Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Aussie National Broadband Network Will Be Gigabit

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the and-with-filtering-much-less-clogged dept.

Australia 258

schmidty-au writes "NBN Co, the Australian Government company established to build Australia's national fibre-optic broadband network, announced today that, instead of the previously announced 100 Mbps network, it will provide 1 Gbps, within the existing AU$43 billion budget. Meanwhile, the Australian opposition, which has announced that it will scrap the network if it wins the 21 August election, and instead provide incentives to the private sector to improve the existing copper network, and to install wireless broadband (with promised peak speeds of 12 Mbps), does not understand or believe that this would be possible. The man who wants to be Australia's next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said today 'This idea that "hey presto" we are suddenly going to get 10 times the speed from something that isn't even built yet I find utterly implausible.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

implausible? it's magic! (5, Funny)

kernkopje (414100) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236646)

The man who wants to be Australia's next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said today 'This idea that "hey presto" we are suddenly going to get 10 times the speed from something that isn't even built yet I find utterly implausible.'" "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

Re:implausible? it's magic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236664)

Plus, by the time it gets rolled out, South Korea will have 10 gig fibre to the home. So, gigabit isn't that unrealistic.

The problem I have is that I don't know which side to trust. It's another case of the wrong lizard; it feels like it's just a matter of how comfy the handbasket is, and how well entertained we will be during the ride.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237004)

If Abbott gets in NORTH Korea will have 10 gig fibre to the home before we get 10Mb.
Remember he's the guy that recently said we should trust him because we caught him out in a lie, so by some twisted logic the other side must be better liars and untrustworthy. He's still very much the same man he was before and we should judge him on the mess he made of health care with the STUPID policy of reducing doctor training numbers and taking up the slack with doctors from the third world. His actions there are a good example as to how dumbed down high school economics kills people when applied to the real world.
Enough ranting, just the guy is so fake he even pretends that getting thrown out of a seminary for sexual misconduct makes him pious. So what, Stalin didn't get thrown out and nobody would call him pious.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (4, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236674)

Hey... you know, I could have said that about Tony Abbott.

This idea that "hey presto" we are suddenly going to get an improved economy, less waste and an excellent immigration policy from someone we haven't elected yet I find utterly implausible [theage.com.au] .

Re:implausible? it's magic! (5, Insightful)

vidnet (580068) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236704)

to get 10 times the speed from something that isn't even built yet

Well, it's much easier to upgrade a design plan than an existing infrastructure.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (1)

deetoy (1576145) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236880)

"it's much easier to upgrade a design plan"
a design plan that hasn't been proven to be costed properly.
Lets not forget Abbott isn't proposing to do away with fibre. He is arguing private enterprise be given a fair go to expand their networks. The monopoly that started as a government owned telecoms we now call Telstra has proven to be an inefficient business model. The difference between the two proposals has been railroaded by each promising speeds that more than will not satisfy everybody.
Last time I looked giving people freedom to choose which business supplier they wanted prompted multiple businesses to offer competing products and let the average consumer choose their preferred product. All other factors equal this has worked well. The missing debate issue is net neutrality.
Tony is offering us a free market choice. Julia is telling us she will use taxpayers dollars to build a superhighway where her faceless minders say so, plus censor what we are allowed to see.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (3, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236984)

We gave Telstra a decade and all they did was stall adsl2, milk the international interconnects, keep exchanges difficult to access, charge use up and down by the mb and muddy any NBN press.
The idea that "private enterprise" will save us is cute but reality shows they kept the rust belt warm, rolling out the min of new tech for the max price.
Tony is offering Australia more of the worst of a US Bell system.
Julia is offering a faster internal network with faith based filtering, and Bell international interconnect pricing.
"multiple businesses" will never get a look in on any Telstra property other than increasing long term rental deals, something that has kept Australian in a digital dark ages for years.
That is what made the NBN (without faith based filtering) such a good idea, making a Bell just another big telco.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (1)

Chuq (8564) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237102)

I was about to write a lengthy reply to deetoy's inaccuracies, but you saved me the effort!

One thing to add.. "Tony is offering us a free market choice".. no, Tony is offering $6b to go to "private sector" which basically means Telstra, a combined wholesaler and retailer. The NBN is a government owned wholesale-only business who already has 4 retailers signed up - all of whom are offering FTTH plans at faster speeds and similar price to ADSL2 plans.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33237060)

In theory, a state monopoly can be more efficient since they don't have the overhead that multiple competing smaller companies have.

