Jump to content


Photo

NBN - Is it too expensive?


  • Please log in to reply
2139 replies to this topic

#61 SquallStrife

SquallStrife

    Really knows where his towel is

  • Atomican
  • 18,023 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:01 AM

but if you only have to borrow 2/3rd the amount because the roof, for people like myself, is not going to be any better, why replace it all straight away?


Upload speed. Choice of ISP and hence quota size.

That second one is a huge benefit over HFC.

I don't even know why we are discussing it, no matter who gets in after September the NBN will continue...


Not in its present form, a lot of people in brownfields will be lumped with what I regard as ADSL3, may as well not bother.
SyDjDDk.png [retro swim] | AzpUvwG.png @retroswimau | q5O6HgO.png +RetroSwim
四時半を待っています!

#62 TinBane

TinBane

    Super Hero

  • Mod
  • 21,537 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:49 AM

Mac Dude - I think nearly everyone in Australia will have an opinion on what the NBN could have done differently. I'm not advocating the argument that the NBN is/was rolled out in the best possible way, with the least inefficiency. I'm talking in general terms on deferring the cost. I don't think Turnbull is being disingenuous when he predicts we might save 12 Bn by deferring some of the rollout, but I don't think he's deferring it by only a few years either :) I'm pretty sure the cost to roll the NBN out is extremely variable, and the pay-back time likewise variable. I'm sure there is either a really good business ( & political?) reason why you are getting it, and under-serviced areas in Melbourne's East aren't even on the 3 year roadmap. Most likely it's to do with the projected ROI, and the amount of money required to put functioning NBN hardware in.
Romans 10:3 absit iniuria verbis

#63 Mac Dude

Mac Dude

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 36,561 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:18 AM

but if you only have to borrow 2/3rd the amount because the roof, for people like myself, is not going to be any better, why replace it all straight away?

Do you always replace all four tyres on your car at the same time? Of course you don't because why would you replace something that works? Sure, if you do replace all four tyres rather than just the ones that need it you could probably notice the difference in grip - you cant beat the feeling of all new tyres. And, it may be cheaper per tyre because you may get a bigger discount than on just buying one or two. But most people aren't going to replace all four because of the opportunity cost.


The problem with that analogy is that it implies that it costs the same to replace one tire now and the others later as it does to replace all four now. Suppose instead that each tire costs $100, but the mechanic charges a fee of $250 to even look at your car (and the tires can only be changed by this mechanic) regardless of how many tires he changes. Suppose also that your front tires need replacing now, while the back ones are pretty worn down but could make it for another year. Do you replace all four now ($650) or the front ones now and the back ones later ($450 now, $450 in a year, for a total of $900)?

To take that one step further, suppose that the interest rate is low now, but is likely to be much higher in a year. Do you lock all of the expense in at the low rate, or do you wait a year and pay the higher rate on the back tires?


That's the problem with analogies - I made assumptions and now your adding assumptions such as the $250 fee just to look at the car - something that I think is unreasonable and not based in reality as it isn't difficult to tell if a tyre is bald, and if you do have trouble there are plenty of places that will tell you for free.. I'll stick with the generalisation however, that most people don't replace all 4 tyres at the same time every time.


Do you always replace all four tyres on your car at the same time?

using that analogy Mac the copper network is bald on all four corners with only the spare having some tread and that's a pretty perished 80Km/h limited temporary use spare tyre.
:P

Bingo! That's the problem I have. People make a lot of assumptions on the state of the cable network based on a few pits they see on 60 Minutes or A Current Affair. Where is the report on the state of the network that shows such a massive investment is being rolled out correctly? Where is the analysis saying that the cable network is indeed in a '4 bald tyres state'?

As far as HFC goes it is close to the same boat as the PSTN network. Both HFC owners have spent minimal dollars on maintenance, and from all reports the Optus HFC in particular is nasty being way over subscribed.

As far as

People who have access to that should be at the bottom of any new technology rollout, where it makes design sense.

Well a lot of MDUs in particular can't get HFC despite being in HFC areas so most if not all HFC areas need some FTTH run, so rather than doing a building here and there and then going back to expand the FTTH coverage it makes sense to do the whole area in one hit.


