http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/nbn-blows-out-by-3bn-20120808-23uwi.html

THE fast-talking Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, should understand that anyone could achieve a successful result in implementing the National Broadband Network if they were given unlimited funding and a very flexible timeframe in which to complete the task ("Extra $3.2bn needed to fund NBN", 9/8).

The Australian community will be watching with keen interest as we see this poorly planned and managed project flounder along with increasing costs and an ever extending completion date.

As has often been said in the past, a poorly planned and managed project will produce costly and ineffective results. Conroy is right on track to achieve such an outcome.

What Conroy also fails to mention is that the NBN Co is given all this money interest free, for which the Australian taxpayer foots the bill.

The sooner the Opposition modifies this, to fibre to the node to deliver similar speeds at a fraction of the cost, the better.

And to think, some people out there still think they (labor) can effectively implement the carbon and mining taxes without stuffing those up as well.

In fact, is there anything they have touched that they havnt stuffed up.

heard Conroy on radio today saying "copper has served us well but it's reaching the end of it's life after 50/60 years" True, but then he lapsed into total B*llsh*t regarding fibre optic saying it would give us another 50 years of service. hEY, CONROY! where did you getyour science degree regarding the crystaline breakdown proporties of glass fibre. Perhaps he thinks that atomic chemistry will suddenly do a back flip. I give it 6 to 10 years before it has to be totally replaced due to the flow proporties of silicon which degrades the passage of light. In short, copper beats the be-jezuz out of glass fibre when it comes to long life but fibre carries a thousand times more info, however you get nothing for nothing and in the end, for speed and capacity, you have to replace it more often by a factor of 10. You want the speed, you gotta pay big; and pay and pay and ....

It's funny how all new networks in buildings are 99% copper, and happily get speeds of 1Gb/s. Fibre optic cable has been around for decades, and while it has certain advantages, it also has many disadvantages, any one claiming that fibre is always better is an idiot.

Modern copper cables ie CAT 6 have many advantages over fibre, especially over shorter distances especially:

It is far cheaper,
It is far tougher,
If it is damaged, it is easy to fix. (Fibre is difficult and very expensive to fix.)
It carries power (does not need the UPS wall blister of the NBN)

The NBN is offensive to me not only as a taxpayer, but as an engineer.

One of labor's major flaws in their planning, is that they formulate their plans on assumptions.

Assumptions such as, a certain percentage uptake of the NBN, or, that the mining boom will not only continue, but prices will also hold.

So, when a government uses this strategy in their planning, is it any wonder they often fall well short of projected targets.

Now while this may to some extent be an acceptable gamble with ones money, , it is amplified ten fold when using borrowed money and it is for this reason that the whole NBN plan was flawed from the very beginning.

If big business wants ultra fast Internet connection, then the solution is simple, pay for it, own it, even sell/rent part of it,but don't gamble with tax payers money that we simply don't have and certainly can't afford to loose.

To my mind, the trend is away from fixed lines, not back to the future.

The other risk we face from the NBN is that more of our IT work may be easily outsourced, something we can I'll afford, unless of cause you are one of those who honestly believe our employment numbers are great.

When one can hire an entire office of staff 24/7 over seas, for the cost of one staff here, making this easier seems dumb, to say the least.

SM, I have never heard a lifetime for fibre glass cable.
I cannot speak from personal hands on with it so I am in the dark (pardon the pun).
They use it on the undersea cables and I would have thought that there
they would use anything that had the longest life.
Copper installed since about 1950 will last practically for ever.
It has plastic insulation and plastic sheathing, doesn't need gassing either.

I saw some techs join a fibre cable once and it took very little time.
Not as much as a 100 pair cable.
Cat 6 cable is fine for running up and down buildings and from the
NBN box on the side of your house to your computer but not much further.

However I notice that people are tending away from their desktop PC
and doing everything on their iPad and iPhone.
I look at my sons and can see the future.

So you are right, people will want/need their mobile devices and will
get used to them and baulk at paying extra for a landline account, to
say nothing of paying for a fixed line phone when they already have
a mobile phone.

Yes, I agree, NBN the right solution too late.

SM, you could have posted this thread two minutes after the NBN was announced, we knew they would make a dogs breakfast of it.

Have the next one ready for the ongoing cost blow out; I am guessing the end of project blowout to come in at 25%-30%. That is what Centerbet are giving odds on.

pepper,
6 to 10 years lifespan for fibre?

You probably don't want to hear that most of the original optical fibre installed by Telecom/Telstra decades ago is still in use and the newer formulations offer far more improved service and speed.

Optus had several fibre faults due primarily to poor installation practices - it isn't designed to be "stretched".

Most of the copper network is extremely degraded and in many areas practically held together by salt and is comparatively more expensive to replace.

The cost of replacement copper would be passed onto Telstra customers and also to those using other service provides as well, unless the government of the day wants to subsidise the cost -as they currently do for the Community Service Obligation. However the result of this expense provides absolutely no tangible benefit.