In theory, private companies do a better job since competition puts more pressure on doing things efficiently.

In practise, both are ruined by greedy bastards looking out for #1. Arguing which is the lesser evil seems pointless to me. Toss a coin and focus on effective monitoring/oversight/regulation to keep people honest, instead. That's the best way to get better service.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236892)

"to get 10 times the speed from something that isn't even built yet"

The 1GB is from the first deployment - so it's not a "maybe we can do 1Gb" - it's "we rolled it out, and BTW it's 1GB".

(Costs are now pretty much the same for 100Mb and 1G hardware)

Re:implausible? it's magic! (4, Insightful)

sjwt (161428) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236716)

Lets put this in its propper context..

From the second linked artical [theage.com.au]
"It's very hard to take seriously a government which suddenly pulls yet another technological rabbit out of a hat just because it's under enormous pressure in the closing stages of an election campaign," the Liberal leader told reporters in western Sydney.

"This idea that 'hey presto' we are suddenly going to get 10 times the speed from something that isn't even built yet I find utterly implausible."

Re:implausible? it's magic! (4, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236976)

It seems he's only calling the leap from 100Mbps to 1Gbps implausible, rather than the plan to lay the 100Mbps infrastructure. I don't know what the cost differences are between 100Mbps and 1Gbps but I would have thought they'd be negligible compared to the cost of putting any infrastructure in place.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237032)

Pretty much. Although A$43b isn't a bad deal to fibre up the country.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237112)

There's nothing magical about this.

The fibre was always going to be capable of Gigabit, and beyond. And pretty much any off-the-shelf network hardware will handle gigabit.
To achieve 100mb in the first place they probably would have had to artificially limit the speed.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (1)

Jimbookis (517778) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237128)

Hardly implausible, Tony. You're not a techhead, you're not an economist and you certainly aren't Prime Minister material. I'd vote Liberal if Mal' was leader of the opposition but Tony is the Gimp without a mask on. BTW, Billion already have a GPON [billion.com] home router ready to go on the new upgraded NBN.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237194)

Actually... he graduated from Sydney University with a Bachelor of Economics (BEc) and a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) and graduated as an Oxford Rhodes Scholar with a Master of Arts (MA) in Politics and Philosophy.

I don't like him, and I don't feel he'd be great for the economy - certainly I won't be voting for him! - but you can't say he doesn't have a background in Economics. Now if he would actually use that background, that would be great, but he's too busy running cynical political lines like "we'll stop the boats!" to actually do the right thing for Australia.

Which of course means I don't trust him, and to be honest, neither should anyone else. Sad really. But he has a background in Economics.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (2, Interesting)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237130)

You know, just one network engineer's opinion :

While I agree that the price difference between 100 mbit and gigabit (both require a fiber network) is small, there is no way to build a nationwide network for a small US state for that budget. This network is not going to get built, no matter who gets elected. A national fiber network for australia with connections to even 10% of houses ... I seriously doubt it could be done with hundred times that budget.

This is ignoring the obvious fact that the current international internet infrastructure most certainly cannot take a network with even a few million australians connected at 100 mbit, even if they only use 1% of their connection. Total international bandwidth available in Australia is about 1 terabit (theoretical peak capacity for currently deployed infrastructure - not actually operational connectivity, and brining the full capacity online won't be cheap at all). About 8 million Australians have internet service (and that this bill claims to double that), so that's 1 terabit / 16 million = 32 kbit per australian. You're just not going to get above that level. Consider that due to the previous round of government interference, there's barely anything hosted in Australia so to get at anything interesting they're going to need international bandwidth.

It's just a false campaign promise. Money thrown at a black hole.

And frankly people who let their votes be decided by "we'll give you more free stuff" deserve exactly what they'll get.

Re:implausible? it's magic! (4, Funny)

redemtionboy (890616) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237166)

Honestly it's just too much speed for Australia to handle. How can you expect the government to be able to censor these high speeds properly. We must protect our citizens from themselves!

Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236650)

Uncensored internet, or fast internet.

Tough choice. I think I'll go with the Greens - no idiotic net filter, but still a national fibre network.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236682)

Yeah, and guess who you actually vote for if you vote Greens thanks to Preferences?

Re:Hmm... (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236706)

In the Senate, you can choose where the preferences go. Just vote below the line. There'd be no guessing then!