Which is why I highlighted where it makes design sense - no point in rolling fibre to every second household.

I guess I'm just amazed that people are happy to throw away the whole existing cable network without even looking at the state it's in, for no real reason than 'fibre is fast'.

Mac Dude - I think nearly everyone in Australia will have an opinion on what the NBN could have done differently.


Agreed, it's the NBN at any cost attitude that has me scratching my head.

I've spent a lot of time doing market analysis in Asia Pacific to get a good understanding of the 'Total Addressable Market' for specific products, understanding the current climate, globalization/localization costs, routes to market, support implications, end user eco-system requirements, etc. There is a LOT that should be done before introducing a technology to a market otherwise you're just pissing money away.

Of course, there is a possibility that the NBN fans are correct and that the entire cable network is on the verge of collapse, so the best solution is a blanket NBN rollout.

I just don't think Conroy put in the hard yards to find out.
Karl Kruszelnicki - No, I’m fully prepared to believe in the “Church of God the Utterly Indifferent who sets the universe going and says you’re on your own kids.

#64 SquallStrife

SquallStrife

    Really knows where his towel is

  • Atomican
  • 18,023 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:25 AM

I guess I'm just amazed that people are happy to throw away the whole existing cable network without even looking at the state it's in, for no real reason than 'fibre is fast'.


I'm under the impression that when the question of open access was asked, the response from the HFC network owners (Telstra and Optus) was essentially "no chance".

So while HFC could have been part of the NBN (following the open access rules), the incumbents are preventing it.

Where do you go from there? Single-retailer networks have no place on the NBN.

Edited by SquallStrife, 09 August 2013 - 08:26 AM.

SyDjDDk.png [retro swim] | AzpUvwG.png @retroswimau | q5O6HgO.png +RetroSwim
四時半を待っています!

#65 The Tick

The Tick

    Hero

  • Super Hero
  • 11,710 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:26 AM

I guess I'm just amazed that people are happy to throw away the whole existing cable network without even looking at the state it's in, for no real reason than 'fibre is fast'.


I don't believe people are backing it JUST because 'fibre is fast'.

It's a major infrastructure project. Do it right the first time seems to be the general consensus in the arguments. Speed is important for broadband so it's no wonder people want to back the fastest solution but it's more than that. No one wants a "Western Ring Road" for internet in this country. The plan by the libs echoes scarily like the mentality that appears to go into road planning. Build it as cheaply as possible and let the next lot bear the cost of building it the way it should have been built at the start.

Disclaimer: this post may have been made via a mobile device. All formatting, grammar and the possible hilarious substitution of key words should be attributed to the autocorrect features of the mobile device and likely has nothing to do with the idiot driving it.

 

te0p:"Your a Unreal."


#66 aliali

aliali

    Titan

  • Super Hero
  • 24,477 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:51 AM

I'm sure there is either a really good business ( & political?) reason why you are getting it, and under-serviced areas in Melbourne's East aren't even on the 3 year roadmap. Most likely it's to do with the projected ROI, and the amount of money required to put functioning NBN hardware in.


No actually the rollout of the fibre is first and foremost decided on network engineering principals, then other factors are added in to modify the rollout schedule. Actually you can blame the ACCC for some of the issues with the rolout as for some weird reason they insisted on 121 POIs around Aus where as the original plan was for 14 POIs. This meant some redesign of the network and rollout schedule.

Where is the report on the state of the network that shows such a massive investment is being rolled out correctly? Where is the analysis saying that the cable network is indeed in a '4 bald tyres state'?


Difficult things to find as the networks are private so they can keep those sorts of things under their hats.
As far as the actual state of the network all we can really go on is the number of complaints about issues, comments from the people who work on the actual network and the sheer amount of money spent maintaining the networks. In the case of Telstra it is around 1 billion per annum on the copper for just straight out repairs.

Agreed, it's the NBN at any cost attitude that has me scratching my head.

