NBN Will it be worth it?

[Deactivated] on 22/12/2010 - 11:22
Last edited 22/12/2010 - 11:28

I know many on the internet will see anything NBN related as a MOB1 vs MOB2 thing. I hope this discussion wont end up the same thing here.

I am a little concerned about what we are about to receive. With Spin from all angles with the operative words coming out like "most" or "many which can hide and cover many or most concerns.

Here are my concerns.

  1. It was orginally promised 3 years ago as a must have - which was very true. Our Internet options had been very limited at that time.

  2. Technology is changing very rapidly - the CSIRO is now working on Internet via Television transmission or something like that. Now this is the same crowd that got massive royalties from WiFi, so they have credibility.

  3. The prices quoted are for base services with around 20GB of data. Point being that this maybe satisfactory for many people now, but when we can download at the much faster speeds then 20GB may be like 2GB today. I know now I have ADSL2 which is for me at the end of an exchange line about twice as fast as ADSL1, my GB download limit has increased more than 2 times

  4. The prices quoted are in todays rates but will be for services delivered in some places up to 10 years time. In the past year alone my Internet access price has dropped 50% and down 70% over what it was 5 years ago - with faster speed. So while the figures they quote now look attractive, in terms of prices that could be in 5 years time, it might not be that attractive.

  5. Finally as we are becoming increasingly mobile and more into the internet mobility maybe more important than fixed location speed. And I saw one report that NBN now wants to back haul the mobile data, which could mean this may be affected by its monopoly price power.

In other words we are being promised what we need now at todays prices but delivered say 5 years later. I know I wouldn't want to commit to buying a 40in TV in 5 years based on todays prices.

Then I also remember that we had the highest prices even prior to Telstra. It was then Telecom and OTC. Making calls to the USA used to cost $2 a minute - from a landline.

And that was GOVERNMENT owned. So while the current MOB might even be inclined to give us value, who's to say that the other MOB, or even a third MOB may just decide that they need extra funds from this network to pay for subsidised flights to the moon. So all good intentions about creating a monopoly just creates opportunities, apart from lazy bureaucracy.

Now the other MOB say its just a Movie/TV download bonanza, but that is similar rhetoric, so what. If its cheap, so be it. But my concern is that what looks cheap now may not be in the future and given State run bureaucracy, while it can theoretically AND should give great value, it's a great concern.

So lets discuss, lets keep it civil and hopefully non political. Lets hear what everyone has to say whether I or other like to hear it. Maybe keep it clear and unemotional. As a side point for those MOB members - like you the other MOB is not going to change their vote based on this discussion

BTW Merry Christmas everyone

MOB = ALP Lib Green or other…

General Discussion

Comments

  • h4lcyon on 22/12/2010 - 11:39
    +1

    One of my main concerns that is not covered here, is that the Govt will regulate (read monitor, filter & control) our internet traffic.

  • mick123 on 22/12/2010 - 12:00
    -2

    This will be the biggest blowout in Aust history. They are saying $43 billion but with the record of this govt, it will end up over $60B if not more.

    My concerns:

    1. Technology is changing rapidly and by the time this is set up and ready to go, something better will come along.

    2. As mentioned, we are becoming a mobile society, data on the go should be the main concern for Telcos.

    3. Do we really need supersonic broadband. They are saying it will cost wholesalers about $35/month (if I recall), so they will add their margin and will cost us about $60/month. Not too bad you may say, but your tax dollars pay for it, and it comes to about $5000 per taxpayer (using say 8 million tax payers) and that's if it stays on budget!

    4. I do not know much about tech, but apparently for less than $20B they can do Fibre to the node. The other costs are to make it fibre to the home. Apparently fibre to the node is fast enough.

    5. One of the biggest problems right now is housing affordability. I am not saying govt should throw money at grants as that will just inflate prices further, but better public transport and road systems will help expand Sydney. They also need to open up much more land for developing.

    However, advantages I can see from NBN, although I don't think they need to spend the full amount on it
    - as per point 5 above, if NBN helps people work from home and make our major cities less centralised, we hope to see house prices stabilise.
    - rural schools and hospitals will benefit, but apparently, I hear they will not have access to the fast service. Correct me if this is not true.

    I just think overall, there are better ways to spend the money

    • cwongtech on 22/12/2010 - 12:57
      +2

      Some points I would like to comment on:
      1. Technology is changing rapidly and by the time this is set up and ready to go, something better will come along.
      If we use that logic, we might as well never build anything, since technology always improves, let's always wait for new tech to come out. Fiber optics uses the concept of light being transmitted over fibre optic cables, light is the fastest possible way of transmitting information. The only increases in technology we will see in the future in fibre optics is the transmission of several different wavelengths of light (no they don't interfere with each other) in the same length of fibre cable. This has been done [Wavelength-division multiplexing or multi-mode? not sure].
      Hence the medium (fibre optic cables) will remain the same, but the only upgrades that need to be implemented are the ends of the fibre optic cables, the transmission equipment (and the receiving unit).
      2. As mentioned, we are becoming a mobile society, data on the go should be the main concern for Telcos.
      - We are not becoming a mobile society.
      - No one uses a mobile connection as their primary internet connection because it is too costly, as well as it isn't the most reliable. Have you ever had a "dropped connection" with your home phone [fixed line] compared to your mobile?
      - We need both, fixed services and wireless services both have a place in society, the point of the NBN is to upgrade the fixed services (but at the same time, since there will be fibre EVERYWHERE, the wireless towers will have their backhaul increased dramatically as well)

      4. I do not know much about tech, but apparently for less than $20B they can do Fibre to the node. The other costs are to make it fibre to the home. Apparently fibre to the node is fast enough.
      Fibre to the node means fibre backhaul, but last-mile connections from the point where the fibre is connected to, is your old copper lines. The copper lines will be your bottleneck.

