×

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!

Business Tier For Australia's NBN Brings Big Possibilities For VoIP

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the and-it's-all-long-distance dept.

Australia 70

An anonymous reader writes "Despite the cost blowing out to $37 billion and ongoing political debate, Australia's rollout of fibre optic cable to 93% of the country's homes, schools and businesses hit another milestone today. To encourage the use of VOIP, Australian small businesses lucky enough to get the fibre cable will have access to high-priority class 1 traffic speeds for multi-line telephony. As this article about the NBN explains, TC-1 speeds up to 5Mbps will be available, which the network builder says will support up to 50 simultaneous lines (separate to general Internet traffic, which is currently delivered at up to 100MBps). While the network is years away from reaching many Australians, this might nevertheless one day be seen as a watershed moment in the move from analogue telephone services to VOIP."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

70 comments

Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41222517)

Why is an obscure technical decision about a network that will never be built considered news?

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41222559)

Pretty sure this is getting built, son.

Re:Um (3, Insightful)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222667)

actually that is hardly certain at this point. The poor uptake combined with a possible liklihood of the next government canceling altogether make it about a 50-50 bet.

Re:Um (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41229097)

Gee, I wonder why it's got poor uptake? When they were toying with 100Mbps connections it was interesting, but then they went with the cheaper 10Mbps connections. And this "product marketing" guru genius thinks that their 0.15Mbps, 0.3Mbps, 0.5Mbps, 1Mbps, 2Mbps and 5Mbps plans are enticing. Why would I DOWNGRADE my business connection from 8Mbps SDSL, which isn't even the fastest offering out there, to a shitty 5Mbps? And pay more for the privilege? And support only goes till 5pm (or 9pm for business customers) weekdays - WTF? I've got a business to run and all of their competition is running support 24/7.

Re:Um (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year and a half ago | (#41232339)

Um, iiNet is currently offering plans [iinet.net.au] of up to 100Mbps because it was always being rolled out at 100Mbps. Although at one point they where considering 1Gbps.

Re:Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41230821)

Its currently being rolled out in my town...

Re:Um (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year and a half ago | (#41232325)

It's being rolled out as we speak [nbnco.com.au] (the purple bubles are working instalations) and it would be very hard for Abott (and lets pray he dosen't get in) to cancel it now that all the deals have been done with Telstra, etc and work has commenced.

Re:Um (2)

mister2au (1707664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222629)

What do you mean 'will never be built'?

It started last year and will continue over a 10-year time frame to replace the entire copper telephony network in Australia.

And while it is quite a technical detail, it does serve to re-iterate that this is telephony&internet project ie. supplying the equivalent of 50-line telephony via FTTH.

No sure how many other countries have rolled out a full fibre telephone network - so not sure if this is really news though ...

Re:Um (1)

craznar (710808) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222671)

What he means is that once the Libs get in at the next election, they will stop it being built.

FTTH will be replaced with FTTN.

Re:Um (1)

felixdecat (1373899) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222839)

What he means is that once the Libs get in at the next election, they will stop it being built.

FTTH will be replaced with FTTN.

So whats the percentage of business that need 50 lines via 1 fiber service...

Re:Um (3, Insightful)

promythyus (1519707) | about a year and a half ago | (#41223707)

This isn't for today. This isn't for tomorrow. This is for the next 20-30 years you f*ckstick.

Imagine if the government of the time had the same thinking when they built the Sydney Harbour Bridge. We'd have 1 lane each way, totally inadequate. Technology expands to fill limitations and if something beneficial doesn't come of investing in those 50 lines within the next 30 years, I will personally reimburse the Australian public for all expenses incurred in providing the service.

Good infrastructure isn't laid by asking "what is adequate for now?".

Re:Um (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#41228363)

This isn't for today. This isn't for tomorrow. This is for the next 20-30 years you f*ckstick.

Then why are they picking already obsolete GPON technology to do it? You can't upgrade GPON without great expense and lengthy outages. And the max performance isn't significantly different than something like DOCSIS 3.0.

I'm not sure how a technology that requires massive outages and great expense to get upgraded and starts with a max performance well below other available technologies that have zero-downtime upgrade possibilies at lower expense with more than 1000 times the performance of GPON (and more like 10,000 times the performance of a loaded GPON network).

