Peter,
Nothing lasts forever, so if the copper in your street reached the end of its useful life and needed to be replaced, would you want them to use copper or fiber?
The copper is our street is stuffed and suffers from lots of noise and so called 'Foreign battery' problem.
I'm hoping they lay the fiber in my street before the project gets canned.
James
The Communication Alliance guidelines call for NTU's (Network Termination Units)
installed in premises to have provision for battery backup interfaces. In practice,
it is similar to the existing use of backup batteries used with alarm systems and the
guidelines discuss that the optional backup source should have enough power to allow the
NTU to continue operating so it can support a telephone connected to it.
In some cases the NTU may provide enough power via its telephone connection
to operate the handset. However, as is the case at present with the existing network,
cordless telephones generally require their own external power supply and would not
be powered by the NTU but should be connected to their own UPS. The guidelines
also discuss that the backup source should be equipped with intelligent
internal diagnostics that provide alarm signals that can be monitored both
locally and remotely. Such alarms, for example, may be passed back to the
end user via an SMS or may action a third party maintenance procedure.
The exchanges will continue to have large banks of batteries as they currently do.
Hence I am srcatching my head wondering why the powers that be are trying to make it mandatory to have a fibre link to my house.
So they can install the telescreen later and Big Brother can supervise us all the better. *
The odd thing is that probably most of us work wirelessly at home and out and about. There are three laptops at my home all connected wirelessly. The data will fly down the optic fibre in a tsunami and then trickle out of my wireless router at the same speed I'm used to now. So the point to having a fibre is ... ?
The data will fly down the optic fibre in a tsunami and then trickle out of my wireless router at the same speed I'm used to now. So the point to having a fibre is ... ?
Our exponential tech growth will continue I would argue - and home devices will be produced to process speedier data flow. Which is the worse scenario for the future? Infrastructure that can cope with these new demands or copper which can't?
Doug
Our exponential tech growth will continue I would argue - and home devices will be produced to process speedier data flow. Which is the worse scenario for the future? Infrastructure that can cope with these new demands or copper which can't?
Doug
I personally find many aspects of Tech growth a pain in the proverbial.
Having recently had to migrate my Observatory PC to a Windoze 7 x64 I can say zero gain was had...and several days observing lost while I beat various apps into submission to work under the new OS.
Sure the new PC is faster, more memory etc. but the apps I run (in this analogy read: telephone calls I make) still get used at the same pace. I'd read that as a productivity loss.
Having to shovel $4300 of my taxes for this great productivity leap when I'm stuck in gridlock, have water restrictions, soaring energy costs...well you get the drift.
But Debb Does Dallas could be downloaded in 30 seconds. Wow.
Having to shovel $4300 of my taxes for this great productivity leap when I'm stuck in gridlock, have water restrictions, soaring energy costs...well you get the drift.
I'm beginning to wonder whether ISS chat is read by the Sydney Morning Hearald's news team: Business Day's Miochael Pascoe's comments below.
"It's not too late to take a breath. Commit now to rolling out fibre-to-the-node at full speed. That's a given. The full-blown Ferrari of internet, mega-fibre to the household, can be examined while it's happening. It might prove to be a worthwhile investment. Or not. As the saying almost goes, it's not rocket surgery"
I have to agree with Michael. If cooler heads prevail, we might have copper to the home for a little while yet
So they can install the telescreen later and Big Brother can supervise us all the better. *
The odd thing is that probably most of us work wirelessly at home and out and about. There are three laptops at my home all connected wirelessly. The data will fly down the optic fibre in a tsunami and then trickle out of my wireless router at the same speed I'm used to now. So the point to having a fibre is ... ?
Best,
Les D
* See George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four".
I only use wireless when I am away from the house out in the yard and for my Wii but I always use the network cable for my main computers because of the added speed in transfering files between computers it makes sense to use network cables where possible for the speed and wireless where this is not possible. And as for George's 1984 well just turn the camera to the wall like I do now if they can do it with the fibre they can do it on the copper already. Same with the mike turn it off or pull it out and they can't hear you.
Let's get some numbers here. Under ideal conditions i.e. in a lab with nice new twisted pair copper wire
ADSL has a maximum of 12 Mbps to 4.0 km
ADSL2 has a maximum of 24Mbps to 1.5 km
In reality these numbers are rarely attained.
My wireless router does 54Mbps and my network 100/1000 Mbps.
Below is a picture of my internet speed. I have BP cable. My suburb just happens to have both telstra and optus cables.
Only about a third of Australians can get ADSL2 let alone at its maximum speed.
Wireless just cannot cut it as it does not have the bandwidth. So fibre to the node is limited. It will be adequate in sparsely inhabited areas.
The fallacy I hear all the time is that future wireless development will beat FTTH. A single optical fibre can carry about a million times more bandwidth than wireless and does not suffer from interference. This is the laws of Physics at work not wishful thinking by technological illiterates.
The cost to the taxpayer is 26 billion dollars total not 43 billion dollars.
Did anyone do or call for a cost benefit analysis on negative gearing, private health insurance rebates or tax cuts for the well off. This lot would pay for the NBN many times over.
Bert
Are you saying you are happy or unhappy with the speed you get with your cable modem? Do you think it needs to be upgraded urgently to fiber?
James
Bert
Are you saying you are happy or unhappy with the speed you get with your cable modem? Do you think it needs to be upgraded urgently to fiber?
James
Don't know about Bert, but I'm quite happy with my BP cable speeds...typically 14mbs, hardly what is promised, but adequate.
Bert
Are you saying you are happy or unhappy with the speed you get with your cable modem? Do you think it needs to be upgraded urgently to fiber?
James
At the moment quite happy but faster is always better. I only put it up to show I was not selfish or biased and do not need FTTH, yet.
Where I used to work we had real high speed internet whose speed was limited by the ethernet connection to the computer.
The majority of Australians do not have these sort of speeds. One or two Mbps is about the best they can get for all sorts of reasons. At the moment Telstra's competitors pay a premium for access to the copper network. With the NBN it is a level playing field and competition will drive prices down.
I live & work in areas that have dodgy ADSL or none at all & have to deal with wireless or satellite, which is painful, for us the fibre cannot come quick enough. On top of that add all the business opportunities it opens up for us & our customers makes the cost of the fibre more than worth it.
We are actually part of the test network in Willunga, we will have access to the new network sometime in Feb/March.
To those who don't think its worth it, don't be so selfish, think of all the other who can benefit from it. Bring it on!!
