National Broadband Network

[Louwai (Bryan)]

I received this in an email. Anyone have any idea how true it may or may not be?????



I am a network architect for one of Australia’s largest Telco’s - so I speak with some authority on this issue.
Here are the technical reasons this will fail :

1) fibre optic cable has a maximum theoretical lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit. Over time, the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it cant do it`s bouncing of light thing any more. But when you install fibre outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia’s houses, except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic radiation.
The glass in this case will last no more than 15 years. So after 15 years, you will have to replace it. Whereas the copper network will last for many decades to come. Fibre is not the best technology for the last mile.
That`s why no other country has done this.

2) You can not give every house 100Mbps. If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet. In reality there is a thiung called contention. Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbpshas a contention ratio of around 20:1 (or more for some carriers). That means, you share that 20Mbps with 20 other people. It`s a long story why, but there will NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual bandwidth. Not for several decades at current carrier equipment rates of evolution. The “Core” can not and will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth.
The 100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the exchange. From there to the Internet, you will get the same speeds you get now. The “Core” of Australia’s network is already fibre (many times over). And even so, we still have high contention ratios. Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up. You will not get better download speeds.

3) New DSL technologies will emerge. 15 years ago we had 56k dial-up. Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+. There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now. $zero cost to the tax payer

4) 4G wireless is being standardised now. The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in Australia. There are problems with it, but remember that it was developed for voice. The 4G standard is specifically being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier). $zero cost to the tax payer

5) The “NBN” will be one of the largest single networks ever built on earth. There are only a few companies who could do it - Japan’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom etc. Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this scale. Yet we are led to believe that the same people who cant build school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to to do it ???

Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off !! Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2 complete, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces ! (shhhh don't tell anyone, it`s our secret)

[Ric]

I suppose time will tell Bryan.

This is a bit rich coming from the company who cant even supply me ADSL of any version.

I live 50 km from the centre of Canberra and I am on satelite broadband.

[tornado33]

Um, if fiber is that bad why is it used for major internet backbones between continents.

Then theres Telstras maga expensive Whoelsale rates. I got very luck with my ISP Internode. Telstra began making available ADSL2+ ports at my exchange available wholesale to other ISPs. Internode then began offering a ADSL2+ plan for those of us on Telstra ports, for $59/month/50gb up and down. They then had to withdraw it after finding out Telstras new wholesale rates are more expensive then first planned. Thus Internode no longer offer that plan, but those of us already on it can stay (whew!).

People just a few kms away cannot get ADSL of any kind, due to telstras slackness and the "i dont care" attitude to its customers.

The sooner the NBN rolls over telstra and consigns it to history the better. I will dance on its corporate grave!

By the way my ISP also said it will easily handle the extra bandwidth of the NBN, saying that ADSL2+ doesnt even stretch it to full capacity

Anyway thanks for posting that email, I dont think it came from telstra, but rather a Liberal party supporter. No surprise considering the Liberal Party still accepts donations from tobacco companies. Labor stopped that years ago! (a very close to the heart subject, as I type an Aunt of mine lies in the John Hunter Hospital, dying from lung cancer)

[multiweb (Marc)]

I can't comment on the life span of the optic fibres or the sharing of the bandwidth. The latter makes sense though. But the end of the email is pure BS. I know for a fact (I've seen it) that Telstra as already spent the money and the optic fibre infrastructure has been underground with any new development since 1995 so why would they possibly 'laugh and pick up the pieces'? They're sitting tight and waiting for the pay-check to cash in IMO.

[Louwai (Bryan)]

Yep I was thinking along the same lines.
I've also forwarded it to a good mate of mine who is in the mid to upper mgmt area. He may have some insight into it.....

[tornado33]

Regarding total bandwidth, it wont be the case that every fiber connected house in Australia would start downloading at max 100 mbit at the same time. Just as it wont be the case that every 10 and 15 amp power point in every house in Australia will be run at full load, or every tap in every house turned on full, so it is just not necessary to have such massive bandwidth as that email implies.

This shows just how long we have needed the NBN for, this is dated 2003 and talks of Gigabit over fiber

[Barrykgerdes]

Yes louwai

That email is so right. The trouble is that no one in government either side has any idea what internet speed is all about. Everyone seems to think that they will get 100Mb/s and be able to watch TV on line as well as instant downloads of video etc if a fibre optics/NBN is supplied.