GPON is expensive shit. The *only* reason it was selected is that Alcatel-Lucent has a better lobbying department than product development. They were even so good, they managed to get the GPON-only requirement, then get the largest provider of low-cost GPON (Huaewi) excluded from consideration for equipment buying.

Good infrastructure isn't laid by asking "what is adequate for now?".

If the people who selected this thought that, they wouldn't have selected obsolete and expensive GPON.

Re:Um (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | about a year and a half ago | (#41229277)

What the heck are you talking about? GPON is insanely easy to upgrade- you just replace the switches at the ends of the fiber lines, no fuss required. And it's passive so no electricity is required at the switches and maintenance costs are very low.

Re:Um (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#41230149)

What the heck are you talking about? GPON is insanely easy to upgrade- you just replace the switches at the ends of the fiber lines, no fuss required.

So you replace the switch at the CO, and then everyone on that switch is offline until you replace their ONTs. Not a convenient time? Too bad, you have to do them in groups no smaller than 32 (and from what I've seen of layout and change plans, groups of thousands). So to upgrade a single user, you must replace the central switch and thousands of ONTs at the same time. Theoretically, you could have ONTs that will work at reduced speed for a transition period, but that's never been implemented.

Re:Um (1)

lazybeam (162300) | about a year and a half ago | (#41231229)

Wouldn't the different ONTs work on different frequencies? So the "switch" at the "CO" would have to be backwards compatible, I guess like most (A)DSLAMs these days can support ADSL, ADSL2 and ADSL2+. (When I first got ADSL2+ I only had an old ADSL modem which connected well, until I got around to getting a new shiny ADSL2+ modem)

There has been a lot of talk about the current 2.5GPON will be upgraded to 10GPON and then 40GPON without much fuss. 40 Gbit/s between 16-32 users ought to be enough.

Re:Um (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#41228253)

Well, NZ copied it when they saw OZ pass it. And both are going with GPON fiber with specs not massively different than the best cable modems, and much more expensive to upgrade in the future than cable modems.

And some of the "50 lines to the home capability" is to highlight the (supposed) benefits, as when was the last time you needed more than 10 lines in your home? A family of 4 each on a 12-way call? That's their goal?

Re:Um (1)

lazybeam (162300) | about a year and a half ago | (#41231245)

And some of the "50 lines to the home capability" is to highlight the (supposed) benefits, as when was the last time you needed more than 10 lines in your home? A family of 4 each on a 12-way call? That's their goal?

Isn't TFA talking about business plans? Some businesses will need 50+ lines and this is not targeted at home users.

The standard NBN connection comes with 150kbps of TC1 data, which is really for one line. There are speed tiers so that you can get 100Mbit/sec "best effort" or 150kbps "guaranteed". If they had to guarantee 100Mbps then it would cost a bit more than $38/month for the port (IMSMR).

Re:Um (2)

Pav (4298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41223253)

I moved just as my old suburb was getting connected, and a friend had her house burn down after she had enjoyed the sweetness for half a year or so (no joke!). Another friend lives about fifty paces beyond the current active area in my city. I'm still waiting for a trench to come past my new place with bated breath.

I'll be glad to get rid of my crackly copper line. I've already been using VoIP for outgoing calls for years so I'm not as leery as some about moving off copper as some of my more conservative nerdy friends, though I'm sure widespread VoIP will have its own special problems. VPN bandwidth may actually become acceptable over a standard connection, and I know a few businesses looking forward to this. I have mixed feelings about the cloud services goldrush that will inevitably follow, but I guess this will make things more "efficient" ie. centralised. Still it will also make hosting your own services at a reasonable speed easy, and I'll certainly be taking advantage of this.

Re:Um (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#41227985)

It's not even what the summary claims. Possibilities for VoIP is like hailing the advent of touch tone phones as a great day for tones everywhere. It's an invisible change to old technology. It makes as much difference to the average person as changing the composition of the gravel fill laid under roadways. Call me when Skype registers as a service provider in OZ and buys dedicated bandwidth to other countries, linking users with dedicated, guaranteed bandwidth.

cost? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41222567)

It will be interesting to see the cost of the new business services. So far the NBN has been pretty hideous cost wise as the increased speed for many is simply not worth the significant increase in cost and has led to a dismal uptake on it.

