Could the private sector have offered it cheaper and faster?

Worldwatcher, not faster, but fast enough.
Let me put it this way;
I have a 10 megabit speed to the exchange.
That is the speed, as far as I am concerned, of the Telstra network.
However the Telstra network is not the limiting factor.
Most downloads I get are close to 1 Megbit, and some are nearer 100khzbit.
The limiting factor is the server at the other end and the number of
people connected to it.
If the remote server cannot shove it out faster then that is the speed you get it.

These are factors outside the control of the NBN, so the same speeds
will result whether you pay NBN for 100Mbit or not.

The NBN is Labor's school hall program all over again.

Labor is creating a new monopoly in a field where every developed economy in the world is breaking them up, at a cost that is far higher than in the private sector, to deliver services that will be largely obsolete at high prices to people that mostly don't need them.

Not being one eyed, anti any thing Labor does, I like the idea.
Trash talk by Abbott and his team will not change truth.
This big country needed it.
Slow at present but off immense value on completion, it will serve us well.
Sadly comment from the uniformed will flood this thread.
A determination to claim it is only off use for game players,Snowy
Mountain scheme and lots more would not have taken place with out government intervention.
I spoke in one of many previous threads about the nature of our country, very big and very hard to have communications for everyone.
NBN changes that.
In debate both sides should be heard always.
But watch.
This thread will attract uniformed anti Labor posters with no true idea of the value NBN will be.
NO not sorry for my abruptness.
In fact some things passing for debate/comment of late, are far from useful.

<<Could the private sector have offered it cheaper and faster?>>

All I care is that the private sector would not take away the copper wires.

Taking away the copper wires forces an irreversible dependence on digital and internet technology for something so basic as making a phone call.

It's just a matter of time before the internet collapses, or when Australia is isolated and cannot produce those highly specialised silicon components on its own. Then we will be sorry indeed for not being able to make contact with our family and friends with a simple analogue phone call.

I can't think of what I'd do with NBN, why do I need it? I can already stream in 720p most of the time, most popular online games use some form of p2p matchmaking so quality is dependent upon the connections of the whole lobby and my kids only use Facebook, Twitter and Skype text chat, they seemingly have no interest in any other online content.

Bazz,

Thanks for the info.
Have another question for you. What will or could happen if wireless broadband gets to capacity? I've been told it is a comparitively narrow band, and will quite likely be unable to support future demands placed on it.

The concept of a high speed broadband is good. The problem, as with every other Labor initiative is the implementation.

It costs too much,
It is taking too long,
It is at risk of being overtaken by other technologies.

Well world watcher, there are a couple or three things they can do.
They can reduce the tx power and insert additional base stations
between existing ones. or they can buy additional spectrum, rather
expensive exercise though, but if the traffic is that heavy they could.
I think the trend is towards radio technology and people are even using
it at home !
To be a spectrum purist, no traffic that could go on wires should be
on radio spectrum, but unfortunately thats not what people do.

I think you can see that in the small percentage takeup on the NBN.
That may improve in the future. I can forsee landline type handsets
being available via mobile phone systems.
Take my own case, my wife & I each have a mobile phone.
We could decide not to have a landline phone and not have the NBN
at all and use a wireless connection for the internet.
I would not pay for a 100Mb NBN connection because you would never get
100mbit data anyway.
All you would be paying for would be longer time between packets !

I think I said here once before fibre is the ultimate connection.
It will not go obsolete. all they will do change the kit on each end
of the fibre. That is why it is, together with micowave bearers,
used to link the base stations.
But that is not quite the point and thats what the pollies miss.

NBN or no NBN there is one determining factor that has to be of major concern, and that's labor's inability to deliver ANYTHING cost effectively.

Let's face it, they have stuffed up pretty much everything they have touched, from the simple things like grocery watch, to the major things like insulation, which despite the expert advice, cost young lives, and the illegals debacle which could well break this nation,and now they have even stuffed up achieving a MUCH PROMISED surplus, and that's even after they took out an IOU from big business in the form of advanced tax collections.

Ill bet they will not reverse that one.

Sure, we may have fast broad band, even in the bush, but it will be useless if people have no money to spend.

Bazz,
Thanks for your reply to my question.
With all that is going on in our world at this moment, I have paid scant attention to the relatively [by comparison] small matter of NBN. I don't know if it is planned to implement it and give us no choice other than to have to use it, or whether we'll still have a choice.
Remember reading somewhere that a company in America was given permission to use a very narrow band adjacent to the exisisting broadband used by the Pentagon, but that the traffic from it could generate overlap. Article said this would compromise security of government departments.
I like to be able to understand 'How Things Work' [as demonstrated in the t.v. programme with that title].
Just picked up a dvd about Tesla, which I'm looking forward to watching. Have read countless articles about his genius, but hope for even more insight through watching this.
I wish you and your family a Happy Festive Holiday.

The contracts for NBN connections have just been let. If you are going to have connections made it's best to have a head start with the thing you are connecting to.
Telstra using rim service is a worry for people in sub devisions. This is capable of adSL 1 only, which is almost a defunct item. Very few carriers are still offering this including Telstra, which now only offers adsl 2.
The telstra copper wiring is stuffed, suffering verdegree, it is continually breaking down.

Well I can't afford to buy any more meg than I currently buy.

I gather it will cost more, when/if I am connected to glass, so that will actually mean I can download less than now. This being the case, the fact it will be quicker is totally useless.