If it ever gets off the ground the cost will be much more than the $40B dollars budget and it will not deliver anything even approaching the speeds contemplated due to the bandwidth available being only a small fraction of the amount required to service the number of connections required.

From a practical standpoint I have ADSL 2 and have a theoretical speed of around 20Mb/s or download speeds of 2MB/s. I actually get a maximum of 650KB/s and realise this on many downloads of data. But the sites that I usually visit actually download slower than they did 10 years ago on dial up. Many is the time I have had to wait a minute or more to get a connection to a popular site.

I have used Telstra Next G at Wiruna and can get the same speeds there as I get at home on ADSL2.

Barry

[Steffen]

Yes, this is pure FUD mixed with ignorance.

1) Railroad tracks have a life span of much less than 25 years. Imagine someone had brought this up as an argument against building railroads? All infrastructure needs to be maintained, fibre is no exception.

2) He brings up the valid issue of contention and then goes on to refute/ignore it. Of course we can't have everybody using 100Mbps all the time simultaneously. But we can give 100Mbps to everybody at different times for short periods of time (i.e. support typical Internet use). Motorways are built to allow driving at 110km/h, this doesn't mean everybody can be on the motorway at all times doing 110 all the time.

3) Tell that to people who are waiting for an 8Mbps ADSL service and can't get it.

4) Yes 4G is coming. And no, data was not an afterthought with 3G. The reason 3G was developed as successor to GPRS was to properly support data and decent bandwidths, in particular concurrent voice and data. Wireless networks have a short range though, something is going to be needed to connect the cells. Something like, say, a fibre backbone network.

5) So what? All government schemes are always going to be rorted by the private sector (incl Telstra). Should governments stop spending on infrastructure altogether in the light of this?

If they're laughing over at Telstra and waiting to pick up the pieces then they should be happy and content, and watch it unfold and falter. Why snipe against the project? It's not their money that's being spent. Afraid of competition much?

Cheers
Steffen.

[Kevnool (Kev)]

They have just installed the optic fibre from Broken hill to Mildura 300Klm,s.

I Don`t care the cable has been laid.

Thats gotta be service in the bush

Cheers Kev.

[CraigS]

The network core speed technologies will evolve and improve.
Traffic management in the distribution layer is required as an interim.
Traffic segregation, classification and marking will allow QoS at the edge/access.

Cheers

[NorthernLight (Max)]

This very Telstra-centric point of view doesn´t really reflect the reality.
Bryan, I am not sure how much you know about current node capabilities and if you have seen the latest specks of Juniper equipment but the actual specs from the original NBN tender demanded 100MBit to 90% of all households in Australia, so why would the government make specs that aren´t achievable (that Telstra can´t is clear).
And BTW: the NBN is Tasmania is almost up and running.
Germany went with fibre from 1990 onwards and there is nothing wrong with the connections so far and I haven´t heard anything about a necessary makeover. BTW: i Germany you get as standard a 16Mbit line+Telefon+unlimited calls+unlimited downloads at full speed for the equivalent of $60 per month (Deutsche Telekom). And in Finland it is part of the human rights to have at 1Mbit internet connection at home. The NBN will be a project one of its kind like the Trans-Siberian-Railway and will employ thousands of people and will on top that offer new market opportunities not only for new providers but for applications that were just not possible so far. The evolution needs to continue with Telstra or without. In my oppinion it was the biggest mistake ever to privatise the Telco network in the first place. The NBN is the chance to not only reverse it but to start with a state of the art network that other countries will certailny adopt and hence move the web to a higher stage (maybe 3.0?).
Even New Zealand is building a similar network over the next 6 years.
But don´t worry, mate. As a network tech you shouldn´t have issues coming onboard a new Telco company.

[Benno85 (Ben)]

From my very limited knowledge of fibre optics (I work for a large power and communication cable manufacturer), there isn't even a standard for 100mbps as yet, it's all theoretical at this stage and still under development.

As for cable degradation, OPGW (overhead cable) can last for a minimum of 15 years, the cables are designed to average annual conditions such as UV exposure, min. and max. temperature, average ice loading (frost, snow etc.) and average windspeeds to name a few. These cables have extruded aluminium shields and are quite robust.

My 2 cents

[cybereye (Mario)]

Originally Posted by Louwai

I received this in an email. Anyone have any idea how true it may or may not be?????

I think Bryan was just asking people's thoughts on an email that he'd received and not actually pushing a political agenda.