That's what the Conservatives are claiming but it is not at an "any cost". The ALP NBN has a budget and cost for installation and while it "may" run over that cost only the Coalition is claiming it will be 60, 70, 80 or 94 billion or whatever they are claiming today.

Using their same criteria their FTTN would be up around those prices too. Unless of course you somehow believe that the Coalition are somehow magically able to eliminate all cost blowout risks.

Given the poor state of the copper network as outlined in http://www.abc.net.a.../23/3639761.htm and
http://www.abc.net.a.../27/3642266.htm
what's the alternative? Spend an ever increasing amount just trying to maintain the status quo? Or patchwork replacement in dribs and drabs as the network fails leaving people isolated till that section is replaced?
Sometimes you just have to call the wreckers to take away that old rust bucket and buy a shiny new vehicle.


I'm under the impression that when the question of open access was asked, the response from the HFC network owners (Telstra and Optus) was essentially "no chance".

So while HFC could have been part of the NBN (following the open access rules), the incumbents are preventing it.

Where do you go from there? Single-retailer networks have no place on the NBN.

Ye from what I can find out Optus and Telstra weren't interested at all. It also (again only from what I have read here and there) it would actually be technically very very difficult (read expensive) to make these networks open access, and the other major ISPs where not really interested in spending the money to try and work with the HFC systems.
You also have to look at it that there is no real room for customer number expansion on the HFC without running in to massive congestion issues (remember it is a shared medium) so making it open access means the owners losing retail customers to the new ISPs that have access to the HFC.

Edited by aliali, 09 August 2013 - 09:02 AM.

Of course you are my bright little star,

I've miles and miles of files pretty files of your forefather's fruit,

and now to suit our great computer. You're magnetic ink.


#67 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,025 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:59 AM

Mac, the trouble with the copper network is it would be ridiculously expensive to even begin to assess just how good/bad it is. Telstra and their predecessors were not particularly good at documenting the cabling at all and maintenance fell through the floor after privatisation. I'm dealing with a case of that right now, moving house so I ask for the number of the new place to prep for net. The new house is in Heathridge, a suburb I have lived in before that was a net black hole until iinet put some DSLAMS in, before that we had wireless and not very good wireless. The new place I could throw a stone and hit the old one, but, the number at the new house, according to Telstra, does not map to the address it maps to one several suburbs over, which makes no sense, there are several exchanges in between. Talking to people in the area they were not surprised. So even the numbering system, let alone the network mapping is scrambled. In the end I don't think it matters if some of that copper is good, it probably is, finding out is going to cost more time and money than it is worth. That's a situation many LAN owners faced as the technologies changed so quickly in the eighties, it's cheaper to ditch it. Cheers

Edited by chrisg, 09 August 2013 - 09:00 AM.

"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#68 Master_Scythe

Master_Scythe

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 20,553 posts
  • Location:QLD

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:08 AM

The argument is entirely based on what should be done with no consideration for how people behave, and how well we respond to perceived savings.
I predict it'll go like this; if the 'other party' wins, maybe skip the first step.

1. NBN rolled out properly, Fiber to each home, everyone happy.
2. Costs end up being even MORE than predicted.
3. NBN has its pin pulled, but the people demand it gets finished.
4. Finish the deployment using Fiber to the Node to 'save costs'
5. Users demand speed, and fibre to the home is finished anyway, at a much higher cost.

On paper it looks cheaper for the 'now'. They'll be hoping Australia's economy gets even stronger before the time to continue with FTTH so it has less of an impact.

As for the above copper argument, I dont think its the state of the entire network thats the issue, I think its the inconsistency.
For example, I have a fairly short run to my exchange. yet my sync speed is below 3mbps. it SHOULD be more like 20; but its not, and the line into the house is brand new. So its a street thing. While they're uprooting my road to lay new copper, why not make it fiber while you're there?

The solution is probably a mix though, isnt it?
new\CBD housing will have good quality lines, and likely sync at 15+mbps. They usually have some form of fiber already available, even if its just telstra or Optus owned, so these networks can stay in place and save money.