579, where do you dream these things up ?
The cable in my street is +60 years old and is teflon.
No problems at all.

Worldwatcher, looks like the article you mentioned was a ploy by the
military to get a bit more bandwidth.
What would they be doing transmitting unencrypted info anyway ?
Allocations and regulations are designed to reduce or eliminate the
problem you mention.
Here in Australia radio amateurs share the 400 mhz band with the
services anyway. From time to time the US Navy can be heard and ships
radars are also heard occasionally, so there is a sharing agreement
also in the US, in fact probably internationally.

They will bring the NBN past your door and terminate in your premises for free.
However I think you have to pay the monthly fee.
If you refuse you will have to pay for a connection later.
I bet they will be coming around begging for you to connect.

The idea, seems to be typically Labour.
You will have the NBN whether you like it or not !
Also Telstra is forbidden to offer you a wireless (radio) service;
So there TAKE THAT !

Just remembered, doesn,t this match Combe's statement to a communications meeting in the US;
If I tell you to wear red underpants on your head YOU WILL !

Teflon 60+ years ago. Bazz you get a gas meter on your property weather you want it or not. It's not you wanting to use gas it's the person that lives in your house in future. And seeing the meter is installed free, it's cheaper for the gas co; to do the lot at once.
For 50$ / month you get 100 gig. now.

579, we haven't got a gas meter, never did have one.
Wouldn't it be more sensible to just run the pipe in and close off.

I can't see much advantage in the NBN to me. I will just wait and see
what offers are made. If they via Telstra have a good Gbytes download
rate and include a modem then fine. Umm, will we in fact need a modem ?
I think I saw that they have an ethernet o/p from their box.
If so all you would need would be an ethernet hub.

You said; Teflon 60+ years ago.
Does that imply you never heard of teflon that long ago.
The Leo III computer I worked on had teflon wiring.
That was the first time I had seen it and was surprised by its slipperiness when stripping it.
They started pulling the paper insulated wiring out of the street
shortly after the war, they did the oldest first.
That is my recollection although I was not involved.

579

Currently I pay $29.99 per month for ADSL+2 . Wouldn't want that to increase to $50 per month as I don't need more than what I have right now, which I think is around 50 gig.

Could the private sector have offered it cheaper and faster?

Cheaper? No, because the government has access to funds at a much lower rate than private companies.

Those Private/Public partnerships than were often used to fund tollways showed that all the cost - plus added extras due to higher interest- are passed onto the consumer, as well as all liabilities. (If they go wrong, the taxpayer has to bail them out). Then they have to add their profits on top of those costs. The public end up paying far more than necessary for infrastructure while politicians appear to be providing it at a lower cost in the short term.

Faster?

No, because there are no private companies than can provide standard infrastructure on a national basis. Telstra itself once tried to carve off their network engineering division as a private company (remember NDC?) but nobody was willing to buy it. In the end, after wasting a billion dollars or so, they "bought it back" for one dollar.
At best there could be companies that could provide limited service in select areas but not on a national basis. A Canadian company was planning to provide fibre to the Newcastle/Hunter area years ago but couldn't get a partner and couldn't overcome restrictive local council issues.

In the end it comes down to management - not ownership. Although it's currently owned by the government NBN Co. has been created and is managed as a private corporation so it really makes the question irrelevant. It's being provided by effectively a private company and at the cheapest price now. The question should be whether you want a nationally integrated network or not.

It seems to me it comes down to you can have maximum speed if you
wish to pay, or to be practicle, pay less and get a lower speed.
It would likely be a bit faster than what the average adsl2+ user has
now, but actual download speed are not set by what you pay but by the
servers at the other end.
So in fact with all this high quality copper in the ground why not use
it instead for the fire to the corner cabinet ?

That is the argument that the pollies don't want to hear.
They know best, they have the best advice they will tell you every time.
When push comes to shove how many of those web sites you use,
including government ones are going to spend enough so that they can
churn it out faster than the fibre can gobble it up.
Until those web sites have servers faster than the fibre with very
large numbers of users connected then you are wasting good money to
pay for the fastest speeds. All you get is longer wait times between
packets.

Pay less to get a lower speed. Lower speeds are being discontinued. ADsl 2+ will be the norm until the fibre optic arrives. Telstra has put in, what they call rim service that only supports adsl 1 , and now Telstra do not offer adsl 1 any more. If you can not find a provider that offers adsl 1 you have to move house to get internet. The only reason this rim service was done is it is a cheaper option. High rise and new sub divisions in the last twenty years have rim service.
Anyone more than 2 kms from an exchange can not access adsl 2 at full capacity if you do your speeds are no different than adsl 1.
That is why fibre optic has to individually connect to every business and home.

The politics involved in anything that Governments of any persuasion do is the biggest drawback for the project itself. Whichever side of Politics puts forward a project the other side of Politics will oppose it, purely for the fact that if it works then it's points towards the next election. It's got nothing to do with whether or not it's a good or bad project.

Is the NBN over priced. Of course it is. When giving Quotes for any Government Projects Private Companies; think of an outrageous figure then triple it. This is just normal practice, it’s just the way it is, but you get the best, not necessary the latest gear. However the alternate is; get the job done at the cheapest price with the cheapest as possible gear in order to maximise profits.