Re:cost? (2)

elementalest (2722553) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222887)

The uptake rate has been far from dismal... it was low when the first trial started in Tasmania for obvious reasons (most people there don't know what the internet is lol). Since then takeup has been pretty good. There are even towns throwing money at NBN Co. to go to them first or add them to the fibre build list if they weren't on it. Furthermore NBN Co. expected (and financed for) the majority of people to sign up to the 12Mbps plans, but the majority have signed up to the 50Mbps plans. Also If you read the NBN Co. website you will find that the $37 billion figure is not a blow out at all but less than the original costed value $43b. http://www.nbn.gov.au/2012/04/27/how-much-will-the-nbn-rollout-cost/ [nbn.gov.au] The opposition was claiming a while ago that it will blow out to $50m but that was just them trying political scare tactics and the cost blow out issue has been put to rest for some time.

Re:cost? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#41228717)

Thanks, the "blow out" thing struck me as strange too. The $37B figure is the cheapest quote I've heard so far. There are probably better things we could be doing with the nations nest egg but at least the NBN is useful and does offer tangible benefits to all Aussies. It's also much more sensible use of labour and capital than the stupid race the telco's had in the 90's that saw two separate sets of cables being hooked up to homes in the suburbs.

Costs - explanation here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41229791)

It's capital expenditure costs. Listen to this interview here to understand the $37 billion figure. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/nbn-costs-up-by-15-billion/4187274

Re:cost? (1)

lazybeam (162300) | about a year and a half ago | (#41231331)

Since they are not spending tax-payers money proper, if they wanted to use the money going to NBNco for something else it would have to go to something "private" like a pay-to-use (ie private) hospital, toll roads, private schools, etc - somewhere the government will get a direct return on the investment.

Re:cost? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#41234317)

The government don't have to make a monetary return on the investment, but it's good that it's set up that way. I don't begrudge the investment, but I could also see (say) "drought proofing" the Murry-Darling basin as a worthy investment for a "future fund". I just think the NBN idea came from nowhere and the opposition were asleep on the job as usual. Their job (as advertised in the democracy prospectus) is to come up with worthy alternatives or constructive criticism to what the government proposes/implements, but all we got was just more of the same old temper tantrums.

Re:cost? (1)

tpv (155309) | about a year and a half ago | (#41228825)

So far the NBN has been pretty hideous cost wise as the increased speed for many is simply not worth the significant increase in cost

You mean like how internode's 25/5 NBN entry level plan [on.net] (30Gb quota) is $5 cheaper than their equivalent Naked ADSL plan [on.net] and their 300Gb quota plan is $15 cheaper than Naked ADSL.

And iiNet's 100Gb (Peak) + 100Gb (Off Peak) 25/5 plan is $5 cheaper than their 100Gb (any time) Naked ADSL [iinet.net.au]plan [iinet.com.au], for more quota, and 500Gb+500Gb 25/5 NBN is cheaper than 400Gb Naked ADSL.

iPrimus's NBN plans aren't particularly competitive - their 25/2 plans are $10 more expensive than their equivalent naked ADSL plans (unless you "bundle" with an expensive VOIP phone service) and around $5 more expensive than the Internode & iiNet NBN plans, but their 12/1 plans are the same price as their Naked ADSL, so you can switch to NBN with no change in cost (but potentially slower speeds, depending on the length&quality of your current copper)

So what's this "hideous" cost you speak of?

No TDM in .au? (2)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222697)

this might nevertheless one day be seen as a watershed moment in the move from analogue telephone services to VOIP

You .au people skipped the whole TDM era? We had about 3 to 4 decades (depending on how you count it) of T carrier hierarchy with everything from old fashioned robbed bit signalling thru the D4/D5 channel bank ESF era thru "modern" ISDN PRIs in the 90s and 00s. The best thing about standards is there's so many competing ones, so non-USA has E1 service etc, same idea just different enough to increase profits.

Its hard to believe you guys would deliver, say, 100 phone lines to a business in 2012 using a bunch of pairs. I hope you at least E+M or groundstart signal instead of having to deal with loopstart glare.

