the snowy being too expensive etc. It should be noted it would be financially impossible to do it today.

Is this the best program there is or will be ? probably not but it beats having to revisit the coalition option later at great expense.
When you do your numbers factor in all the calculable variable.
in the final analysis it is a matter of judgement me, I favour NBN.

Examinator,

I often despair of your posts, especially when it is patently obvious that you haven't read or understood what I wrote.

The original plan involved taking the fibre to the street corners, not to the exchanges. The degradation of signal would be minimal and 20Mb/s would be easily feasible for 90% of homes, which is presently not even close to possible with the present backbone.

Extending fibre to each home later does not require further upgrade to the back bone, and could literally be considered as phase II to be installed in an ongoing basis as required. Or individual users that wanted to get 100Mb broad band might just pay for the privilege.

In short the back bone upgrade gives 80% of the benefit for 10% of the cost.

Considering that only 62% of households actually wish to pay for broad band access, most of which was sub 1Mb/s, the question is whether we are getting what we need, or is this a shiny new toy that the Labor government can wheel out as an "achievement".