If you don't vote below the line, then you will basically find that the major parties watch huge swings in preferences to them, and start getting worried. If the Greens win seats for a number of Senators, then they'll have to deal with them though. I'd say take the risk: it's worth it, as the "risk" is low.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236828)

this is not a realistic possibility. the senate voting form in NSW has 84 candidates each of which must be numbered in order without mistakes. There are 84! ways of figuring out all the different combinations, and this is far too costly on the part of the voter. We end up just voting by the blocks of parties anyway.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Matt_R (23461) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236876)

so go to http://www.belowtheline.org.au/ [belowtheline.org.au] and sort out who you're going to vote for. Print out the PDF and take it with you on voting day.

Re:Hmm... (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236936)

Not to mention that it's not going to be seriously a factorial to work this out. If you can work out who you want to vote for in the top 15-20 spots, and the ones you dislike the most (c'mon, I'm sure that the Communist Party, or the Christian Democratic Party must be at the bottom of a lot of people's list!) you put at right down the bottom, the rest you can just number in any way you like.

And if you can work out the top 15-20, then that's not even 20!, because you'll probably know what order to put it in. And interestingly, you have... "how to vote" suggestions to look at - who knows, they might be useful.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236878)

Senate is the green ballot where you fill in all your preferences. The lower house is the big white ballot with the line.

Re:Hmm... (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236954)

True. But the Senate, as the house of review, is really where it all happens. Not to mention they have rotating 8 year terms.

Re:Hmm... (2, Informative)

Pento (115091) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236708)

If you don't want your preferences going to Labor, vote below the line.

Greens are currently on course to hold the balance of power in the senate. They've said many times that they're for the NBN, but they will block any attempt to implement the net filter.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236750)

Voting Green means they're likely to get balance in the upper house = NO FILTER!

Re:Hmm... (1)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236804)

No voting Green means finding their backroom deal includes trading a huge Emmisions Tax (what the greens want) for a internet filter (what labour wants)

Somebody Tell Tony Abbott about Moore's Law (4, Insightful)

divide overflow (599608) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236654)

The man who wants to be Australia's next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said today 'This idea that "hey presto" we are suddenly going to get 10 times the speed from something that isn't even built yet I find utterly implausible.'"

Yeah, and computers will never get faster, cheaper or smaller. What a tool.

Re:Somebody Tell Tony Abbott about Moore's Law (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236754)

Yeah, and computers will never get faster, cheaper or smaller. What a tool.

Consider that the average consumer doesn't actually see the progression of computer speed and he may look slightly less tool like.

If all you do is use word, browse the web, check email etc, your computer has likely stayed the same effective speed for the past 15 years... The progression of things getting prettier/more complex/more intelligent is so gentle that most people don't ever notice.

Re:Somebody Tell Tony Abbott about Moore's Law (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237232)

Uh what?

All you have to do is grab a game which came out 15 years ago - lets say Doom 2 (which came out 17 years ago), and a game which came out lately - take your pick and compare the graphics. Or compare the (non-existant) physics with the physics of some modern FPS.

Even if you ARE an 'average' consumer who just browses the web (those people exist?) - I'm pretty sure that even flash games have greatly improved.

Re:Somebody Tell Tony Abbott about Moore's Law (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236760)

He doesn't need to speak the truth, just to convince the masses. For the masses, a reasoning like "OMG WTF! 10x is UNPOSSIBLE! BBQ!" does work.

And now the extra piece of my mind that will get me flamed, as always:

There's no point in you voting. Your vote won't change anything. Voting is not the way of having an effect in a democratic system.

And now the bad analogy: To found a new religion you start by convincing other people a new god exists, not by convincing yourself and praying to it.

Re:Somebody Tell Tony Abbott about Moore's Law (5, Insightful)

bertok (226922) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236762)

The man who wants to be Australia's next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said today 'This idea that "hey presto" we are suddenly going to get 10 times the speed from something that isn't even built yet I find utterly implausible.'"

Yeah, and computers will never get faster, cheaper or smaller. What a tool.

It's a particularly stupid statement since the technology selected for the NBN was designed to scale to 1Gbps with only a simple upgrade. Fibre is insanely high-bandwidth, the limitation is mostly around the cost of the transponders and the core network routers, which have to handle huge aggregate speeds. Speeds of 100Mbps are doable now, many Asian countries have already deployed networks that fast, so given the equivalent of Moore's law for networking, I'm not surprised they've changed their targeted initial speed to 1Gbps.