Also I heard you .au people being in the southern hemisphere need to twist your twisted pair wires in the opposite direction of us northerners and/or your 66-block color code standard is the same as ours but upside down, so white/blue at the bottom, then white/orange 2nd to bottom, etc. I did have a satellite guy going once that you need to switch from LHCP to RHCP if you're running a ckt to the southern hemisphere vs north. I guess telecom hemisphere jokes aren't as funny as I hoped.

Re:No TDM in .au? (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222759)

Yeah, and how exactly is 5Mbps for telephony supposed to be an improvement? We've got 9 PRI's coming into our HQ, that's 13.5Mbps of telephony and we're only a midsized business (~400 employees at the HQ location, ~650 overall). The CoS for the telephony should be configurable to however many channels/Mbps you want to pay for.

Re:No TDM in .au? (1)

mister2au (1707664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222865)

i think that is answered by the number of time "small business" is scattered throughout the linked article.

presumably medium-large businesses dont use copper now and wont be using a standard NBN connection as their key telephony source ???

Re:No TDM in .au? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41228771)

Medium large businesses is three or four cities don't use copper.

Small businesses in those cities, and large businesses in *almost every other city* do use copper as far as I know, unless they have satellite.

Commercial grade connectivity outside of sydney/melbourne/canberra is outrageously expensive in Australia. Expensive enough companies like the one I work for simply restructure our business to avoid needing it.

The NBN is going to be a godsend. An area 10km from our office is going to be in the next rollout, and we are seriously considering moving the office - which will cost a few hundred thousand dollars - to get early access.

Re:No TDM in .au? (0)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#41228961)

Yep they are aiming at small business. All our (humungous corporate) offices have been using VOIP for several years now, it has some handy features such as integration with email, etc. Of course there's nothing stopping small businesses using VOIP now, I imagine Optus of Telstra would be happy to sell them one of their existing "small business solutions". The NBN is about future communications capacity, politically it's a hard sell so they have to try and point to more immediate benefits, problem is there really aren't that many immediate benefits.

Re:No TDM in .au? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41228037)

You have 13.5Mbps going to ~400 employees. This is going to be 5Mbps going to ~3 residential people.

Under the NBN an office building could easily (and cheaply) have 100 Gigabits or more, even if they're in a rural city.

Re:No TDM in .au? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#41228501)

It's not. NBN is about appearances, not results. 5 Mbps is not much more than 2xE1. The only thing is that NBN should provide 5 Mbps of business-quality bandwidth for less than the price of a single E-1. Of course, neither will run a phone without a service provider on the other side. Free bandwidth doesn't solve the problem. They don't mention the VoIP providers offering $2 per line VoIP trunking with free national calling, which would be the win. Just moving bits isn't interesting. If that's all you want, I can send you a cat-5 cable and you can move bits all day long. It won't help much, but it'll move bits.

Re:No TDM in .au? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#41231993)

Yeah, and how exactly is 5Mbps for telephony supposed to be an improvement?

Because it's in Australia where little has been done with the infrastructure since 1996 when it was lagging behind whatever was going on wherever in the USA you were in 1996. So while it would be a step down for you it's more than typically provided for the purpose in the heart of Australia's cities. Here we pay $1000/month for 6M/6M if we're nowhere near glass cable.

Re:No TDM in .au? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#41232679)

It seems you missed the in addition to the 100MBps bit so basically you'll have 105MBps to play with on one connection, being that nothing bars you from having more than 1 connection, which of course you'd need for 400VVoIP (video and voice over IP) and if you don't think video calls will take over then you deserve to be staring at a green screen.

Re:No TDM in .au? (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year and a half ago | (#41239377)

Yes, but if it's anything like VoIP over bulk internet in the states it will suck horribly for call quality. Having QoS\CoS is very nice and if you're going to do it why limit it to only 5% of available bandwidth per subscriber? There's a reason MPLS networks are still so popular with businesses despite the significantly higher cost per Mbps and aggravation of dealing with the telecoms.