Shadow Minister,

CAT6 cable performance is only good for up to 120 metres. Not very practical for a national telephony network.

fibre optic has more uses than computers. 6--10 year lifespan, this is not the case, the job will take 20 years.
The biggest killer of copper is verdegree.
This will revolutionize medical as well as bring Qld and the outback into the modern world.

579; I think the medical usage of the NBN is hyped up.
Think how it will be used;

Patient monitoring; very slow speed needed 9600 bd plenty.

Transmitting xrays scans etc; Current speeds plenty.
Specialists won't look at them till after morning tea anyway.

Remote operations; present speeds such as adsl2 ok, what is needed is priority access.
No matter what speed the internet operates at there will always be pauses.
Do surgeons really think no buffering will occur ?

Can someone tell me what medical usages cannot be served with adsl2 ?

Bazz, Rache,

The industrial recommendation is 100/120m for CAT6 at 1GB/s. At lower speeds such as 100MB/s I have often run 250m with no problems. In the city this will allow a node to connect to about 20 houses, or even if repeaters are used the fibre node could cater for 50 houses.

Even simpler, one could re use the existing telephone wires at the local junction box as they have in the UK and got 80Mb/s for about 25% of the cost of fibre to the houses.

Then the fact that many households are migrating to wireless renders much of the NBN redundant, makes this yet another example of Labor's breathtaking incompetence and staggering waste of taxpayer's money.

It's the country as a whole, not just city's. Far to early to be talking about over budget.
How can anyone budget for houses that have not yet been built and where.
The carbon tax was a fizzer, so got to talk about something.

Come on SM,
Using CAT6 (or any twisted pair variant) to replace other copper cable is like replacing your old worn out cathode ray TV set with another brand new but slightly better cathode ray TV set.

It's OK within buildings but ridiculous to integrate it into existing worn out trunk cable infrastructure or even for the the last metres into the home. To convert a single pair of wires at the exchange into 4 pairs is not particularly efficient.

To make the vague generalisation that because "many households are migrating to wireless" is somehow a valid solution for the entire network is "yet another example" of your breathtaking, pointless and ceaseless criticism of the current government over a matter that has long since been legislated and already in progress. It's like me harping on about the unfairness of the GST or the poor economic decisions made by Peter Costello. It's all over.

I suggest you wait until there is a change of government and be prepared to defend their decisions rather than trawl over ones already made.

Rache,

Seriously you must know very little about the industry. Cat5 and Cat6 cabling accounts for over 95% of installations even today. Over 120m FO holds no advantages over copper either in speed or durability, and certainly not in cost. And in the suburbs, how many houses fall within a 100m radius 30 to 50. A repeater every 100m would cater for as many clients as FO boxes could. In the densely populated city apartments, the use of FO to apartments is idiotic.

For short distances, FO is the clunky cathode ray tube.

The only place where FO would have the advantage over copper would be in the country where blocks of land are several hectares. Which accounts for 10% of the population. However, wireless repeaters is vastly cheaper than either FO or copper here.

The carbon tax was a fizzer, so got to talk about something.

579, this type of statement is exactly why some people still support labor.

The damage is not here and now, never was going to be, it's the future that will suffer from the likes of the worlds largest carbon tax.

Somehow I think you already know that.

Now all this cat5 cat6, FO v copper is way over my head, as I am not savvy to computer talk, but, what I do know is that if you buy/live in the country, you shouldn't expect/demand super fast Internet.

What I also know is labor track record when it comes to implementation. Not the passing of legislation, but actually doing the job.

Lets face it, even the die hard, labor can do no wrong supporters like yourself, must have doubts about their ability to achieve positive outcomes by now.

Small fish mentality. You want the bush to live like hermits, no communication, one kilometer out of town.
Just as well our elected members don't think like that. Real time schooling, should be enough to see the benefits, without anything else.

579,

Before you open you mouth to change feet, the existing NBN plan is not going to deliver FO to most of the rural communities, planning to use wireless or satellite to 7% of households. I suppose you think it is peoples' right to be close to a fully equipped hospital, supermarket and bank too? Feel like a hypocrite?

The UK is in the process of upgrading its networks using the same fibre to the node system proposed by the coalition. It has provided households with 80Mb/s speed at a tiny fraction of the cost per connection of the NBN. It has also managed this without creating a state owned monopoly, and banning competition such as Labor is planning.

Without actually knowing I presume that NBN will take fibre to the
basement of unit blocks and then run cat6 or such to individual flats.
Thats what they do in Korea.
It makes sense but then sense does not always come into it.

579, fi you can't say something sensible, spare the rest of us.

I am not in favour of using radio for any application that can be
served by land line, co-ax, fibre or equivalent.
So radio systems should be last resort stuff.

In the country a protocol like Wimax should be used to serve an area,
say from the edge of town to the area around the next town.
They seem to be relying on a phone type system which may not be the
best solution.

It is like delivering bread and milk, if you live in more remote areas
no one seems to be complaining about that.
For the life of me I just cannot see what applications would need such
high speeds in the reomote locations.