Re:Somebody Tell Tony Abbott about Moore's Law (5, Informative)

loki_tiwaz (982852) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236950)

i don't know how it wasn't obvious it could go to gigabit with very little tinkering. it's OPTICAL right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication#Bandwidth-distance_product [wikipedia.org]

Through a combination of advances in dispersion management, wavelength-division multiplexing, and optical amplifiers, modern-day optical fibers can carry information at around 14 Terabits per second over 160 kilometers of fiber [4]. Engineers are always looking at current limitations in order to improve fiber-optic communication, and several of these restrictions are currently being researched

14 terabits over 160km? does tony abbot's advisors do any research? presently, we have a copper network that can manage at best 24mbit at a max distance of 4km, at best. the NBN is an *optical* network, and is likely to be dispersed at network segments of less than 100km per run. lol. do i really need to point out the stupidity of saying it can't be gigabit? do i also need to point out the stupidity of saying a 100mbit network is not gonna be a piece of cake to roll out with optical in australian metro areas? what a retard.

anyway, i'm voting for the sex party. you can bet they are all on for the NBN. super HD pr0n here we come :)

Re:Somebody Tell Tony Abbott about Moore's Law (1)

fezzzz (1774514) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237208)

The problem is getting a fiber in the ground in the first place. Ensure that it is easily upgrade-able and bob's your uncle. Copper sucks against fiber in the long run.

Re:Somebody Tell Tony Abbott about Moore's Law (4, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236812)

No, he won't understand: according to him, he's not Bill Gates [zdnet.com.au]

Re:Somebody Tell Tony Abbott about Moore's Law (1)

eugene259 (871089) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236946)

Down here in Oz we are already way down the list in terms of speeds, uptake and prices... If Libs and Abott get in power and scrap NBN (they are good at selling public assets off, they have had plenty of practice), we are definitely consigned to being an internet banana republic...

I don't think aussies want to fork up that much... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236656)

$43bn for speeds faster than what the internet naturally provides... There isn't a need for gigabit connections when the average pipeline of a website is less than a megabit. I suppose if you want to watch 75 HD porn videos at a time, now you'd get the chance

Re:I don't think aussies want to fork up that much (5, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236764)

$43bn for speeds faster than what the internet naturally provides... There isn't a need for gigabit connections when the average pipeline of a website is less than a megabit. I suppose if you want to watch 75 HD porn videos at a time, now you'd get the chance

You're right, instead of spending $43bn on gigabit network now, we should spend $30bn on 1Mb now, then $30bn in 3 years on 5Mb, then $30bn in 6 years on 10Mb, then $30bn in 10 years on 100Mb, then...

Re:I don't think aussies want to fork up that much (1)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236948)

The problem is the $43B when its not an urgent expense now and will still not make that much of a difference to real speeds. 70% of internet traffic in australia comes from overseas through what is essentially small pipes. Additionally the pace of technology change is such that wireless is a more desirable solution for consumers already. And from someone who has watched technology for at least 30 years, Get your upgrade when you absolutely need it as technology only gets Cheaper, Faster, Better.

As a point of interest in my Sydney home I've had a optical fibre line ready to run since 1985, we found it when we added extra lines in 1995 (only needs final installation and connection) to date the only reason I haven't done this is the cost and charges quoted by Telstra (51% government owned formerly 100%) are ridiculous. Anyone who believes after we pay $43B for Gigabit fibre it will free or even cheap is smoking the funny stuff

Re:I don't think aussies want to fork up that much (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236796)

$43bn for speeds faster than what the internet naturally provides... There isn't a need for gigabit connections when the average pipeline of a website is less than a megabit. I suppose if you want to watch 75 HD porn videos at a time, now you'd get the chance

Are you trying to say that "1Mb should be enough for anybody."?

Re:I don't think aussies want to fork up that much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33237096)

What's the point in a Gbps line when your living in a country that only lets you use your connection to view Facebook?

Re:I don't think aussies want to fork up that much (3, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236996)

Considering we've gone from, what, 14.4k to approaching Gb speeds in the space of less than 20 years? I don't think it's unreasonable to build in some future redundancy - after all, the majority of the cost is going to be physically putting the cable in place, the cost to increase the capacity of said cable is likely to be close to incidental.

I think fibre to the home is insane (4, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236658)

Reorganise your spectrum so that you can deliver a gigabit per second over cellular protocols. Roll displaced services into cellular data. By all means pull fibre into the street, but then deploy microcells in high demand areas. The last step is always wireless anyway. In the future people won't install their own wifi if they can get a good service from a telco.