Re:No TDM in .au? (2)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about a year and a half ago | (#41224177)

ISDN T1 28 x 1.544 Mbit/s lines
ISDN E1 30 x 2.048 Mbit/s lines

Not just a regional variant, it's the debugged version, there was only ever one flavour and except for BT's DASSII protocol variant only one standard ...the 'E' is a misnomer since it is used almost everywhere except USA, Canada (T1) , and Japan (J1)

ISDN is the predominant Australian type of line for businesses (except where this has already been rolled out)

Re:No TDM in .au? (2)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#41225359)

ISDN T1 28 x 1.544 Mbit/s lines

Yeah, I'm sad to say I worked with a lot of those people in the provisioning dept at multiple telcos. Sometimes I think the provisioners assigned voice channels to T1 channel 25 just to F with the techs. Or maybe you're saying there's 28 T1 on a T3, which is correct.

An American T1 is 24 channels, for ISDN PRI running on that T1 that would be 23 B channels plus a D. You can bond multiple T1's full of B channels to a single D (what maybe 4 T1 worth of B channels per D? Its been over 15 years since I've done ISDN PRI stuff) so its not as simple as 23 channels per T1 times 28 T1 in a T3 equals a zillion B channels per T3.

Re:No TDM in .au? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41229799)

Ah, nice jargon overload. We're impressed.

The point here is that small businesses will be able to get this, along with fast broadband. Up till now most of them have been an ADSL, and faster services (the type corporations use) have been too expensive.

What's the low-down (2)

sonamchauhan (587356) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222757)

How does 5 Mbps of "TC-1 speed" differ from 5 Mbps over an ADSL 2+ connection with QoS?

I googled some info about TC-1 below.

[ From http://www.nbnco.com.au/assets/documents/ssrs-product-technical-specification.pdf [nbnco.com.au] (page 24) ]

Traffic Class: TC-1

Frame Delay (one way): < 350 ms

Frame Delay Variation: < 25 ms

Frame Loss: < 0.01 %

Availability / Connectivity: > 99.5 %

The TC-1 CIR performance attributes are dependent upon the following traffic characteristics, as enforced by Customer:
  TC-1 CVC capacity operating at 70% utilisation
  A TC-1 AVC to CVC oversubscription of greater than 10:1
  A balanced distribution of CVC demand across the associated AVCs
  Periodic frame arrivals, every 20ms
  Frame length maximum of 150 bytes at NNI

Re:What's the low-down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41228861)

5Mbps ADSL (or even 48Mbps ADSL, which is available in some areas) is a theoretical speed that bounces all over the place. The way IP works is complicated, basically you are *continuously* dropping packets with a typical internet connection.

Data enters the router at gigabit ethernet speeds, and leaves the router at ADSL speeds... the router sends as much as it can, and drops the rest - with a convoluted mechanism for informing your PC that one of the 15 routers between it and the server dropped some packets and they need to be sent again.

It's extremely complicated... but the upshot is, in the real world, there are things you can do with a 5Mbit commercial grade connection that you absolutely can not do with a 48Mbit ADSL connection. Streaming audio/video with high quality and low latency is one of the things ADSL cannot do very well.

Unfortunately, 5Mbit commercial grade connections can cost tens of thousands of dollars a month in many of australia's cities. The NBN will fix that.

And you're celebrating this??? (1)

MadCow42 (243108) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222883)

I don't know how many of you actually remember talking on a TRUE analog phone line, but the experience vs. a digital or VOIP line is amazingly different. Besides the hollow sound of most digital lines (i.e. just about everything today), the biggest issue I have is the frustrating quality of duplex! On most lines it's almost impossible to speak and listen at the same time. On an old analog line that was no problem at all. I find that single issue makes phone conversations a pain in the ass - you can't interject, agree with a "yeah" without interrupting, etc.

If you add to that the delay that's present on most digital calls, even when local, it makes the phone a crappy form of communication.

I lament the old analog line for true phone conversations.

Am I alone in this - at least amongst those of us that actually have experienced true analog (end to end) phone service?

MadCow.

Re:And you're celebrating this??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41223035)

There hasn't been analog end to end phone call well after DTFM (Touch Tone) dialing was introduced. That was a long time ago.
It may be even before that when they modernized the telephone exchange with digital technology where the voice is digitized.

