Dear Bazz,

I've really got not much else to further add on this
topic except for this link that I've just come across:

http://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/why-not-wireless/

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.

The copper wire system was designed solely for the purpose of carrying audio signals, over the last 30 or so years it has now been been cajoled into to carrying ever more data, with varying degrees of success. It is clear to me that we need to a system specially designed carry data, and that system is the NBN. In the end the coalition system will cost more when it has to be completely finished.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/programs/clarkeanddawe/

Lexi,

What I find irritating is that those spruiking the NBN continuously put out pointless information and comparisons.

While fiber is presently capable of vast speeds, the networks have to choke back those speeds to avoid congestion. The 1Gb/s present speeds would chew up a large 200GB monthly download limit in 20mins, and the 2Tb/s (which would require very expensive electronics) in 1 second.

Also while the wireless networks are limited to 1Gb/s per transmission point, hundreds of people can be connected at a peak capacity of 50Mb/s as this speed is only used for occasional bursts.

if more transmission points are built, you don't need towers, a small antennae at each street corner could service an entire suburb with no wires at all, giving NBN speeds with no fiber. My work has such a system, with cigarette size repeaters every 100m around the plant, and everyone connects at 54Mb/s.

With the fiber to the premises costing about $60bn alone, getting the backbone in place and using the copper for 50Mb/s sooner seems to this engineer to be the most sensible approach.

Warmair,

The telephone cables were NOT designed SOLELY for carrying audio signals. They were designed to carry electrical signals, for which at the time the prime purpose was audio. Internet cabling being rolled out today still closely resembles this with a few refinements, and comfortably gets 1Gb/s over short distances (which decreases with distance). The FTTN system reduces all these distances and greatly increases the data carrying capacity.

Glass fiber cabling is far more fragile, and very expensive to repair.

Lexi: "What does concern me though is - and I've seen it
many times in our society with various
projects - we take the cheaper option
thinking we will save money - when it ends up costing
us more in the long term."

But have you also noticed how many projects aim for the 'Rolls Royce' solution and end up falling apart after years of budget over-runs and scope creep? And what we are left with is a messed up behemoth that no-one knows how to fix and endless recriminations. And it still costs us more in the long run.

Which one is the NBN? Or is it that rare ambitious project that's gonna work out just fine?

Dear Graeme M.,

Of course trying anything new
involves taking
some considerable risks - but almost
every human advance is based on experiment,
innovation and adventure

....Dear Graeme M.,

Of course trying anything new
involves taking
some considerable risks - but almost
every human advance is based on experiment,
innovation and adventure

Yes Lexi, with exception to the last five years, as they have been built on missmanagement, incompetence and waste. Not to mention down right lies.

How anyone can even begin to think labor could do anything without stuffing it up defies belief.

We simp,y can't take the chance as their record over the past five years speaks volumes and raises countless red flags, for anyone who cares to see past the spin.