No one has answered my challenge, what medical services would require
100 mbit delivery ?

Too late by miles, The vote was in favor of a national fiber optic system. No idea what Bazz is on about.

579, since when does a vote count in labor land, or have you already forgotten the carbon tax lie.

As for living in the bush, but wanting the mod cons, PAY FOR IT, but nobody in the bush should expect others to foot the bill. That's why one pays peanuts for land, rates etc, because they go without many of the mod cons.

My rates in western downs are less than $500 per year, while in the city I pay $2500 odd, maybe more.

The whole point is this NBN is yet another untested gamble by this government, one we simply can't afford in my view, especially when nobody, even the government knows or can explain IN FULL the details.

You see businesses dont invest in something like this without the detail, and this is why labor are so bad and have wasted so much in such a short time, they simply don't know.

Now while not knowing is not a crime, going ahead without knowing is a crime on tax payers rights and money.

I say again, if business, or any sector for that matter wants super fast Internet, then pay for it.

579,

Butcher is right, 38% voted for the party with the NBN, and 95% voted for the parties with no carbon tax.

No one voted for a government legislated monopoly.

579 said;
No idea what Bazz is on about.

When the discussion gets a bit technical, just sit back and learn as
making facetious comments is pointless and makes you look silly.

Fibre Optic cable is the Rolls Royce solution that is the ultimate if
it can be afforded. The problem is that to feed it everywhere is very
expensive. The alternatve fibre to the street node is a lot cheaper
requires no changes in the premises, gives fast enough service, better
than what we have now with adsl2. It will mean that more people will
retain their landline and with less dependance on wireless.

Infrastructure always has been the priority of labor. Without it you have nothing. Spending that sort of money, you would want some guarantee that no one is going to pick the eyes out of it.
The airways are crowded enough, TV, Radio, all on broadband, at the speed of light.
This will set AU up for the next 100 years. An equalizer for all people of AU.

579

Yes the great infrastructure projects of Labor, The pink Batts, the super expensive school halls of the BER, the litany of failure and incompetence goes on.

Did the BER do what it was designed to do. The whole world says it done exactly that. You are scraping the bottom of the bucket, to find something that is not there.

The BER was supposed to save jobs in the construction industry, and build school infrastructure.

It spent so much much money that it pushed up the cost of labor in a recession, carried on way past when it was required, and built infrastructure at twice the going price, that was often not the priority needs of the schools.

The reality is that the jobs could have been saved for less than half what was spent, and the schools could have been far better served meeting their needs rather than the rubber stamp constructions they got.

The NBN is the same, it is costing 3 to 4 times what is required to raise the broad band speeds to worlds best standards.

An argument that has passed it's useby date. Schools were happy to get anything they can.
Infrastructure has to be upfront, not lagging behind.
Leave it to the experts, and try not to worry.

There were plenty of experts that thought it was a waste of money. For example the audit that showed that government built school halls cost twice as much as those similar halls built by the private schools.

Labor wants everyone to forget its incompetence, but the voters are not idiots, which is why the coalition is still held in far higher regards with respect to economic management.

That is a joke right, all the noalition will do is drag the economy down a put 200 thousand people out of work.
They look after the 1% and good luck to the rest.

Really,

That's why unemployment was at a record low of 4%, and the lowest paid workers got the greatest increase in real wages than under any labor government.

SM,
Seriously you must know very little about the industry?

Actually I'm involved in the restoration of the exchange that was recently burned down at Somerton NSW. Most of the customers require line conditioning such as VF Amplifiers and Line Extenders just for voice traffic alone. The limited ADSL service that some of them have will be as good as it will ever get.
Customer cable distances in excess of 20Km are common in such areas and having repeaters every 100m is ridiculous - even in metropolitan areas and makes no financial sense. Providing 200 repeaters for a few dozen customers?

Cat5 and Cat6 cabling accounts for over 95% of installations even today?
What installations? Internal building cabling sure but not out in the streets! Even ignoring the vast difference in data capacity, replacing existing copper cable with twisted pair would be more expensive than fibre.

Rache,

Repeaters every 100m would be a bad idea, but that is not what I suggested. I was also discussing a hypothetical green fields installation where repeaters / switches could extend the range of CAT6 from 120m from the node to say 240m to deliver 1Gb/s to households.

The problems we have now is precisely because the individual pairs run up to 20km. However, the pairs are usually accommodated in multi pair cables to local distribution boxes before branching out in single pair cables to the houses. The single pair cables are usually far shorter, in the region of a few 100m, The FTTN option would mean replacing the multicore cables with FO and using the shorter runs of single pairs to supply broad band to the individual houses. As the final runs of replacing these single core cables is about 80% of the total upgrade cost, this is a significant saving over the present NBN plan. This has been done successfully in the UK delivering 80Mb/s to most households at less than 25% of the cost of what the NBN is planning now.

It should be noted that there is nothing stopping the replacement of the individual pairs with FO either later when 80Mb/s is insufficient, or if the particular existing cable is damaged.