Re:And you're celebrating this??? (1)

randallman (605329) | about a year and a half ago | (#41223047)

I don't believe this is an analog problem as much as a delay problem. Cell phones are the worst. Call someone on a cell phone that you can see. The delay is probably .25-.50 seconds. By contrast, I frequently speak with relatives using direct VOIP (high quality SIP phones) and it's like standing in the room with them. If you have one of the multiple DECT phone sets, call one of the other phones in the set and I'll bet that you find the "digital" voice quality to be quite good.

Re:And you're celebrating this??? (1)

mister2au (1707664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41223061)

crappy but cheap ...

anyone of any advanced age should remember call rates in "multiple $ / min" for some international destinations in the full analog days. These days for $5-10/mth on top of local call service I can get call rates in the "cents per minute" range from the local telephone companies, or fractions of cents / minute using international calling cards.

likewise for mobile/cell phones ...

but i think many of envy the old user experience we used to yet :-(

Blowing out to $37 billion? (2)

Quick Reply (688867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222905)

Even though the project has been costed at $43 billion.

The "Blowout" (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | about a year and a half ago | (#41227919)

$43B was the total cost of the project. This figure is the amount being contributed by the government. Private investment makes up most of the rest.

The so-called blowout (about $1.4B, or 4%), is because NBNCo signed a deal with Optus to migrate all their cable customers. So costs will go up, because they're now installing fibre to more premises, but of course revenues will go up because they'll have more customers. Overall, projected returns increased slightly to 7.1%.

Doesn't stop the media jumping on any cost increase as a "blowout" though.

Re:The "Blowout" (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | about a year and a half ago | (#41229345)

Uh no, the government's total contribution is $27 billion peak debt, which will be paid off with revenue and profit. Moving Optus customers over also has no impact on who the NBN is supposed to reach. Most of Optus customers are in cities that were of course included in the fiber footprint from the start.

Re:The "Blowout" (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#41232027)

A very large chunk of the $43B cost is about bribing Telstra to let the NBN into the telephone exchanges that the Australian taxpayer paid for proir to 1996.

Re:Blowing out to $37 billion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41229881)

No, the $37 billion figure is capital expenditure. Google it. It's correct and is explained here: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/nbn-costs-up-by-15-billion/4187274

Isn't this what a T1 is for? (1)

shoppa (464619) | about a year and a half ago | (#41222979)

In the US, a business needing a bunch of phone lines would buy a T1 or multiple T1's, provisioned for 23 voice channels each, from the phone company. Don't know the Australian telco tariffs but they must've had this sort of service for the past 30+ years in Australia too. ???

Re:Isn't this what a T1 is for? (2)

Quick Reply (688867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41223043)

But not really at an affordable level to almost every premises. This is piggybacking onto an existing fibre service (when it gets installed over the next 10 years) without a separate line needing to be installed. The same Fibre can be used for Internet, TV & Voice. This is an enhancement to the Voice traffic to make sure the Internet and TV traffic does not take priority which would reduce call quality.

Re:Isn't this what a T1 is for? (1)

mister2au (1707664) | about a year and a half ago | (#41223417)

Spot on ...

5Mbps TC-1 (ie 50 lines) seems to be priced around $330/month ... I'd guess that is HUGELY cheaper than a pair of T1's

Re:Isn't this what a T1 is for? (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | about a year and a half ago | (#41223499)

In the US, a business needing a bunch of phone lines would buy a T1 or multiple T1's, provisioned for 23 voice channels each, from the phone company. Don't know the Australian telco tariffs but they must've had this sort of service for the past 30+ years in Australia too. ???

Yes of course, though we had ISDN rather than T1/E1. What's the deal with that missing eighth bit :-) ?

fir5t! post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41222997)

= 36400 FreeBSD 5ignificantly brilliant plan

Analogue telephone services are very robust (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41223019)

They are more decentralized, and require less complex, prone to failure equipment to operate reliably. They function better under marginal conditions. I can usually hear through the static that will cause digital services to drop out completely. I don't need a separate power source from the electric company. We should never give them up. That would be a bad move. Unfortunately it's not possible to deliver over fibre, and loss of copper will bring about its ultimate demise.