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (1)

Gazoogleheimer (1466831) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236726)

The cost of what you propose is not only significantly higher than rolling out fiber as planned but is also partially infeasible scientifically. There are several very good reasons why spectrum hasn't been goofed with to even try to approach speeds like that (partially because such speeds either require some spectrum for almost no range or gigantic piles of spectrum for meager range). Fiber-to-the-home is practical once the models are tweaked around a bit (have all services delivered over fiber--a fiber switch itself, when in proper quantity, is not all that much more expensive than a copper switch when it means you're replacing your entire telecom infrastructure.)

Finally, I'd like to point out that wireless isn't always the solution, even though that's a popular position here. There is finite spectrum. Wireless transmission is electrically inefficient compared to wired (or optical) transmission. There is no reason to use wireless for stationary devices when they are nonremote.

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236786)

The things is, I don't think there will be many stationary devices in the home and office environment of the future. The intelligent dishwasher which Abbot was talking about won't have a phone or data cable going to it. It will have a cheap cellular modem. Yeah, spectrum is finite, but we make such poor use of it now, and the wireless step only has to go from the street to inside the building.

In the future I think many small businesses will use telco data services. They won't install their own networking gear.

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236862)

The things is, I don't think there will be many stationary devices in the home and office environment of the future.

In the future I think many small businesses will use telco data services. They won't install their own networking gear.

Think again. I don't pretend to be representative, but I'm operating 6 computers at home.

The intelligent dishwasher which Abbot was talking about won't have a phone or data cable going to it. It will have a cheap cellular modem. Yeah, spectrum is finite, but we make such poor use of it now, and the wireless step only has to go from the street to inside the building.

It will be like sending a fax using telco's terminal (but installed in your home)?

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33237118)

But here's the thing. Wireless within the home - on a small scale - is doable, because you can organise things to minimise disruption to other services; you can allocate small chunks of spectrum to each home in such a way that there's no overlap in the local area; over the wider area, one chunk of spectrum is used by multiple homes.

On a larger scale, you can't do this - either you have a hell of a lot of transmission/reception equipment to cover relatively small areas (hideously expensive), or you accept a much slower speed.

Wireless is an end point technology, not a point-to-point technology in the way that fibre is. If it were, why would telcos be connecting their cellular towers with fibre?

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236734)

If you knew how unreliable wireless is, you would not think that is a good idea. What you are proposing is a way back to hub-networks when everyone shared capacity. Not to mention the huge cost to the telcos deploying all that equipment.

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236800)

Before NBN Telstra Smart Communities: as I live in one, I can tell you that the insanity feeels soooo goooood (phone, public TV and Internet on a single cable). I can't wait the NBN roll-out, though, will sure drive Telstra to lower the prices.

The last step is always wireless anyway

No, not in my case. Home with structural cabling - data socket in each room. Yes, I do have a WiFi router, but only my laptop connects to it (rationale: when it comes to transfer files in my LAN, 1Gbps over CAT6 sure beats 50-120 Mbps - at peak - over WiFi).

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (1)

Matt_R (23461) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236882)

Reorganise your spectrum so that you can deliver a gigabit per second over cellular protocols.

No chance of that happening - as it is we've got people bitching about cell towers [smh.com.au] .

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236920)

Reorganise your spectrum so that you can deliver a gigabit per second over cellular protocols.

No chance of that happening - as it is we've got people bitching about cell towers [smh.com.au] .

A cellular base station can be as small as the router hanging from the optus cable outside my house. There are plenty attached to traffic signal poles in the Melbourne CBD. Big, long range base stations are definitely on the way out in the city.

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237090)

Sorry folks, but "insane" is expecting "wireless" (of any sort) to be able to compete over the long term against fibre.

For a start, keep in mind that without fibre, all those "wireless" comms are going to hit a base station/cell-tower and go literally NOWHERE.

Secondly, "wireless" is a shared-medium, you're limited by available spectrum as well as real-world (ie practical) simultaneous-use limits (eg # channels supported in each cell tower).

Wireless is *ideal* for low-density/long-distance coverage technologies, and *practically useless* (by comparison) for any real-world high-density inner-city deployment.

We're *already* , TODAY seeing issues with the number of *purely mobile* users on cellular/wireless networks, imagine HOW MUCH WORSE that would be if *every* "fixed" internet connection today was also trying to use that same (magical) wireless access technology.