Cheers,
Mario

PS I can't wait for the NBN because I'm sick of the dodgy 3G internet access I'm tied into!!

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by cybereye

I think Bryan was just asking people's thoughts on an email that he'd received and not actually pushing a political agenda.

Cheers,
Mario

PS I can't wait for the NBN because I'm sick of the dodgy 3G internet access I'm tied into!!

Thanks Mario.
Apologies Bryan .. my mistake.

Cheers

[sejanus (Gavin)]

I used to be a network engineer at the big telco's

Yeah sure there is contention ratios but in reality we generally try to over provision the backbone, i.e. if contention ratios were really causing a bottleneck then I wouldn't be able to consistently and easily peak my adsl2 line. Whenever we saw the traffic graphs on the backbone start to get anywhere near 80%, we'd upgrade them. We would never let the links run at 100%.

The shelf life of fibre optics I hadn't heard so I asked someone who repairs the stuff. He said theoretically 25-30 years on paper but in reality it'll generally last longer - as mentioned above, it needs to be maintained like train tracks - a great analogy.

What the guy is missing completely in his email is that the NBN network is not being built for now, or even the next 5/8/10 years - it is deliberately being over provisioned for future proofing - say 25-30 years from now! It is smart to get the biggest bandwidth possible to houses - it's a heck of a lot easier to upgrade core network backbones than to replace the cables going to every house in the country.

There is stuff coming on the internet in 15-25 years that we can't even imagine yet - but one thing can be guaranteed - it will need low latency bandwidth in high amounts.

[AdrianF (Adrian)]

Have a look at www.cairnsblog.net/2010/08/why-labors-national-broadband-plan-will.html for the full story.

Adrian

[mldee (Mike)]

Please don't think of the NBN as "high speed internet".

It's a nationwide, ubiquitous, wholesale-only, open-access broadband utility that will be of tremendous value to all citizens in the coming decades, connecting and empowering all with the existing and yet-to-be -invented services that it can accommodate, to even the remotest premise, whether home or business.

It's cost is spread over 8 years and, with the Telstra agreement, will be revenue positive in around 5 years. It's not a waste of money.

I'm retired, 50 years in telecoms, and that email is just plain wrong.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Bring it on it will be the best thing since the Snowy River project and I am sure there were people back then that said we couldn't afford it.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Most of the story is true but a little biased. Fibre comes in different forms and has varying lifespans. If it take on consumer grade which I expect it will do then the lifespan is fairly accurate.

Speed well the more obvious concern with the NBN report is Fibre run at maximum data rate level so unless they are going to run millions of fibre connection one to each home the sync speed might be 100Mbs but the combine speed when multiplied over the number of houses the speed restriction would be the same as what we experience with ADSL 2+. Also depends on the main fibre link from the junction to the exchange. I cant imagine they would install one fibre link to each house.

There would be no real benefit to increasing the speed with the exception of upload speed which fibre can do. I had the pleasure of running Annex M Adsl 2+ which gave me an increased upload speed from 1Mbs to 3Mbs. That alone allowed me the ability to run 10 concurrent VoIP telephone calls easily. This is more than enough for anyone. All internet traffic except voice and video require th same upload and download speed to operate. This is really what they need to work on and to cover remote and RIM areas first before anyone else.

The issue of 4G though is the same as fibre. With data radio the more connection the lower the signal strength becomes. They can only trasnmit the signal to a certain level before going no further. So the more connection the less the speed. Again like all sales people (Government) they take maximum theoretical levels to acheive the best sales pitch and for most people they love to hear these high figures. Lets face it though if you advertise the full story in detail most people wouldn't go for it and the government would lose on that issue.

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

My 2c, it is the biggest suck of goverment money. I would rather see a roads, rail and water for my $50B

Germany can do it, because they have 81M people in 357,000 sq km. NSW has 7M in 800,000 sq km.

The goverment has already stated once it is built they are going to sell it. So where are we different to where we are with Telstra.

The previous governments OPEL initiative was probably closer to what is required, subsidies and initiatives for remote area communications.

Of the 22M people in Australia, who is going to buy it?

There are people without houses, without food, with medical care, but we will give every person a $3000 fibre connection with their weetbix.

Our goverment will be in surplus in 3 years, that just means that is when we can only start paying back the debt we have accummulated in the last 3 years. AND the NBN is not part of that debt, it is another $50B+ on top.