However the 'burbs with phone lines that fail when it rains (like mine) should be replaced with fiber as a priority.
Honestly, while its laughable to the rest of the world, FTTN isnt that objectionable to me. Gets everyone closer to that 20mbps range, and although its not cheaper, it appears that way to a lot of people, and will likely get the job done quicker.

tldr? Dont care, spend a lot, or spend a little. As long as you can get Aus connected at 20mbps+ each, you're good in my books.

Mac, the trouble with the copper network is it would be ridiculously expensive to even begin to assess just how good/bad it is.

Exactly!
Though there is a simple way to tell. the big ISP's just need to share SNR\attenuation readings for each street from everyone with ADSL.
However we as a country aren't good in having companies work together like that.

Wherever you go in life, watch out for Scythe, the tackling IT support guy.

"I don't care what race you are, not one f*cking bit, if you want to be seen as a good people, you go in there and you f*ck up the people who (unofficially) represent you in a negative light!"


#69 Mac Dude

Mac Dude

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 36,561 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:14 AM

Mac, the trouble with the copper network is it would be ridiculously expensive to even begin to assess just how good/bad it is.

Telstra and their predecessors were not particularly good at documenting the cabling at all and maintenance fell through the floor after privatisation.

I'm dealing with a case of that right now, moving house so I ask for the number of the new place to prep for net. The new house is in Heathridge, a suburb I have lived in before that was a net black hole until iinet put some DSLAMS in, before that we had wireless and not very good wireless.

The new place I could throw a stone and hit the old one, but, the number at the new house, according to Telstra, does not map to the address it maps to one several suburbs over, which makes no sense, there are several exchanges in between. Talking to people in the area they were not surprised. So even the numbering system, let alone the network mapping is scrambled.

In the end I don't think it matters if some of that copper is good, it probably is, finding out is going to cost more time and money than it is worth. That's a situation many LAN owners faced as the technologies changed so quickly in the eighties, it's cheaper to ditch it.

Cheers


copper is not cable, though the cable is copper :) The story of your move is just as relevant as me posting my speed - it isn't because it's too small a sample.

People are making a lot of assumptions about the state of the cable network and I honestly don't believe anyone here, or in government/opposition actually knows.

As for a review of the network being 'ridiculously expensive', spending 40 billion or whatever it is without an understanding of the existing infrastructure would be even more ridiculous IMO.

All the analogies and anecdotes in the world aren't a replacement for a proper analysis when you're spending tens of billions of dollars.

EDIT : I'll stop being pedantic as this horse has not only left the stable, it's well and truly dead :)

Edited by Mac Dude, 09 August 2013 - 09:16 AM.

Karl Kruszelnicki - No, I’m fully prepared to believe in the “Church of God the Utterly Indifferent who sets the universe going and says you’re on your own kids.

#70 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,025 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:43 AM

:) Anecdotes are indeed just that, but I have to tell you in over twenty years of net connecting premises anywhere outside a CBD it has been FAR more common for me to have trouble with the external copper, including just finding out where the hell it terminates. There is another way to put it into perspective, compare the total cost of an all fibre NBN, which will go over budget, to just one defense project, try Collins submarines or the current JSF debacle.Both are relatively short-lived, we are already working on next gen submarines. What real value do those hugely expensive projects add to the country compared to a network that will last and last and meanwhile be paying for itself? Cheers
"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#71 aliali

aliali

    Titan

  • Super Hero
  • 24,477 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:45 AM

As for a review of the network being 'ridiculously expensive', spending 40 billion or whatever it is without an understanding of the existing infrastructure would be even more ridiculous IMO.

Well see that is the thing with a new FTTH network. Except where the ducts and buildings are being reused a review of the existing network is totally pointless. With a whole new network you have the chance to design it to suit current and projected demand, population centres and population distribution. The existing network is largely irrelevant to it.

Of course you are my bright little star,

I've miles and miles of files pretty files of your forefather's fruit,

and now to suit our great computer. You're magnetic ink.