Re:Analogue telephone services are very robust (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41233657)

You clearly don't know much about SIP if you think POTS is more decentralized or reliable or operates better under marginal conditions (there is a text protocol within SIP). The only advantages POTS has are a separate electrical supply and better accountability (if SIP became popular there would be a surge in telemarketing until something like DenyHosts w/ sync logs is implemented - in the long run though it would be better as it would allow the blocking of political telemarketing using privately-controlled lists. You know, on top of making voice calls as free and open as email).

Re:Analogue telephone services are very robust (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41233873)

How do you do text on a dial (pulse) phone? Morse code maybe?

Re:Analogue telephone services are very robust (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41233955)

If you meant a SIP backend to a POTS system then I agree with you, it just gives the end user the downsides of both systems and saves money for the telco. I was talking about end-to-end 100% SIP.

Re:Analogue telephone services are very robust (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41234147)

Yeah.. I'm just a bit partial to well functioning low tech that can be fixed with a hammer to loosen up a sticky relay*. Try that with your fancy diodes and transistors. Now get off my lawn :-)

* car analogy: Hammers also fix sticky carburetor floats. I doubt that those electronic injectors would fare as well.

Bad news - tiered Internet (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41223505)

This is not a good thing, this is the tiered Internet that net neutrality is intended to stop.

And VoIP works just fine without it BTW.

Re:Bad news - tiered Internet (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#41228877)

This isn't tiered Internet. This isn't Internet. It's a link between a customer and a service provider. The Internet is on the other side of the service provider.

Congestion (1)

mathew42 (2475458) | about a year and a half ago | (#41229025)

The traffic classes highlight that the fact that congestion is to be expected on the NBN. A 12/1Mbps service costs $24/month for the connection (AVC) plus CVC (data). IT managers who would already have routers with QOS are not going to pay $330 extra a month for TC1 traffic unless it can be justified, especially for a service that only provides TC1 between their NTU and their RSP;

In Australia we are being hit both ways by the NBNCo monopolist:

  • AVC speed tiers (12/1Mbps to 100/40Mbps)
  • CVC data charges ($20/Mbps)

In other countries speed tiers make sense because data is unlimited, but in Australia they are not required because quotas constrain internet usage. The speed tiers mean that 4G operators are actively competing for low end users - $34.95 will buy a 30/10Mbps service with 10GB quota on 4G, compared with the cheapest NBN service costing $45 for 12/1Mbps with 50GB quota. People with 4G smart phones may even find the included quota adequate for their needs.

Re:Congestion (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | about a year and a half ago | (#41229359)

Stop lying through your teeth. Wireless can't replace wired, only complement.

Re:Congestion (1)

mathew42 (2475458) | about a year and a half ago | (#41230969)

NBNCo are predicting in the Corporate Plan that only 70% of premises passed by fibre will connect. 13% of premises passed by fibre will opt for wireless, primarily because it is cheaper.

I total agree that for anything beyond basic email and web browsing, wireless is not the best. However I'm not foolish enough to think that everyone has the same wants as a poster on slashdot and is prepared to pay for the privilege. Have a read of Google's Fiber channels NBN woes [technology...tor.com.au].

Re:Congestion (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#41232055)

Even for a very basic connection (eg. SMS), wireless sucks badly if you have a lot of people trying to use it in a limited area. People in mining towns in central Queensland are already hitting that wall with their phones.

Re:Congestion (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#41233355)

NBNCo are predicting in the Corporate Plan that only 70% of premises passed by fibre will connect.
13% of premises passed by fibre will opt for wireless, primarily because it is cheaper.

I total agree that for anything beyond basic email and web browsing, wireless is not the best. However I'm not foolish enough to think that everyone has the same wants as a poster on slashdot and is prepared to pay for the privilege. Have a read of Google's Fiber channels NBN woes [technology...tor.com.au].

I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of Slashdotters and tech-savvy people have been underestimating what people think of as "basic" web browsing for quite some time now though. Most people these days would consider the use of websites like YouTube, the ability to video conference on Skype etc. as "basic" applications, but there's nothing "basic" about the level of data use they imply. Doesn't NetFlix account for something like 30% of net traffic in the US?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...