Do we need the NBN, yes we do. Copper tech is now 75 years out of date. Australia could stay with Copper and even get further behind. Fibre is 30 years old. The “Brand new, latest tech” that was introduced into Australia 30 years ago was second hand (ex London). A mate of mine packed it all into boxes in London, then came to Australia & found he had to unpack this new Communications tech when he started work for Telecoms in Sydney.

But still we’ll only be 30 years behind instead of 75 years & that’s a good thing. Australia seems to have a need to evaluate new tech for 20 odd years before it thinks about adopting it. Strangely Australia has always done this. I don’t know why but it always has.

The NBN is only slightly faster than the coalition's alternative but costs 5x as much, and 3x as long to build. On top of this by the time it is actually rolled out, it will be hugely loss making as many will be using wireless as they are in the USA.

Wobbles said;
The question should be whether you want a nationally integrated network or not.

That statement misses the point entirerly.
The network, no matter what its architecture is already integrated
nationally and indeed internationally by the protocols.

It is the activity needed in every street on both sides of every street
in the country that is costing the money.
The vast majority of the people connected to the NBN will not be paying
more than they are paying now as there seems to be resistence above
about $30. They will get the same effective speeds that they are now
getting as I have previously pointed out. Some will pay for higher
speeds, but they will be disappointed, except they will probably
get higher upload speeds.

Any of the any major communications companies could have built the
NBN with any architecture desired. Fibre down both sides of every
street would always be the most expensive option, no matter who did it.
Fibre to the street cabinet, much of which was already in place into
an area anyway, would have retained use of the copper cable.
For political reasons that was poo pooed as you have seen output on
port 579. The vast vast majority of copper cable in the streets are
in world standard condition or better. It is all in plastic sheathered
cable and with fibre to the end of the street speeds available will
be better than the $30 most are prepared to pay for anyway.

We will never know what could have been done for how much as tenders were never called.

You are missing something Bazz. Your desired speed limits are being discontinued.
What do you mean by a street cabinet.
At present if you are more than 2 kms from an exchange, ADSL 2 is no use to you.
Fibre optic delivers at the speed of light. Are you saying copper never depletes or wears out, or doesn't have restrictions.
It's a bit hard to fathom what you are saying.

Over time, even fibre to the street would be extended, first to
premises that needed it and then to other nearby premises.
Maybe technologies like wimax could have been run from the cabinets,
who knows, especially now that iPhones & iPads are such the go.
We may end up with the best Winged Lady on the block when everyone
is driving Teslas !

Once finished we will have fibre everywhere, it will never be obsolete
as it is the ultimate connection.
But it is sad really, think what we could have used those extra billions on.
We are staring down an abyss at the biggest financial disaster the
world has ever contemplated and we are engaged in bread & circuses.

Our politicians refuse to even discuss, even in their cups, of what
the world faces in population surges, food shortages, and the lack
of energy available to cope with these problems and all they want is
to argue about happy motoring and Fibre to the Home internet !

Really !

To put a bottle neck in the middle of a freeway does not make sense.
Telstra's old technology has served us well, but is costing them big money for keeping the system going. Telstra is now decommissioning, and consolidating some of its 11,000 exchanges.
In areas where copper has failed it is being replaced with fibre optic.
Some areas date back 100 years,
Like all things they come to an end, change is hard to accept for some, Technology has moved along, 100 mb/s is the new technology.
Tv, radio, phone calls, internet, on the same cable system, freeing up airway space for wi fi and mobile applications.

"The vast vast majority of copper cable in the streets are in world standard condition or better. "

Wherever did you hear that little gem?

It's deteriorating - and rather badly in some areas. Ever noticed the line fault rates after a bit of heavy rain in your area?

Ever wondered why people on one side of a street can have ADSL and the others can't? It generally comes down to intermediate cable losses and permanent faults.

The cost of replacing a faulty 500 pair copper cable with a 12 fibre sheath is far less and has vastly more capacity.

If this work was dished out to a multitude of private companies, each having to deal with individual Local Council restrictions, right-of-access and heritage issues, it could never happen. There are few companies outside Telstra than can take on a project of such scale.

Would you consider building a new National Highway or Railway by breaking it up into 1km parcels?

There is a vast difference between the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness.

My thanks to all the posters on this thread. I now know have a better understanding of NBN as a result of reading all your comments.

Bazz, I found your comment saying that no tenders had been let for this rollout rather disturbing.
As this is usual standard practice before committing such a large sum to any such project, shouldn't this have taken place before any decisions were made?
I fail to understand why private enterprise didn't publicly produce their own costings and appeal the government decision.

Who needs the NBN? Well, me. I run an internet-dependent business in a small country town. Even with ADSL, I still have to send and receive some big files by CD/post. Most infuriatingly, almost a year ago the NBN cable was actually installed in my street, which is the highway between two major centres, but our region is not even on the NBN roll-out schedule. Maybe 2015? Later?

Re Jayb's comment: "Australia seems to have a need to evaluate new tech for 20 odd years before it thinks about adopting it. Strangely Australia has always done this. I don’t know why but it always has."

Actually in the 19C-early 20C Australia was an extremely fast taker-up of new technology eg Bell invented the telephone in 1876, the first regular service was installed in Melbourne in 1878, based on an article Bell published in Oct.1877. You could add steam power, telegraph, air transport, etc and of course, we invented lots of things too. (I'm currently writing something on the take-up of technology in rural Australia).