#72 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,025 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 09 August 2013 - 10:40 AM

ali, I totally agree, as you well know. I just hope this time some idiot has the plan properly in place to track the new network. My first experience with the NBN was not particularly encouraging from that point of view, the records were already out of date which delayed the connection by weeks. Cheers
"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#73 TinBane

TinBane

    Super Hero

  • Mod
  • 21,537 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 01:28 PM

No actually the rollout of the fibre is first and foremost decided on network engineering principals, then other factors are added in to modify the rollout schedule. Actually you can blame the ACCC for some of the issues with the rolout as for some weird reason they insisted on 121 POIs around Aus where as the original plan was for 14 POIs. This meant some redesign of the network and rollout schedule.


Which may be exactly one of the problems Mac Dude was alluding to.
Are area's with pre-existing network infrastructure to support a wide range of options the best places to roll out the NBN?
To go back to using the dodgey analogies, isn't that just patching part of the roof with the smallest holes, because it's easier to cover them quickly and cheaply?

The entire point of the NBN, in terms of delivering effect for price, is the delta. The change between current tech, and NBN tech. If you install the NBN in places with loads of high speed options, then it might be initially cheaper, but it's also providing a pretty marginal advantage.
I can understand rolling it out in new areas, but I think they should have skipped wiring up apartments until later, and given them FTTN in their basements.

I also think there are a lot of areas (on the Victorian map at least) where they are rolling out in areas with loads and LOADs of pre-existing competing technologies.

I understand nobody here probably has the background/inside knowledge to understand exactly why some areas are chosen over others, but it's incredibly frustrating to see areas with heaps of cable/ADSL/ethernet over copper/ethernet over wireless options getting the NBN, over areas of Melbourne that lack those options.
Romans 10:3 absit iniuria verbis

#74 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,025 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:04 PM

Strange Tinny, I asked precisely that question at an NBN briefing session last year. The roll-out order is predicated upon some pretty complex parameters, some to do with the exchange locations, some to do with fibre they have been able to take over and some to do with efficient use of work teams. What that can sometimes mean is that an area that already has decent other technologies may still be part of a parcel for the rollout because of what is in the area. It was one aspect of the briefing that they actually did rather impressively in terms of demonstrating that it is not a helter-skelter approach. It's not always going to be fair but it does seem reasonably organised. Cheers
"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#75 Mac Dude

Mac Dude

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 36,561 posts
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 09 August 2013 - 03:41 PM

No actually the rollout of the fibre is first and foremost decided on network engineering principals, then other factors are added in to modify the rollout schedule. Actually you can blame the ACCC for some of the issues with the rolout as for some weird reason they insisted on 121 POIs around Aus where as the original plan was for 14 POIs. This meant some redesign of the network and rollout schedule.


Which may be exactly one of the problems Mac Dude was alluding to.
Are area's with pre-existing network infrastructure to support a wide range of options the best places to roll out the NBN?
To go back to using the dodgey analogies, isn't that just patching part of the roof with the smallest holes, because it's easier to cover them quickly and cheaply?

The entire point of the NBN, in terms of delivering effect for price, is the delta. The change between current tech, and NBN tech. If you install the NBN in places with loads of high speed options, then it might be initially cheaper, but it's also providing a pretty marginal advantage.
I can understand rolling it out in new areas, but I think they should have skipped wiring up apartments until later, and given them FTTN in their basements.

I also think there are a lot of areas (on the Victorian map at least) where they are rolling out in areas with loads and LOADs of pre-existing competing technologies.

I understand nobody here probably has the background/inside knowledge to understand exactly why some areas are chosen over others, but it's incredibly frustrating to see areas with heaps of cable/ADSL/ethernet over copper/ethernet over wireless options getting the NBN, over areas of Melbourne that lack those options.


I'll add an anecdote to your analogy - 2 years ago fibre was rolled out right past our street, yet our street won't have the NBN for 3+ years. As the street already has access to cable this is ok by me. Sure it would be nice to have the option to pay more for the same speed from a different ISP, but it's more important to connect those folks further up the hill who don't have cable access. So by accident, the way the NBN is being rolled out near me appears to be correct :)
Karl Kruszelnicki - No, I’m fully prepared to believe in the “Church of God the Utterly Indifferent who sets the universe going and says you’re on your own kids.