Re:I think fibre to the home is insane (0, Flamebait)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237160)

But all those people with fibre into their homes are going to try to distribute their data around the house with wifi anyway, and then you still have bandwidth (channel space) issues. Its more efficient to use the available spectrum for a protocol which can share channel space between adjacent buildings, and for me that means using a cellular network.

Backbone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236668)

What they intend to lay is FTTH. This can theoretically support gigabit speeds (and higher). In practice though it won't be that high as backbone speeds will not be able to support this.

Re:Backbone (1)

Jens de Smit (1041964) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236744)

Do not underestimate the capacity of DWDM backbones. Also, realize that this gigabit speed is peak capacity, users will scarcely use this capacity for extended periods of time. I also expect that subscriptions will be differentiated with the 1G subscription being more expensive than less demanding plans. 100Mbps will be plenty for most users, but it would be great if customers with higher demands willing to pay the price could get a higher speed.

Re:Backbone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236752)

What about international links? Majority of content is outside of Australia, that's a bottleneck if I ever saw one.

Re:Backbone (1)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236824)

No reason why Akamai, YouTube and Google can't have local caches.

In fact they would be friggin' crazy not to.

And Hulu etc apparently don't find the Australian market worth bothering with, anyway.

Re:Backbone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236846)

Because Akamai, YouTube, Google and Hulu are the only places people visit on the internet...

Re:Backbone (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237068)

Akamai isn't everything, but it's certainly a serious chunk of content.

Re:Backbone (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237110)

No reason why Akamai, YouTube and Google can't have local caches.

Akamai puts caches pretty much close to *everywhere*, even in Down Under Land.

I personally dunno to what extent Google and YouTube park infrastructure of any sort Down Below.

Re:Backbone (1)

Jens de Smit (1041964) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236834)

International links are a bottleneck everywhere, which is why people have devised clever ways around them. Seriously popular content is cached by transparent proxies or Content Delivery Networks such as Akamai which reside inside your high-speed network. Also, having a national high-speed network in a country with plenty of space will be very attractive to tech investors to actually move their data to Australia, bringing the data to you instead of having to pull it in from abroad.

Re:Backbone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236944)

Have you seen the costs of having ICT assets in Australia? It's upwards of 3x more expensive. It's extremely uncompetitive compared to the US or anywhere else in the world. Plus, what's the difference to the consumer if it's proper-24 or 10000 MBps if they're going to hit these bottlenecks.

1gig of censored internet (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236670)

No thanks.

Ain Low Oz, Aim Low! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236690)

The man who wants to be Australia's next Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, said today 'This idea that "hey presto" we are suddenly going to get 10 times the speed from something that isn't even built yet I find utterly implausible.'

Abbott then went on to say "And there ain't nobody never going to be able to put a monkey into space, much less a man on the moon!"

Ahh, regressive cro-magnon morons that would pretend to lead us. We've got one pretending to run Canada right now and I could fucking scream. It's 1910 all over again (only the government's thinking is not as modern).

That's why you use fiber (2, Informative)

Jens de Smit (1041964) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236696)

Tony Abbott apparently doesn't understand a thing about modern networking. Today's optic fibers can support frightening data rates, the limiting factor currenly is what the hardware on both sides is capable of. With the speeds of the high end of the market recently increasing to 40G and 100G (from 1G and 10G) per channel I would not be surprised if that jump suddenly made 1G FTTH possible. Investing in copper technology now is outrageous and a waste of money. Utilizing it for the last mile while you're not done rolling out fiber to each premise is acceptable at best. Wireless broadband might be acceptable for remote locations but even those base stations need a good fiber connection for their uplink.

Re:That's why you use fiber (1)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236784)

Tony Abbott apparently doesn't understand a thing about modern networking

ahh, if it were only modern networking mr. Abbott didnt understand - the reality is that he, like his hero predecessor mr. Howard, and his predecessor's hero mr. Menzies, simply dont understand a world past about 1955.

 

Australia's Current Networks (1)

qazadex (1378043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236698)

Hopefully we do get the 1 Gbps internet. It was a good move, considering the fact that in 2018 100 mbps will be seen as sluggish compared to the world. Anything would be better than what we currently have though. Most people in the cities have around 2mbps, and the highest you can get (at a large premium) is around 30 mpbs. Plus the fact we have download caps of around 5-20 gigabytes on average, Australia's internet is horrible and in good need for a rehaul.