However the pattern of new technologies arriving and surplanting older ones just as the latter reached their peak is nothing new. Eg. Australia's finest interstate ships were built in the 1920s and 1930s, when railways (and even air travel) were taking much of their traffic.

Maybe this is inevitable?
Or was there a change in attitude in the 20C?

Worth reading, on the history of technology in Australia: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/publications/commission/books/linking-a-nation/index.html.

Cossomby: Or was there a change in attitude in the 20C?

I think there was a change of attitude. Australia at the beginning of the 20 century was very progressive. We actually had the first Aircraft manufacturing factory in Australia. At Beverley in WA. The Government took away their licence because they couldn't see any future in air travel. As the century progressed Australia became more & more conservative. It's even worse today. Australia had the world’s best Computer. It was shut down as there was obviously no use for such an expensive toy. We had the best Transistor research facility in the world until a politician stood up in Parliament held up a tiny transistor & a Valve & said this little thing will never replace the valve. & the research into Transistors was shut down. The list goes on & on.
My favourite. I was doing my Sergeants Course & asked the Question. When the rest of the World’s Armed forces went to Self Loading Rifles (repeaters) Australia retained the single shot .303. When the rest of the worlds Armed Forces went to Automatics, Australia’s Armed Forces went to SLR’s. Our present day tactics require us to initiate a Company attack on an automatic weapon & now every common enemy soldier has one. Why is the Australian Army so far behind the rest of the world? I almost failed my Sgt’s because of that Question. My Report. This Soldier does not support the current Army Warfare teachings. I had a lot of talking to do to get a pass.

So Australia is stuck with people running the Country that are very conservative & unwilling to change to anything that hasn’t been tested for 20 years before upgrading to the new technology.

Well, a few things to reply to here.
579 o/p;
To put a bottle neck in the middle of a freeway does not make sense.

err, thats just the point, the copper is not in the middle of the
freeway, it is after the off ramp.
Of course Telstra is running down and emptying their exchanges, in fact
they have been 3/4 empty for years, the NBN is replacing Telstra's
business so they will have no need of the buildings.

>Some areas date back 100 years,
That long ago they didn't have underground cable it was on poles and
cross bars.

>Technology has moved along, 100 mb/s is the new technology.
How many will want to pay the 100Mb charge ?

Wobbles said;
Would you consider building a new National Highway or Railway by
breaking it up into 1km parcels?

Not sure I understand that statement. In fact certain I dont understand it.

Worldwatcher said;
Bazz, I found your comment saying that no tenders had been let for
this rollout rather disturbing.

I suspect the main reason was that no business plan was adopted.
Rudd & Combe worked out the organisational structure on a plane flight
to Brisbane. Many try to say they worked out the architecture on that
flight but thats ridiculous. They wouldn't know how.
To be continued:

More:
My goodness, that is the first time in a long time that I babbled on so long;
Cossomby said;
Even with ADSL, I still have to send and receive some big files by CD/post.

Boy they must indeed be big files. Even at 1Mbit a second you could
have sent 900Mbit before you reached the PO 15 minutes away.
Then say sitting in the po box for 4 hours, a full day by express post.
Hmm, something wrong there.
However even if you pay for 100Mbit, what makes you think you will be
able to send at that rate ?
All you will get is longer wait times between packets.
Yes Cossomby there is a lot in what you say about the development of
new technologies.

Our problem now is most countries in the world are bankrupt including
the Australian government.
Yes, bankrupt, ie when you cannot pay your debts !
We are facing a time of zero growth which has a very simple result;
there is no new finance resulting from
growth to fund new infrastructure without introducing new finance.
The only place the government will get new finance is in Canberra at
the note printing factory. Either that or pixel money from some
bureaucrat's desktop.
What the hell do you think is going on in Europe & the US at present ?
Here we are arguing about whether we should have 100Mbit everywhere !
Why the hell are we not arguing about reconstruction of our railways
and shipping fleets ? Do you really think the future world is just
going to be more of the same.
A continuing race for faster and faster gaming and porn !
Compared to what we are really facing, ie feeding the people our
obsession with the internet and tweeting twits descends into farce.
Nothing has been learnt since the collapse of Rome, they went into
Chariot Races and Circuses also.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY !

I have current downlosd speeds of up to 500mb with telstra, who needs it faster?

Jayb said;
Australia had the world’s best Computer.It was shut down as there was
obviously no use for such an expensive toy.

That is not what happened at all.
I presume you are talking of Sylliac which was in the process of being
replaced by the KDF9 which had just been installed.
Sylliac was a modified copy of Illiac the Uni of Illinois m/c which
was about 5 years old at the time.
I saw Syilliac running shortly before it was put to sleep.
There was giant step between Syilliac and the KDF9.
There was no way that anyone in Australia was able to match the
development of computing in the UK at that time.
Britain still had the lead in computing at the time due to the drive
resulting from Bletchly Park and Farnborough with ACE.
There was reputed to be a m/c at ASIO that was pretty good but the
manufacturing technology was a big step to produce m/c like the KDF9.
ps interesting bit, the Russians were reported to have been decoding
bit streams off the wire fence surrounding the ASIO m/c.
Well that was the rumour in the industry anyway.

chrisgaff1000, said that he is getting 500Mbit from Telstra !
Are you sure ? How much is that costing and how do you do it ?