#76 Caelum

Caelum

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 17,009 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 04:42 PM

I'm not sure what knowledge you guys have when it comes to communications systems (with exception to AD, who'll no doubt agree with me) but it is prohibitively expensive to be running multiple networks at the same time... We will have three: 1) FTTH[/P] 2) Fixed Wireless 3) Satellite. We shouldn't have: 1) FTTN 2) FTTH 3) Cable 4) ADSL2+ 5) Fixed Wireless 6) Satellite 7) TransACT(and other similar FTTH services) 8) ISDN 9) Any others i've missed? Now granted, you would think that the larger list above would be smaller compared to the NBN, so their relative costs are going to be less than the NBN, purely based on scale... But administration and maintenance of all the other network types, vs a single standard across the board? Sorry, but to a comms system designer, that's just a no brainer. Why would you want to support all those systems when you can support 1 (plus wireless/satellite, to ~7%).
6hax

#77 aliali

aliali

    Titan

  • Super Hero
  • 24,477 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:36 PM

Sorry, but to a comms system designer, that's just a no brainer. Why would you want to support all those systems when you can support 1 (plus wireless/satellite, to ~7%).


Not to mention all the spares you would have to keep on hand for the various fixed line technologies, plus the staff or contractors trained to maintain and repair such disparate fixed line techs.

Of course you are my bright little star,

I've miles and miles of files pretty files of your forefather's fruit,

and now to suit our great computer. You're magnetic ink.


#78 Caelum

Caelum

    Titan

  • Hero
  • 17,009 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:39 PM

Yeah, that's my point more than anything else - the opex of such a network would be horrendous. You'd be well into the red in 10 years time after having to maintain such an array of networks. Standardisation is key.
6hax

#79 chrisg

chrisg

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,025 posts
  • Location:Perth

Posted 09 August 2013 - 06:18 PM

:) I started a reply and something glitched ;) Cael, I think I understand comms systems perfectly well and you are utterly correct. ISDN is something T$ would rather get rid of. Satellite and wireless are here to stay, unavoidable. Not so sure what your concern over TransACT is, iinet own them now anyway. If you mean more what Amcom have out there, and note, they are not yet an NBN provider, well, it's up to them, private company and do give a good service. The big no-no is FTTN, it's a band-aid. In the other thread on this subject I did agree with Leo on one thing. You don't really need to take fibre to an entire apartment block, or indeed office building or hotel, at least not in the first pass. That's really a LAN situation interconnecting to the fibre, building copper, other than in big high rises is not going to have much trouble for quite a while and doesn't really need to be a carrier concern. But, if simplicity says all fibre I'm not going to argue. Standardisation is indeed key, without it we would not be a networked world we would be islands of technology having to interconnect with added complexity. The fact that at the outlet NBN is essentially Ethernet makes life incredibly simple for internet connection. When I connected our building that was no issue, we just had some fun getting numbers ported, guess who complicated that? Dear Telstra. It's slightly off-topic but telephone numbering schemes are something that is also well past its use date. IPV.6 is taking too long to roll-out, and I wouldn't want a V.6 address as a 'phone number anyway, but it should map to a location/outlet/person. We are many steps away from it but if Skype for example can just give me my phone list and the net can map me over to the person for a one-off Skype call, somewhere in there you add some smart GPS and forget numbers. That may not be ideal of course, sometimes I just like to disappear :) Cheers
"Specialisation is for Insects" RAH

#80 AccessDenied

AccessDenied

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 12,483 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 06:38 PM

You've missed out some on both lists Caelum. However, it would be better if you said that the points of maintenance on a FTTP network is the the fibre, the exchange (The effectively "one type of headend equipment." When only servicing one make/model of things it's easier to keep spare parts on hand), the premises and the points of interconnect to wireless/satellite. When you start going FTTN, you add to that list, differing headend equipment (more variations = more difficult to hold spares) nodes and junctions. Further, you have the issue of different communication mediums going down one cable filled with lots of pairs, means that you are going to get unusual cross-talk which is a little harder to noise reduce. ADSL2+ side by side with VDSL2+. AD
I can make my own woggle! Bet you can't woggle yours.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users