Sex Party (5, Interesting)

duk242 (1412949) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236720)

There's always the Sex Party, they've got decent enough policies, no internet filtering, no internet spying, R Rating for games... What more could you want? http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/policies [sexparty.org.au]

Re:Sex Party (2, Informative)

qazadex (1378043) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236732)

Why is Slashdot so pro Sex Party and not greens? They have around 15% of the primary vote, compared to the 1% or so of the Sex Party, and have very similar, left leaning policies. http://greens.org.au/policies [greens.org.au]

Re:Sex Party (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236742)

Why is Slashdot so pro Sex Party and not greens? They have around 15% of the primary vote, compared to the 1% or so of the Sex Party, and have very similar, left leaning policies.

http://greens.org.au/policies [greens.org.au]

Probably because its funny. The greens are pretty mundane sounding by comparison. In the senate I am going to put both ahead of labour and the libs.

Re:Sex Party (1)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236826)

Victorians: Vote [61] Stephen Conroy

please - consider that the internet filter shenanigans has been an elaborate charade to woo that nufty 'family first' senator steven fielding, and as soon as he's gone, labor can drop the charade entirely.

in that regard, if you must vote below the line, reserve the last couple o spots for family first.

( oh, and given there are 60 candidates for the senate in victoria, a 61 for anyone will render your vote null and void...)

Re:Sex Party (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236910)

Victorians: Vote [61] Stephen Conroy

please - consider that the internet filter shenanigans has been an elaborate charade to woo that nufty 'family first' senator steven fielding, and as soon as he's gone, labor can drop the charade entirely.

in that regard, if you must vote below the line, reserve the last couple o spots for family first.

( oh, and given there are 60 candidates for the senate in victoria, a 61 for anyone will render your vote null and void...)

Believe me, Family First are going down too. I downloaded the CSV file for the senate in victoria and counted lines. Maybe I got it wrong. I will check. Thanks.

Re:Sex Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33237038)

Do you seriously think that the ALP (or the Libs for that matter) will back down on internet censorship? The shitstorm that would result would be all encompassing. It doesn't matter whether it works or not, it just matters that the government is seen to be responding to calls that "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?"

Same goes for R18+ rating for videogames.

Re:Sex Party (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237142)

I would be happy if the greens (+ sex party, say) have the balance of power in the senate, which might keep internet censorship off the table.

Re:Sex Party (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237212)

I agree, I have been saying that the whole thing is a "Yes Minister" episode since the first Conroy story appeared on slashdot. However I don't think Liberal and Labor will stop playing the game (that started with Howard in the late 90's) and if the libs get in then you will see them swap roles (again). It's simply a ruse by the two majors to keep nutjob independents chasing their own tail, neither party are serious about mandatory filters even though BOTH SIDES have put forward legislation advocating it, BOTH SIDES have also blocked those bills.

I wouldn't worry about Fielding, his nickname is "Mr 2%" due to the fact he only got 2% of the primary vote, he won his seat because both the majors directed their preferences to him so as to keep the greens candidate out. He hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of being re-elected since labour have cut a preference deal with the Greens that will most likely give them the balance of power in the senate and will definitely leave Fielding out of a job.

Re:Sex Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236758)

http://www.notfortherealworld.com.au/ [notforther...rld.com.au]

Re:Sex Party (1)

duk242 (1412949) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236770)

1. They're hilarious! 2. Their Policies page doesn't have a tl;dr section (seriously, it's a trillion pages long) The Sex Party states their aims really simply, they say R Rating for games, No Internet Filtering/Spying. Perfect. That being said, I'm voting greens after the sex party. Getting sick of both the Liberal and Labor governments :(

Re:Sex Party (1)

vlad30 (44644) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237132)

How about the liberal democrats

Re:Sex Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236962)

the greens preferences are going towards labor, which means that at the end of the day, a vote for the greens is still a vote for censorship, tracking and oppression of the population.

Re:Sex Party (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237184)

the greens preferences are going towards labor, which means that at the end of the day, a vote for the greens is still a vote for censorship, tracking and oppression of the population.

The kind of people who vote green are likely to specify their own preferences, IMHO.

Re:Sex Party (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237188)

Well if the how-to-vote card volunteers at the by-election last year were any guide, sex sells. Smelly tree-huggers are no match for jail-bait in tight yellow t-shirts.

Re:Sex Party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236746)

Free boobies on demand?

What... you asked what more i could want...

Hmmm... (GPON...) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236730)

GPON and Ethernet are so new that Tony Abbott's stuff has no clue they exists or is it a kickback thing?

