Here's the basics on the NBN, basically FTTP VS FTTN
The NBN wasn't designed just for everyday Australians' internet usage.
The most important thing about the NBN isn't its speed to rip torrents — even though its fibre-optic services will easily provide 1Gbps or eventually 10Gbps connections for those who need them. The value of the NBN is that it will allow every business in the country to link with every other branch office, business partner, etc. at the same speed as they would use over their internal network. When even your remotest offices have 1Gbps access to the rest of the company, data remains instantly accessible by remote staff as if they were sitting in the same office. While it's easy for businesses to set up 1Gbps networks inside their four walls, they've constantly had to compensate for slow wide-area network (WAN) connections.
Australia's broadband speeds are some of the slowest in the developed world. Where FTTP is available, the cost is so high that only the largest businesses can afford it. If we continue to rely on copper, our network will be overwhelmed by 2016. The exponential growth in data predicted over the next few years suggests we need to act now.
The answer is not to go backwards. The answer is not to continue to rely on copper in any form. Fibre to the premises is basically future proof technology since it provides the high speeds and reliability required for advanced digital services and can support a wide range of high bandwidth applications at once. It can also be easily upgraded to meet increasing demands for bandwidth.
We've all heard the stories of people who cannot sign up for DSL service because there are no ports left. Or paying for 20 Mbps connections but only getting 2 Mbps due to old copper wires and/or distance from the exchange. Or losing connectivity every time it rains due to dodgy maintenance. FTTN won't solve those problems. FTTP will.
Why is the Coalition even proposing anything at all? Instead of giving us the opportunity to keep up with the rest of the world, they've decided to defer the expense until a later date. Their policy takes us back 10 years. That's how much of a backward step it is.
All that's needed to increase speed well beyond that is to upgrade equipment at each end of the fibre - relatively cheap as there's no civil works involved - the fibre stays in place. Compare that to the coalition's proposal - the copper will need to be ripped up and replaced with fibre, with costly upgrades and/or replacement also needing to occur at each node .Over time, the cost of Turnbull's plan will be far greater.
When it arrives, it's here to stay. It doesn't rust. The signal doesn't get dodgy with the rain. It is future proof. It is an investment in the future of Australia.
I'm sorry, total disagreement here. Sources working in telecommunications have given me strong reasoning in thinking that FTTP is a silly idea.
Firstly, not every FTTP connection will be connected at the maximum speed. You pay at different scales for different speeds, because you are taking up a different amount of resources at the exchange. That is to say, most of this 1Gbps/400mbps speed you are talking about is actually wasted bandwidth until media consumption increases dramatically, and people become prepared for fork out for faster internet. The closest application I can think of would be for 4k-resolution video streams in a few years.
Secondly, the LNP/Coalition's NBN plan includes options for premises to upgrade the premise-->RIM connection to fibre, at a cost of several thousand dollars to the consumer, should they require the higher speeds. From a business perspective, any business that require LAN speed transfers between different offices would have enough capital to make this investment (many already do). From a home perspective, media consumption is a luxury, and a fibre connection raises the selling value of the premise, it should be an investment by the consumer rather than a burden on the tax payer.
Also, it is not entirely correct to say it would be cheap to upgrade the FTTP connection speed in the future. Even in the FTTP infrastructure, there are street level multiplexes that are costly to upgrade. Exchange equipment are even more expensive, since they need to handle all of the data. The levels of upgrade (RIM + exchange) are no different to the FTTN infrastructure. You may argue that copper wires between homes and RIM may need to be replaced by fibre, but that is an argument of cost-now (FTTP) vs cost-in-the-future(FTTN). Also, I still believe that cost (in the order of several thousand dollars) should be borne by the consumer, not the tax payer.
On the other hand, Telstra has much VDSL-capable equipment at the exchange and RIM level, ready to deploy, and RIM-->exchange connections are already fibre. Considering that the consumer will be charged with funding fibre from home-->RIM, the cost of deploying VDSL tomorrow is actually very small. It requires some bullying of Telstra, but we have done enough of that already with the forced purchase of Telstra's copper network (which is apparently okay?). The significant cost comes in installing RIMs to areas that do not already have them. This cost is the same between FTTP and FTTN infrastructure.
As a computer enthusiast, I obviously prefer FTTP. But, as a tax payer, FTTN is in every respect a more sensible idea, especially during a time when our debt is growing. FTTN is not the fastest, but it does not block upgrade paths nor introduce unnecessary waste of hardware. Labor is not excused from scaremongering in this campaign against LNP's FTTN plan.
Admittedly, FTTP is more attractive to voters because it is a better product, and an average voter would rather fast internet for "free" instead of an option to pay a few thousand dollars. But, there is no free lunch, it pays to look at the bigger picture. The money saved from FTTP to FTTN can be better spent in so many other places.
Home
Help
Search
Login