No such thing as 500 mb/s speed 500 mb d/load.
Telstra 's only obligation is to supply a telephone line to those that want it. Hence the rim service. This service is outdated by telstra's own internet sales. Now restricted to adsl 2 only. Rim service does not support ADSL 2, But the phone works fine.
Change will continue to happen and all for the better.
I don't know why you think a faster speed will be any dearer in proportion than what it is now.
Some don't want faster speed , well some do.
The fibre optic is the only designed internet cable we have. Telstra was never designed for internet, it,s just lucky the phone line came as a pair.
Telstra will never sell naked adsl. Internet to telstra is a sideline only, and they only take responsibility for their own internet customers. Telstra is for Telephones only, if you are not a telstra internet customer.

579 said;
Telstra will never sell naked adsl. Internet to telstra is a sideline
only, and they only take responsibility for their own internet
customers. Telstra is for Telephones only, if you are not a telstra
internet customer.

Uhhh !
I think 579 has dropped a few bits !
chrisgaff1000; surely you mean 500k bits per second ?
or perhaps 5Mb per sec.

579,

Telstra is a telecommunication company, in an age where telecoms is all digital. Voice calls are now the sideline.

Telstra is now pushing its wireless networks, which will soon make the NBN largely obsolete, as mobile phones have done for the land line.

Mobile won't do any damage to NBN. Mobile will never compete for price, download speed, download quota, faxes, cable tv from anywhere in the world, Radio from anywhere, Live interaction, & phone calls for free.
Mobile is good, but limited, Wi fi is handy but limited. You can sit in your car outside a mcdonalds and do your business for free.

579

They said the same about mobile phones compared to land lines. Land lines are cheaper and better call quality.

In order to make a very very modest profit, the NBN needs 70% of house holds connected to broad band, and needs to complete its installation on time and on budget.

Not one of those 3 conditions are going to be met. The cost so far is blowing out, it is going to take years longer, and if the trend follows the US, wireless only houses are already 16% and are likely to reach 25% before 2020.

As 4G is rolled out, and the newer 5G is implemented what wireless can don in 2020 compared to today will be similar to a comparison between today and 2005.

579,

I'm a Hungry Jack's fan when I eat junk food. Can I sit outside and use the internet for free there too? Tempted to try it.

Every mcdonalds in AU is wi fi free. Don't know about Hungry Jacks

Fibre Vs Wireless speeds

Fibre-Optics:

Commercially, fibre-optic cables are being used to carry data at speeds of about 2 Terabits per second (Tbps). Experimentally, trials are now achieving over 69Tbps over a single fibreoptic strand. (A Terabit is 1,000 Gigabits or 1,000,000 Megabits).

While the NBN will not be equipped to deliver such massive speeds initially, like all fibre-optic networks it is highly upgradable should greater speeds be required in the future. Speed increases only require upgrading of the transmission equipment with the fibre itself being unchanged.

Wireless:

Current 3G and 3.5G wireless networks (eg: Telstra NextG) offer theoretical speeds of up to 42Mbps. However, practically that network falls to a maximum of about 8Mbps, even under ideal conditions. Experimentally the 4G/LTE Advanced consortium is achieving about 1Gbps (per cell), as is the competing WiMax consortium.

So let’s compare wireless and fibre, with all speeds converted to Gbps:
Experimental Current Theoretical Current Actual
Fibreoptic (per strand) 69000 Gbps 2000Gbps 2000 Gbps
Wireless (Per cell) 1 Gbps 0.042 Gbps 0.008 Gbps

As it currently stands, fibreoptics are achieving speeds that are 250,000 times faster than wireless. In the experimental stages, fibre can carry 69,000 times more data than the entire bandwidth delivered by a wireless tower!

Longer waits between packets.

Why not wireless?

The numerous mainstream media articles on the NBN (and particularly the comments sections) are invariably littered with statements like “Wireless is the future”, “Everyone knows fixed lines are dead”, “fibre optics are being made obsolete” etc etc.

And no-one more than I would love that to be true. I’m sure we all would. The thought that we could obtain superfast data speeds without the need for wires is a tantalising concept. Unfortunately, it’s just not possible. That’s not to say wireless networks won’t continue to improve. Of course they will. But they will never approach the current or future speeds available via fibre-optic cables.

Wireless is a great complementary technology for deployment alongside fast fixed networks, and is also useful for delivering broadband to a small number of users in remote areas. But it is incapable of doing so in densely populated urban areas.

Let me make one fact absolutely clear from the beginning: Despite what you may have read from certain clueless commentators, there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the World that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.

I took my usual approach to speed testing: averaging three tests for ping times, download speeds and uploads speeds using Speedtest.net. For ping times, the lower the better; for the other two, the higher the better. I performed the tests using a Wi-Fi connection to the cafe’s NBN service (supplied by iiNet), and then a Wi-Fi connection to my Telstra 4G wireless hotspot. These are the results:
NBN 4G
Ping 20.67ms 109.33ms
Download 13.39Mbps 6.08Mbps
Upload 13.60Mbps 3.14Mbps

The NBN wins out clearly in every category. Ping times are four times lower; download speeds are double; upload speeds are more than quadruple. There’s a very evident speed advantage.

As I’ve written many times before, this should surprise no-one. But the notion that wireless technologies in general, and 4G LTE in particular, would be a better way to ensure universal broadband connectivity still gets repeated a lot by NBN opponents. Testing both in the same location, it’s clear that the NBN option is much faster. If I was running a cafe, I know which one I’d be choosing to share with customers.

