My line from one of the best exchanges in Townsville was no more then 3.5km in length (less as the crow flies) and I used to get 6.5.Mbps, that halved after Yasi went through.

So glad I have fibre.

-PB

The original NBN was definitely an investment for the future though. I'm talking like 25+ years here. Who knows what benefit those kind of speeds will have down the road. Most people wouldn't of predicted the uses of internet when we were only getting dial-up speeds.

I hate the short sightedness of our nation in general.

I think the part in bold says a whole lot about the skepticism surrounding NBN. Why the invest billions in something that will generate an unknown return when the same money could be invested into infrastructure, public transport, hospitals, schools etc and generate a far more quantifiable and predictable return? There is only so much money to be spent and every dollar invested in the NBN is potentially a dollar less spent on something else, or adds a dollar in interest.

It's not about being short sighted, it's about being prudent with taxpayers money and giving them the maximum return for their investment. i'd have no problem with the NBN if it was the private sector undertaking the risk, and the government subsiding the roll out, as it should have been in the first place and as it being done in most countries who are adopting national broadband strategies. But the idea that a government start up with no experience building networks can somehow deliver a deeply complex project on time and on budget and all these magical extra benefits will flow on and not experience and construction delays and cost blow outs is fanciful and historically not the rule.

I quite like what the government is doing with MTM, in particular the HFC portion, which has the capacity to deliver Gigabit speeds like GPON. It just makes intuitive sense to use an existing technology to deliver GPON like speeds and save a buttload of money while they're at it (to be used on other things like transport, schools, not increasing interest bill etc). I'm less a fan of FTTN but economically it makes a lot of sense and with genuine advancements such as vectoring and G .Fast it has the potential to meet the data hungry needs of consumers for another decade or two. I especially like that business parks are getting fibre and consumers who are mostly download intensive are getting second rate fibre/copper because the economic and commercial arguments for running rolls royce fibre into every home and outback shack are very poor.

And if at some stage in the next ten to 50 years there is a global shift to FTTH as new applications are developed that require better faster networks there will be a plausible case for the private sector to take the lead and therefore extricate the taxpayer from any downside. I really do think FTTN is a more intelligent solution when viewed in terms of the opportunity cost and the fibre is mostly an emotional one.

Instead we're investing billions in something that will achieve little.

No offense rusty but it's hard to take your opinion objectively when you work for Telstra and it sound in area that would be affected by such monumental changes as the original NBN plan.

I dont mind my download speeds on cable, i just want faster upload speeds.

Which you will never get on ADSL.

-PB

The issues with cable (HFC) is one of contention. Your download speeds are probably ok because there aren't a lot of people using it in your area as they've opted to stay with ADSL2+. If everyone is trying to use it (as is what will happen in an NBNCo situation) at the same time your speeds will suffer.

The HFC part of the network will recieve major upgrades including node splitting to lower contention ratios and ensure fast speeds during peak periods. its not like theyre slapping an NBN sticker on the current cable networks, theyre getting a massive overhaul.

We'll see how it that ends up in practice. To get even close to FTTP like performance you'd need so many nodes that you might as well run fibre all the way. HFC people certainly won't be the worst off. We're going to have 5 classes of netizen in this country under this MTM:
1. Those lucky so and so's like PB that was lucky to get the real NBN (FTTP) before it was wrecked
2. Those that were kinda lucky enough to have had cable tv rolled out in the 90s
3. Those unfortunate to have had neither and are on FTTN
4. Those that live in semi-remote areas on fixed wireless
5. Those that are really remote and are on satellite

Edited by mcjules: 15/12/2014 09:55:26 PM

Fibre master race reporting in.

-PB

gimmie some of dat fibre upload speed pls.

This is my speed during peak times, which is still pretty good.





Edited by griffindinho: 15/12/2014 10:19:19 PM

Your cable could have better upload speeds but it has been gimped by rusty's employer. They even do it for Telstra Velocity which is FTTP. That will improve even with the failband network.

Yeah, HFC under DOCSIS 3.0 can do over 100mbps upstream. But fucking Telstra being the stingy cunts they are ](*,)

The real reason Telstra has throttled upload speeds on cable is to discourage 'commercial' use.

Edited by griffindinho: 16/12/2014 12:04:02 AM

Bout to get 200/200 @ work :cool:

-PB

mate, get foxtel and start streaming some matches for us :lol:

Edited by griffindinho: 16/12/2014 12:11:55 AM

Surely there's more to the NBN business case than just speed tests?

Well bandwidth is the whole point of the NBN is it not?

-PB

It only takes 4mbps connection to stream a video in HD. Why do we need 100mbps when 50 or even 25mbps handle most if not all consumer driven applications? And if speed is everything why is the country are only getting fixed wirelss and satellite?

What video were you trying to stream in HD on what connection.

I have never ever been able to achieve anything like that (buffering Youtube doesn't count).

As for FW/Sat, clearly there are law of diminishing returns in place there.

-PB

Speed isn't everything. Stability and general reliability is another.

You think we should spend $90 billion because some peoples internet connections are a bit unreliable?

I didn't think we should seal roads because dirt is only a bit inconvenient to drive on.

Many people's connections are more than "a bit" unreliable. I also don't accept the Liberal parties $90 billion figure to do it properly.

Man, come to NQ and I'll take you for a drive on out supposed "National Highway" and you can see how not so crazy your statement looks.

-PB

Then perhaps you shouldn't accept the previous administrations claims it would only cost $40 billion.

I think it's sounds policy to seal existing roads rather than dig them up and replace them.

I take it you don't get out of metropolitan cities much then :lol:

-PB

:lol:

To use the roads analogy (and let's be honest Liberal party members seem to only care about those),
ADSL - dirt road
VDSL (FTTN) - gravel road
HFC - cobblestones
FTTH - highway

Edited by mcjules: 17/12/2014 11:26:36 PM

An MP interviewed on ABC news could barely contain his glee at the prospect of pushing through more authoritarian legislation in the wake of the Sydney siege.