      - rural schools and hospitals will benefit, but apparently, I hear they will not have access to the fast service. Correct me if this is not true.
      If the town has a population over 1000, then they will. If not, they will get a wireless service at the same price, is what I have heard.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/12/2010 - 15:52

      mick, your technology comments are welcome, but as I said lets keep the politics out of it. Politics is the money better spent elsewhere. If the service is value for money then its money well spent, if its not, then of course it shouldn't be spent and the money will obviously go elsewhere, hopefully not into one of either MOBs friends

      • retiredfeline on 22/12/2010 - 16:00
        +1

        1. Remember to include in your analysis the cost of falling behind other countries. The world is not static.

        2. AFAIK nothing wireless compares or will compare in the foreseeable future to fibre connections for bandwidth.

        3. Don't forget it's not just you the consumer DLing videos, but also public sector and businesses who need bandwidth, perhaps more so.

        4. Dunno.

        5. Isn't the housing problem more to do with lack of construction keeping prices high? Shouldn't that be dealt with separately, instead of "subsidising" house ownership? Also refer to 1 again.

  • Davo1111 on 22/12/2010 - 12:11

    I think the issue is the technology is always evolving, and its a constant "catch up".

    At the moment (imo) mobile broadband has taken the pressure off hardwired.

    Unless we get something out quick, the mobile network will become congested.

    • cwongtech on 22/12/2010 - 12:59

      I think the issue is the technology is always evolving, and its a constant “catch up”.
      But you can't travel faster than light ;)
      At the moment (imo) mobile broadband has taken the pressure off hardwired.
      People use mobile broadband as a secondary source of internet, unless they cannot physically get the hardwired.

      • Davo1111 on 22/12/2010 - 13:11

        At my last college, they were charging $15/gb (the year before $25/gb)

        People had to use mobile broadband because the college was charging so much!

        • cwongtech on 22/12/2010 - 13:21

          Your college is ridiculous =P

        • Davo1111 on 22/12/2010 - 15:08

          oh totally agree.

          At the same time, UniLodge was charging students $35/gb. I felt sorry for them

  • ESEMCE on 22/12/2010 - 19:29
    +2

    "In other words we are being promised what we need now at todays prices but delivered say 5 years later. I know I wouldn’t want to commit to buying a 40in TV in 5 years based on todays prices."

    Aside from all the arguments about whether it should be done at all, this analogy is not correct.
    - The vast majority of the cost of building this network is in labour. The cost of labour if anything will increase as time progresses, not decrease.
    - The actual cost of the fibre itself would likely be the next largest component. We've been making fibre for 20 years or so, I think the cost must be pretty close to bottoming out.
    - The smallest cost will be in the termination units. These will drop in price and increase in performance as technology improves. It's what makes fibre so "future-proof".

    There will never be a forecastable "optimum time to build". In 50 years time, we might look back and realise that we were too early, too late or smack at the right time!

    I'm an NBN supporter on the whole.
    1) I think a fibre network will NEED to be built at some stage (arguments for wireless are ill-informed. It's not possible to supply current levels of bandwidth demand to the current population! And no foreseeable technology is likely to be able to do so within the lifespan of the NBN). There will be a NEED in the future as opposed to the WANT that we currently have. That NEED will come sooner if we build the network now and I believe it will put Australians ahead of the game and provide numerous business opportunities as fibre networks become the norm worldwide.
    (note that the CSIRO TV aerial tech you mention is solely for remote areas. It can only service about 10 houses at a time)
    2) No private company would build a network to all the places this will be built and even if they built part of one, they would have a monopoly asset in the area they build. It's unlikely (especially after OptusVision's experience) that a second company would roll out a second network to try and compete in the same area as an existing network and it's even less likely that a third would roll out a third network to give something approaching true competition, rather than a Duopoly.
    3) Up to a point, I think that "non-profitable" regional (and metro) areas SHOULD have the same services as "profitable" areas. I reckon the NBN probably surpasses that point with it's "population of 1000" minimum.
    4) This is slightly different to Telecom Australia… it's a network only, not the network and service as a Monopoly.
    I think Australia needs to accept that there MUST be a monopoly on critical infrastructure like communications if we're to have a system that does not unfairly penalise regional folk who supply the vast majority of our food and minerals that keep us such a prosperous nation.

    They're my opinions. I'm left leaning, but realistic..

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join