That’s not to say that the 4G results are terrible; they’re certainly faster than the free ADSL-based Wi-Fi you find in many cafes. But they’re not much better than the 3G numbers I recorded in Brunswick when I tested all three mobile networks last year. My hotspot tells me I’m on a 4G network, but you wouldn’t particularly know it from the speeds.

It’s worth pointing out that 4G can produce much higher speeds. When I compared Optus and Telstra’s 4G performance last week in the Hunter Valley, the Telstra service was pushing through much higher numbers than these. That was in a less densely populated area on a weekend.

579,

You obviously either failed to read, or to understand what I wrote. The NBN will be faster, and probably cheaper. But many people are not looking for massive connection speeds and downloads. For $50p.m. one can get 4G with 8GB/m and have internet, phone calls etc.

I have a work 4G dongle, took it on holiday and after configuring a PC as a router, 3 people happily used it, my kids playing interactive games. This is the threat to the NBN.

The US has a tolerance of electro magnetic radio waves 10,000 times more than AU limits.

Absolute rubbish.

579: Speedtest;Ping 20.67ms 109.33ms. Download 13.39Mbps 6.08Mbps
Upload 13.60Mbps 3.14Mbps

I assume that's wireless. I have ADSL 2;
Speedtest; Ping, 10 ms. Download, 15.19 Mbps. Upload, .73 Mbps.

I assume that's not too bad. It says that's that result is better than 80% of users.

The only problem I have is that it does not translate into reality on most sites. On some downloads from, Say Microsoft, Nvidia, Rivers even Utube the download will drop down to anywhere between 25 & 375 Kbps at times. I have never had a download at anywhere near 15 Mbps. I assume that has something to do with the number of people who are downloading from that particular server at that time.

Please explain.

Wireless schools

With the increasing trend to make schools wireless environments, are we unnecessarily exposing children to EMF dangers? Are students experiencing anxiety, brain fog, dizziness, headaches, fatigue, sleep disorders, memory loss, and depression from EMF exposures? Parents across the country and internationally are refusing to allow their children to be EMF experiments. Should you be concerned?

Mary Garofalo's investigation as part of the Canadian 16:9 television show summarizes why some people are concerned about wireless schools. The 16:9 investigation shows the Canadian government's claims that their studies show WiFi schools are safe based on scientific evidence is proven to not be true (see 6:50 to 7 minutes in the below video). The classroom exposure can exceed the exposure of being near a cell phone tower.
The US has no federal legislation regarding safe levels of EMF.

The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone towers is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least protective in the world. More progressive European countries have set standards 100 to 1,000 times lower than the U.S. Compare Australia at 200 microwatts, Russia, Italy, and Toronto, Canada at 10, China at 6, and Switzerland, at 4. In Salzburg, Austria the level is .1 mircowatts (pulsed), 10,000 times less than the U.S. New Zealand has proposed yet more stringent levels, at .02 microwatts, 50,000 times more protective than the U.S. standard. 3, 4

Contrary to what the communications industry tells us, there is vast scientific, epidemiological and medical evidence that confirms that exposure to the RF and microwave radiation emitted from cell towers, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems. 5, 6, 7, 8

There is vast scientific and medical evidence that exposure to cell tower radiation, even at low levels, can have profound adverse effects on biological systems.

Jayd That is congestion, especially when kids are off school. Adsl 2+ is the best if you are no father away than 2 km's from an exchange. If you are more than that from an exchange, your speeds will vary greater with more traffic. Important these days is to check with Telstra, and not rely on online checking that ADSL 2 is available in your street, at your particular number.
With ADSL 1 being phased out some people are finding out, their infrastructure can not support ADSL 2. In suburbs of less than 20 years existence, it's called rim service.

579,

Firstly there is no conclusive studies that show that EMF is harmful, even near power lines etc, and certainly the low power from wireless will do very little.

Secondly your figures show the US limits are 3x higher than Aus, not 10 000x

Thirdly, the figures published by ARPANSA the Aus body responsible, are very different from yours.

http://www.arpansa.gov.au/pubs/rps/rps3.pdf

579: Jayb That is congestion.

Whaaal, I did know that. That's what I said to the Telstra Technician when he gave me a heap of spin about how good my Speedtest was. He was taken back a bit & I got a free month. ;-) So going by that I would say that the NBN is only going to be as good as the particular server you are on to can handle at one time. I don't have WiFi because it's just too dam slow & unreliable. Most people around here have it & it keeps fading in & out. Anything from 5 bars to 1 to 0. They are always complaining & I just laugh. WiFi is very trendy & all the trendy people have it. ;-)

Personally I don't think the NBN will affect the ordinary person at home too much, but it will make a big difference to places like Banks & Supermarkets, etc & really that's what it's all about.

579 said;
The US has a tolerance of electro magnetic radio waves 10,000 times more than AU limits.

Sounds a lot doesn't it, but in this business it is b^&erall.

I didn't realise 579 was an old wife.
Don't get into an argument about emf levels or we will be here till the cows come home.
It is a bit like the "No Mobile Phones" signs in Nth Shore Hospital.
You look out the windows on the top floors into an 8 Element stacked
array running about 1M watt pep. Duhh.

579, judging by his last couple of posts he has recruited someone
else to take up the cudgels.
Even if all the iPads or whatever were stacked up on top of one
another, the level would be well below required limits.
Once spread out around desks it would be 100s db lower.
Is this the last argument to force the NBN into the schools ?
Mind you I think the fibre is best used in such an application.
To try to use emf as an excuse just illustrates how desperate they must be.
579 said;
The US has no federal legislation regarding safe levels of EMF.