They'll likely get the Gigabit bandwidth... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236776)

it'll just be for a lot more than the alloted 43 billion ASD budget.

my Agency built a 200 user LAN segment for $40.000 (2, Interesting)

kubitus (927806) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236794)

they used the "Industry Standard" to last for decades. (TR)

-

I built in our Lab a 200 user multisegment LAN for $ 10.000, but for 600 nodes

as we have more computers than staff!

-

It was called Ethernet! -

Bob Metcalf - one of my heroes along with R.P. Stalman, R.Knuth, L. Thorvald and many many others including Richard P. Feynman.

For keeping Ethernet free I forgive you many design errors at 3COM ;-)

Re:my Agency built a 200 user LAN segment for $40. (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236906)

Bob Metcalf - one of my heroes along with R.P. Stalman, R.Knuth, L. Thorvald and many many others including Richard P. Feynman.

WTF? Knuth is a Republican? Nobody tells me anything anymore! I always thought he was a Democrat!

Who cares about speed (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236830)

when they have to deal with download quotas?

Re:Who cares about speed (1)

lachlan76 (770870) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236904)

Residential quotas for NBN-delivered service go up to 200GB [on.net] , at least through my provider. This is no longer an issue for even heavy users (that are willing to pay, of course).

Re:Who cares about speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33237168)

I hope it increases student limits at universities. I just arrived from the US, and was shocked to discover that students using their accounts through the university are limited to 6MB per day before being billed. Mobile broadband plans using dongles seem to charge about $20/month for 1GB download limits. Luckily I have access to a wired computer on campus (postgrad office) that does not seem to have a quota.

In other news... (1)

mrv00t (858087) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236838)

...Finland announced some months ago that it will build "broadband network" of 1Mbps to cover whole country. Pathetic.

NBN vs Abbott: (1, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236840)

NBN: Over 1000 Mega!
Abbott: O RLY?
NBN: YA RLY.
Abbott: NO WAI
NBN: WAI

Vote Greens, then Sex Party, then bash Abbot (0, Flamebait)

qwerty8ytrewq (1726472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236870)

I am very happy, there are now two parties that are talking sense in OZ, and the leader of Labour is not to bad either, I can but hope we move forward at the next election... in the meantime, it is fun and commendable to join the cheefrul political bashing of Abbot: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/bible-bashing-the-homeless-abbott-style-20100215-o2tj.html [theage.com.au] http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/no-more-dole-tony-abbott-warns-the-under-30s/story-e6frfmd9-1225856181945 [news.com.au] http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=14437 [samesame.com.au] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSPc5UTcwHQ [youtube.com] What an embarrasing tool!

1 Gb Initially for Business Only (1)

berglh (1050690) | more than 4 years ago | (#33236898)

it should be expected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33236940)

This is a perfect example of the complete lack of foresight that Mr Abbot has.
Anybody who has been using technology for more than 2 years should realise that when it's built in 2 years or so if it's not getting 10 times what we could promise today, then it is essentially already a failure - already oudated.
Just like his religious ideas are outdated.

Re:it should be expected (0, Flamebait)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237134)

Tony is a luddite, that's the correct term for people of his nature.

That he's pretty much a religious nutcase and general embarrassment to the country is a well known fact but every political party *must* have a leader.

Unfortunately Stephen Conroy is also a religious freak. Not to mention a complete WHORE for votes.

Yes, that's right, I said it -> Stephen Conroy is a complete whore for votes.

That's where The Great Internet Censorship Program comes from - The Party sold their political soul to a pack of self-righteous religious extremists who believe that "Teh Innnertubes R EVIL". LITERALLY promised to FORCE the censorship regime on this country in return for a steaming pile of religious freak votes.

A vote for Labour and Stephen Conroy is a vote for a Theocracy, a vote for Terrorism.

If that's the kind of country you want go and live in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel they're all for Theocracy there, you'll be welcomed with open arms.

Oh dear... (1)

aiht (1017790) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237040)

Tony, please go back inside. You're embarrassing us in front of our international friends!

Meanwhile... (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237154)

...the only connection OFF their little island will still only be carrier pigeons with Post-It notes. Enjoy your highspeed internet access! (To the rest of your little country.)

Stars and Stripes? (2, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33237176)

Not sure why we have a picture of the US flag, in an article about Australian politics.

Also I wonder why we aren't talking about Oracle taking google to court over patents in Java. Are the slashdot editors waiting to see if the topic goes away?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?