ATTN Aussies - Gov't Announces New Internet Infrastructure!

[DoFoT9]

Don't worry, because "2%" isn't accurate. Besides, you can't just build fast networks in the 4 biggest cities and not build between them. It'd be pointless, and the government knows this. This would explain the massive budget.

I bet the plan is to build along the entire east coast of Australia. Of course they'd also build inland a bit, but not more than 100 km or so. That would definitely cover 90% of the population. Darwin, Broome, and Perth would have to suffer. Serves 'Perthians' right for living in the most isolated city in the world.

haha yes well said, at least ill be covered then .

so realistically, this is going to be a really crappy upgrade that isnt really for the future.. because it isnt covering a whole lot of the country - just the main parts.

 

[DoFoT9]

SK's plans were linked in my first post in the thread. AFAIK, it's the most ambitious national-scale broadband delivery project in the world.

ahh i see, most interesting! i now consider SK to be the best place for internet in the world....

"...More than 94 percent of Korean households already have access to high-speed Internet services, and Korea has the highest number of subscribers to broadband services in the world as of last year..."

94% of users... thats crazy! mind you it is fairly small, but to have the infrastructure that can cope - wow.

 

[DoFoT9]

hello all,

i thought i would revive this old thread to give some news on the government rollout.......

.....oh wait, there isnt really any to give!


all that i know is that they are tested VDSL in a few streets in sydney and melbourne - at a blistering 30mbps. woohoo! what a great improvement

it is my understanding that they will eventually rollout FTTE (to exchange), and home owners must upgrade their house to fibre themselves - either that or have VDSL (max of 100mbit).

guess ill have to start saving for fibre! any ideas how much it will cost?

i also remember reading a report some months ago estimating the basic cost of this new internet to be $200Aus a month, ONCE 80% of users swap. quite outraged at that sum.

 

[sammich]

guess ill have to start saving for fibre! any ideas how much it will cost?

i also remember reading a report some months ago estimating the basic cost of this new internet to be $200Aus a month, ONCE 80% of users swap. quite outraged at that sum.

Alright....the idea was that 99% (or whatever) people will get it. $42 billion dollars and everyone will get FFTH (home) all dug up (that was my understanding anyway).

Some while back, when we were looking at getting Foxtel they said that the cable was on the other side of the street and it had to be trenched across the road to us at some $1000+. That was about 5 metres.

Wonder how much 1km of optic will cost?

 

[DoFoT9]

Alright....the idea was that 99% (or whatever) people will get it. $42 billion dollars and everyone will get FFTH (home) all dug up (that was my understanding anyway).

yup that seems like it. it will be available to 99% of the population, they cant force us to change. i doubt most houses will be changing to faster speeds for >200% the current costs.

Some while back, when we were looking at getting Foxtel they said that the cable was on the other side of the street and it had to be trenched across the road to us at some $1000+. That was about 5 metres.

Wonder how much 1km of optic will cost?

farout! thats insane. the government will have to have rebates for it too (90% plux ).

this will end up being very costly to everybody.

 

[jav6454]

But the big question would be... Are these new speeds tiered/capped or are they open to download as much as your heart desires?

 

[DoFoT9]

But the big question would be... Are these new speeds tiered/capped or are they open to download as much as your heart desires?

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that there will be similar caps to what we see today. Going off prior price estimates, $200 for 50gb, $230 for 100gb etc doesn't seem out of the question at all. Its australia here, anything technological is extremely unfair when using it....

 

[sammich]

The situation that might be:

Millions of Aussies around the country will suddenly get cheap super duper fast internet. Millions of Aussies will suddenly get into video streaming and whatnot.

Australia is an island, with a single pipe heading north carrying all this data.

*choke*

 

[DoFoT9]

The situation that might be:

Millions of Aussies around the country will suddenly get cheap super duper fast internet. Millions of Aussies will suddenly get into video streaming and whatnot.

Australia is an island, with a single pipe heading north carrying all this data.

*choke*

I wonder if they had even considered that scenario. The throughput of that pipe would be incredible. I doubt its even possible.

 

[FX120]

Great! This will make it even easier for those government-types to filter out the content they deem "inappropriate".

What good is a 100mbps internet connection if you're only allowed to watch softcore porn?

 

[DoFoT9]

Great! This will make it even easier for those government-types to filter out the content they deem "inappropriate".

What good is a 100mbps internet connection if you're only allowed to watch softcore porn?