Nonsense, then in the next post says;
The current U.S. standard for radiation exposure from cell phone
towers is 580-1,000 microwatts per sq. cm. (mW/cm2), among the least
protective in the world.
Anyone for a CISPA argument ? Not me thanks ! Did all that with BPL.

I suspect that there are two different people posing as 579 or perhaps
the programmer has taken over from the 579 m/c.

However the crucial question for 579-1 has not been answered;
How will having faster connection speed up the data coming from the
remote computers ?

Exactly right Jayb, that was my experience also.
The tech was here with his little test set and lo & behold 10 Mbits.
He did not try and waffle me because he realised I was not the little
old man down the street, as we had been sorting out later version line filters and RF filters, of which I had a few.

I feel it is a good day if I can get over 1 Mbit arriving here on a
10 Mbit line. It would be the same on a 100Mbit or 1 Gbit line.
There are going to be a lot of annoyed people paying for 100 Mbit.

Where a lot of hold up is, is at the exchange. With an electronic ping test there is no conversion.
To convert from analogue to digital, up to four times before your request leaves the exchange. That is where your request is being delayed, and the same on the way back. Depending where you are it could go through several exchanges.
The NBN to your door there will be no exchanges to happen only switches.

579 said;
To convert from analogue to digital, up to four times before your request leaves the exchange.

The only conversion I know of is from tcp/ip to tcp/ip encapsulated in X25.
News to me that there is any analogue in modern exchanges.

It's called VOIP

VOIP is digital only

Voice over internet protocol.

Bazz,

My comment on breaking national infrastructure into smaller parcels reflects the notion that some believe it would be better for such a network to be built piecemeal by several independent private operators, as some sort of magical formula for getting more for less.

Also, Telstra's PSTN network is made up of AXE (Ericsson) and System 12 (Alcatel) and both are digital networks but with obvious Analogue-Digital conversion done at each end, but not in between.

Transmission is mainly ADSL (digital) but there is still a lot of PDH (analogue) equipment still in the network.

Likewise there is a considerable amount of (very old) DCS20 and RIM hardware in the rural network and a lot of line conditioning is required just to make the phones work.

The core Mobile Network was previously Ericsson AXE but is now TCP-IP, made up of components by Cisco, Juniper and so on.

This network modernisation was well under way during the time Sol Trujillo was their CEO but only in Capital City areas.

The loss-making rural areas had little hope of improvement without a further massive injection of taxpayer funds and, until the NBN came along what they have now is likely to be as good as they will ever get.There is no "business case" for investing in such areas in the short term.

That's the whole point, fibre to the node would not improve anything it has to be to the home.
Copper was being stripped from the ground yesterday and it was inside lead pipe.
Pvc coatings and pvc pipe have served it's time, and Telstra's cost cutting measures have ensured the system is in a gigantic mess.
I can't get over Telstra now only selling ADSL 2, and not all telstra infrastructure can't handle ADSL 2.
It's good to see who you are talking to, when making overseas calls, at a cost of 1.9 cents / minute.

Bazz and 579

Wow! Got more than I bargained for with my original question!

You 2 guys have left me feeling like a stranded fish out of water and gasping for breath in the same way.

I don't even pretend to begin to understand most of what you two have put forward. But -

Regarding EMF radiation, some of my aquaintances are top medical specialists who will not allow their children to use cell phones.

Maybe you can explain my own personal experience too, after you stop laughing, which I quite understand will probably happen.

This really is a serious question.
I always get a buzzing in my head when I am close to high output electrical wires. I kid you not!
Even with my eyes closed I can tell when we're near them.
How can that be?

EMF has cancer causing qualities. We are surrounded by it, electrical wires in your house, microwaves, A television can emmit EMF up to 12 hours after it is turned off. Phone towers, high voltage wires, driving your car, it's everywhere.
Women with underwire bra, can be an added danger because of the areal effect.
I would not know if i had added head noise, because i have tinnitus 24/7

579,

If EMF has cancer causing properties - which I am not doubting - why is it that so many studies have concluded there is minimal risk attached to using cell phones?

Have any studies been undertaken to disprove this claim?

worldwatcher: I always get a buzzing in my head when I am close to high output electrical wires.

It's the rocks that's what it is. The rocks do it. ;-)

I found my old notes,. I am, according to the Telstra man when he first installed the Phone, 1857 meters from the exchange. So I'm inside the 2000 metre limit.

579: I have tinnitus 24/7.

Me too, multiple tinnitus 24/7. Sometimes it's real bad, with multiple frequencies popping in & out at different distances & different angles & at different loudness in quad. It's a real bugger. No wonder I'm nuts. ;-)

The minimal risk is because the power output is very small. If you keep your phone one inch away from your ear you will not have any effects.
Phone towers are the danger, up to three km's away.
Don't ever sleep on an activated electric blanket.
Tinnitus 24/7 worse on days of high atmospheric pressure.
My ears tell me there's a storm coming 2 days before hand.

I think 579 needs to get his offsider back, he has gone from sensible
to nuts again.
579 said something that illustrates that he really knows absolutely nothing about EMF.

He said;
If you keep your phone one inch away from your ear you will not have any effects.
Phone towers are the danger, up to three km's away.

