@Yuyutsu: Although I wouldn't trust those people that high-frequency internet traffic will not be possible over the analogue connection (it is possible now, as ADSL, so why would they disable it?)

They don't disable it. They just don't provide it. In order for those high frequencies to be useful, there has to be a piece of equipment listening for them.

Look at it from the point of view of your end of the line. If you don't have a ADSL modem listening for those high frequencies then there is no way information can be sent using them. In other words it doesn't matter how much fancy equipment the telephone company installs in the exchange, you ordinary analogue telephone won't be paying attention to it. Well that works in reverse. The piece of equipment installed at the exchange end to listen to those high frequencies in the exchange is called a DSLAM, and if there is no DSLAM listening to your line then no amount of hokey pokery on your end is going to allow you to send information using those high frequencies.

With the advent the NBN, the voice signal doesn't go to the exchange. The wire ends at the NBN box. I guess would possible for your NBN box to include the equivalent of a DSLAM connected to its analogue phone ports. But there isn't. It's just listening for the 100..4kHz voice frequencies. Doing anything else would add additional cost - a lot of it.

@Yuyutsu: I suppose I'll still have to replace my existing ADSL router

Yep, unless it has a WAN port.

@Yuyutsu: Just wondered whether I could instead use the second RJ-12 port for ADSL?

Nope.

@Yuyutsu: Or would there perhaps be a small device that converts the Ethernet signal into ADSL on a short copper wire so that existing routers can still work?

Nope. I think your device, if it existed, would be more expensive than a new router. They are about $35.

Rstuart,

I will try and simple sentences:

Lift and fire systems need secure comms Not mobility. Copper is superior to fibre wrt security, thus copper is required.

Trends all around the world indicate that wireless is becoming far more popular than fixed lines including Australia. The NBN business case is based on no more than 15% mobile wireless. The stats this year is above 40%.

The trends are published so look them up. You don't need a crystal ball. Try research rather than smart arse comments.

What stops us from doing away with all this line bizo & go satellite instead ? No worries about a backhoe cutting lines.

@Shadow Minister: The trends are published so look them up.

I don't know where to look Shadow. Care to post a link? Not that it matters I guess, as I am prepared to believe you on the reliability of fixed copper lines verses fix fibre lines, even though it is counter intuitive. I look after both - the fibre to the premises has in my case been more reliable. But then I have never suffered a battery failure in the telecom cabinet, just water shorting and corroding the copper wires in the street. Maybe fibre isn't as susceptible to water damage, but then in our case it is newer so maybe not. And then there is also a telstra man who each site yearly and inspects the battery. Like I said, in the circumstances it is counter intuitive all this would end up adding up to copper being more reliable. But if you say there has been studies into the subject and it is, then I guess it is. Then again, it would not hurt to seeing the studies saying so.

@individual: satellite instead?

Satellite is one way. The other direction is provided via a land line. Usually it is a conventional modem running over copper because if you could get something else you would not be using satellite by choice. A conventional modem is dog slow. The term "broadband" is a cute term that has ended up meaning "anything faster than conventional modem".

Well that's one problem with it. Now that I think about it, it is possibly the least of the problems satellite would suffer from if you tried to use it to service a densely packed city.

Dear rstuart,

I know this is from the Fiber Optic Association but I found it useful.

The link is here.
http://www.thefoa.org/tech/fo-or-cu.htm

“Recently, a number of magazine articles and even a representative of AMP was quoted as saying that as much as 80-90% of all Cat 5 cabling was improperly installed and would not provide the rated performance. Contractors have told us that 40% of their Cat 6 installations pass certification tests.

The performance of the Cat 5 cable is dependent on close control of the physical characteristics of the cable and the materials used in the insulation. Untwist the wires too much at a connection or remove too much jacket and the cable may fail crosstalk testing. Pull it too hard (only 25 pounds tension allowed!) or kink it and loss the performance you paid for. “

“But most networks only run at Ethernet at 10 Mb/s to the desktop. Even if you use 10/100 Ethernet cards, they will fall back to 10 Mb/s if the cabling won't support the faster speeds. And I'm told quite a few networks do. It's hard to tell unless you have a sophisticated network management system.”

“So what about fiber ? Fiber is not that easy to install either. Pulling the cable is easy - in fact it can be pulled at 8 times the pulling tension of Cat 5 and the typical cables used include strength members and stiffeners that make it hard to kink and damage.”

“Terminating fiber optic cable is not as simple as copper. While manufacturers have developed crimp-on connectors, they are expensive, high loss and have not been very reliable. Fiber optic connectors need adhesives for reliability and low cost. And most installation involves stripping fibers, injecting adhesives and polishing the ends. No IDC (insulation displacement connectors) here. Any good installer can learn how to terminate fiber in less than 2 hours.”

Cheers.

Dear Rstuart,

I see you know a lot about the technical side of the NBN!

"They don't disable it. They just don't provide it. In order for those high frequencies to be useful, there has to be a piece of equipment listening for them."

I understand, but I rather play it safe, just in case they will add that equipment later without even telling me about it. Adding a safety splitter should not be such a big deal.

"Nope. I think your device, if it existed, would be more expensive than a new router. They are about $35"

I hardly see why such a convertor-device should cost more than $5, after all it would do so much less than a router does, just a WAN on one end and a copper wire on the other. I also believe that the $35 figure would be for the lowest-end router, not for a fully programmable one. No, I don't currently have a WAN socket. Anyway, it's not such a big deal to get a new router and it should only take me a few hours to program it, my current router had cost me $326 (in 2003), which I could afford again, but I do believe that it's the government's responsibility (since they are the ones making the damage) to ensure that all existing equipment should continue to work as is with no expense or effort to ordinary households. Such a device, in fact, should best be a standard feature of the NTU.