So true! even if they didn't filter out all the content our caps would surely restrict ya anyway! I wonder if we will have caps or if we will just be charged outrageous amounts per gb.

Sammich : back to the oceanic pipeline, outgoing connections wouldn't rreally matter - they will probs only be less then 20mbit anyway! How lovely.

 

[sammich]

"I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the internet, there'd only be one website left, and it'd be called "Bring back the porn!"". Cookie for whoever guesses where that's from

Sammich : back to the oceanic pipeline, outgoing connections wouldn't rreally matter - they will probs only be less then 20mbit anyway! How lovely.

I was thinking more incoming. Most content would still be retrieved overseas, if everyone is streaming higher quality content then it'll be used to more capacity. Hell, our pings to East Coast USA are well above 150ms on a good day.

I'm sure you'll agree that if the undersea link stays the same speed, but everyone wanting access to that link suddenly gets a 100x boost to their internet connection it will choke. Part of the NBN also means that more people will have access to faster broadband where before there was none.

 

[DoFoT9]

I was thinking more incoming. Most content would still be retrieved overseas, if everyone is streaming higher quality content then it'll be used to more capacity. Hell, our pings to East Coast USA are well above 150ms on a good day.

I'm sure you'll agree that if the undersea link stays the same speed, but everyone wanting access to that link suddenly gets a 100x boost to their internet connection it will choke.

1.2Tbps seems to be the current link speed of the cable that combines both australia and nz to the rest of the world. divide that by the 25 million (or so) people using that connection, and it quickly comes down well below 1mb each! if my calculations are correct, it would be 0.048mbit each
1.2*1000*1000/25000000=0.048mbits

Part of the NBN also means that more people will have access to faster broadband where before there was none.

that is correct. its sort of a "catch up" implementation to get everybody on the same level of connection. its a great idea but one that i hope will succeed properly.

 

[Sydde]

this will end up being very costly to everybody.

The obvious (to me) approach would be to create a long-range wireless IPv6 mesh network, where everyone (who wants one) has a small web/mail/relay server. Much less infrastructure, and far more flexible in the face of nature. Of course, telecoms would lose big money, possibly go toes-up, and it would be harder for the government to tax or control.

 

[Love]

I think this should be done with Canada. After all, most of the middle of Canada is uninhabitable (Saskatchewan and Manitoba, along with Ontario but somehow people live there ).

 

[DoFoT9]

The obvious (to me) approach would be to create a long-range wireless IPv6 mesh network, where everyone (who wants one) has a small web/mail/relay server. Much less infrastructure, and far more flexible in the face of nature. Of course, telecoms would lose big money, possibly go toes-up, and it would be harder for the government to tax or control.

802.16? or are you talking using actual routers and whatnot? WiMax's 10mbit doesnt really seem like an upgrade to me, especially since the large proportion of homes in australia will have access to some sort of broadband - the number who are forced to use dialup/wireless isnt that significant at a guess.

lol@love

 

[Sydde]

Honestly, one Mbps sounds good to me, or at least around 4 times better than what I have right now. Whatever would work best I would support, probably some sort of UWB like they were experimenting with in Boston a few years back. I mean, if I lived in Alice Springs or Woop Woop, I suppose I would have to get by with satellite or something, but if I could get one Mbps and still live hundreds of miles from the cities, I think I would jump at that.

I also like the idea of having the web server and mail server in the attic instead of Baton Rouge, half a continent away.

 

[DoFoT9]

Honestly, one Mbps sounds good to me, or at least around 4 times better than what I have right now. Whatever would work best I would support, probably some sort of UWB like they were experimenting with in Boston a few years back. I mean, if I lived in Alice Springs or Woop Woop, I suppose I would have to get by with satellite or something, but if I could get one Mbps and still live hundreds of miles from the cities, I think I would jump at that.

I also like the idea of having the web server and mail server in the attic instead of Baton Rouge, half a continent away.

ok fair point. satellie hits maybe 512kbps, with >500ms latency. so even 1mbps would be a massive improvement.

the NBN (national broadband network or whatever it is) in australia is giving:
1. FTTH for those with fibre connections (>100mbps)
2. VDSL for those without (~100mbps)
3. wireless connections through individual mobile companies (~7.2mbps i think)

i hope they live up to it.

i get having the mail server on site, but the web server? why would you want that so close? if you were in the city and had a fast connection and wanted to visit your website - would you want to wait a long time for it to load, or quickly?

or am i missing something there lol?