EMF 101:
The strength of the field decreases proportional to the cube root of
the distance.
What this means is the one inch that you hold your 2 watt phone away
is the same as having the 10 watt mobile phone tower 1/2 metre away.
The field strength from your phone is perhaps a million times stronger
than the mobile phone tower next door.
I will have to dig my books out and work it out, I can't find my
circular db calculator at the moment.
You can do it yourself, 0db as the mobile phone and reduce the field
strength by the ratio to the cube root of the spacing difference
and then add 3db for the higher power of the base station (10 times).
Use 3KM as the distance of the base station.
I don't think it is unreasonable to keep children's mobile phone use
to a minimum. Their skulls would have less attenuation than adult skulls.

Worldwatch complained of head noises.
I know of an old time radio man who used to complain of hearing the
local Broadcast station in his ear.
It was a bit of a pain as he worked at that station.
Went to an ear specialist who gave his ears a good clean out
Turned out, the gunk in his ear had formed a diode and was
demodulating the station signal. Many laughs all round. It was one of
those sessions at the pub where we all tell tall stories.
However it is a genuine effect.

Jayb, I have titinus also at about 8.5 Khz. I can zero beat it in my
ear with an audio oscillator. It is not spurious, it is real with the
hair sensor in the ear oscillating continuously instead of merely
outputting the signal when it is moved by air pressure changes at its
resonant frequency.

Wobbles, I have no opinion on whether it would be better or worse if
there were multiple fibre systems. They would not do digital to
analogue conversion at each border, the cable would be linked straight through.
It seems to be being assumed that with fibre to the node that the speed
down the street on the copper would be the same as it is now.
Not so, with much shorter runs it could be near ethernet speeds.
I have no experience with it but with the copper being a 50th of the
distance I would expect about 20 times the speed.
It is called X protocol, can't remember the exact name.

Wobbles said;
This really is a serious question.
I always get a buzzing in my head when I am close to high output electrical wires. I kid you not!
Even with my eyes closed I can tell when we're near them.
How can that be?

My previous reply about the diode in your ear is probably the solution there.
I have often had my head near cables carrying 100s of amps and never
heard a thing. This sort of thing needs proper blind tests.
I could imagine that very strong 50 cycle fields could perhaps be
picked up, but I have never heard of it. Nor seen anything in any
documentaries or articles. Ahh, a member of the local radio club
is a neurologist, I must ask him at the next meeting.

Occasionally I would have to go out to the ABC tower at Brandon, Sth of Townsville. When you drove under the feeder cable the radio in the car would come on even when the radio was turned off. ABC of course. Then if you wanted to listen to the radio when you were at the base of the tower all you had to do was put the big screw driver up against on of the supports. ABC came in loud & clear. It was very interesting.

Oh & my Platoon Commander would get radio calls in his tooth fillings sometimes when we were on patrol in Sth VN.

Mobile phones are blamed for big increase in kids developing brain tumors. Because of skull thickness kids are more susceptible. In the US where there is no specific laws governing phone towers and i presume that means their output. Various health problems are rising.
Interference from phone and radio towers can effect some cars electronic systems.
Bazz is sympathetic to the industry, but EMF are for real and can be a danger, for long term exposure.
My tinnitus is the result of long term industrial exposure, and not a cigarette butt in the ear

579

Mobile phones are not blamed for any increase in kids developing brain tumors.

I suggest that if you are so worried you should wear a tin foil hat.

579 is easily confused. There is no connection between hearing am radio
signals in your ear and titanus. They quite different things.

Re tooth filings, I have heard about that one also. I think fillings these days are a plastic.

The most exposure to EMF are welders.
The second most exposure is Electric blankets.
Then the environment we live in, the house.
EMF is everywhere, it does have potential to cause harm.
Since the mid ninety's kids with brain tumors has increased and that coincides with kids having mobile phones in the US.
It was not me that said something about radio waves and tinnitus.
Bazz just made that up.

579,

My arthritis only gives me 1 day's warning. Between us, we're pretty good weather forecasters huh?

I believe you're right - there appears to be a definite correlation between brain tumours in children and mobile phones. Of course the phone companies will probably deny thatstill, as they have since it was first suggested their product was harmful.

579 said;
t was not me that said something about radio waves and tinnitus.
Bazz just made that up.

Rubbish again, in fact it was me that pointed that they are two different subjects.

579 said;
Interference from phone and radio towers can effect some cars electronic systems.

Correct for radio, TV towers etc but not very likely for phone towers
due to the much lower power levels (12 watts approx).
You may all have seen the sign at the Black Mountain in Canberra
warning about this problem in not being able to start or open your car,
This due to poor design of the fob key receivers in the cars.
TV transmitters, particularly UHF ones run about one megawatt power.
It varies and the power level is set to suit the service area.
By the way there are not thousands of dead people lying around these
towers and people have worked there from straight out of school to retirement.
So it cannot be that deadly.
There is a brigade of panic merchants that are always around.
You name it and it is either a conspiracy, or something only they and
their panic companions know about or both.
You now know why they wear tin foil hats !

It makes you consider their political common sense also.

Bazz: tooth filings, I have heard about that one also.

It was the 60's. All the fillings were Mercury Amalgam in those days. Geting a piece of aluminium foil from a chocolate wrapper stuck in your teeth was murder.

579: The most exposure to EMF are welders.

Welding? Bloody 'el I'll have ta get some tinfoil undapants, buggar the hat.