Jump to content
jetsam

NBN to provide speeds up to 1GB/s

Recommended Posts

I love how it looks like Conroy thinks that this makes his scheme look even better.

But to me, it makes it just look like Conroy has no fucking clue what he's doing.

"oh yeah, that internet thingy we were making, turns out I has the numbers wrong,lol"

makes me wonder what other numbers he has no idea about, especially those numbers with that funny $ symbol in front of

:P

 

 

Conroy's position is that he has to help a party win an election, and he can only do that by selling NBN to people who aren't "us". Comments like this aren't directed at "us". "Us" being tech people. On that basis, I'm personally prepared to let this kind of comment slide. It's not worth criticising on a tech level, because it's not a statement designed for tech people.

then again, how many non tech people will know or even care, exactly what 'a gig a second' means or looks like.

I do agree with what you are saying though, its all just spin for the ignorant

Edited by clockworkman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how it looks like Conroy thinks that this makes his scheme look even better.

It does make it look better.

 

But to me, it makes it just look like Conroy has no fucking clue what he's doing.

When it comes to politics, he knows exactly what he's doing, and he's doing it very well.

 

 

then again, how many non tech people will know or even care, exactly what 'a gig a second' means or looks like.

It doesn't matter what it means, just that it's more megs and gigs than the other team.

 

Which luckily for Labor, it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conroy's position is that he has to help a party win an election, and he can only do that by selling NBN to people who aren't "us". Comments like this aren't directed at "us". "Us" being tech people. On that basis, I'm personally prepared to let this kind of comment slide. It's not worth criticising on a tech level, because it's not a statement designed for tech people.

Lying to children is a piss poor education method, and a condescending way of treating people.

 

I won't accept it in any politican, and you can frequently here me ranting about it, in varying aspects, at my workplace, were you so lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conroy is full of shit. This announcement proves it. Nobody who knows enough about technology can seriously believe that we will be getting 1 GB/s speeds all the time for all downloads. Unfortunately most people don't know enough and will believe Conroy's lies.

 

His fanatical support of the internet filter also shows that he doesn't actually have the slightest clue about technology and the internet. I don't know about you, but I don't want an IT illiterate liar administering $43 billion + of public money in relation to a technology infrastructure project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lying to children is a piss poor education method, and a condescending way of treating people.

He's not lying though... technically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately most people don't know enough and will believe Conroy's lies.

See above.

 

I don't know about you, but I don't want an IT illiterate liar administering $43 billion + of public money in relation to a technology infrastructure project.

Luckily Conroy isn't really spending that money, he's allocating it, which is what pollies do. Mike Quigley is out there spending the dollars. Mike Quigley ought to know a thing or two about networks.

 

NBN is in good hands.

 

Edit: Oh, I see, never heard that term before.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah.

 

The key words are "able to" and "up to".

 

Essentially boiling down to "the figure that follows is a practical irrelevance".

Edited by tantryl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conroy has said you can get one gigabit per second, yet in reality nobody will get it.

And the Libs have said everyone will get 12Mbps, and in reality very few will actually get it there either. They're talking about filling in a few holes in the system we already have, which definitely doesn't ever deliver the goods we're told it can.

 

Sure, Labor's new number is bullshit, but it's not like any of the other numbers being bandied around are gospel truth either. At least this claim of 1Gbps is using the same bullshit metric so we can compare it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately most people don't know enough and will believe Conroy's lies.

See above.

 

I don't know about you, but I don't want an IT illiterate liar administering $43 billion + of public money in relation to a technology infrastructure project.

Luckily Conroy isn't really spending that money, he's allocating it, which is what pollies do. Mike Quigley is out there spending the dollars. Mike Quigley ought to know a thing or two about networks.

 

NBN is in good hands.

 

Edit: Oh, I see, never heard that term before.

 

 

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edition: to lie

...

1. Make an intentionally false statement, tell a lie or lies (to a person).

 

2. Of a thing: present a false statement; convey a false impression; be deceptive...

(Emphasis added.)

 

Conroy clearly wanted to convey the impression that people would be able to get speeds of 1GB/s on the NBN. This impression is false. Hence, he lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conroy has said you can get one gigabit per second, yet in reality nobody will get it.

And the Libs have said everyone will get 12Mbps, and in reality very few will actually get it there either. They're talking about filling in a few holes in the system we already have, which definitely doesn't ever deliver the goods we're told it can.

 

Sure, Labor's new number is bullshit, but it's not like any of the other numbers being bandied around are gospel truth either. At least this claim of 1Gbps is using the same bullshit metric so we can compare it.

 

Not really.

 

More people will achieve 12 Mbps under the Lib plan than will achieve 1Gbps under Labor's plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conroy has said you can get one gigabit per second, yet in reality nobody will get it.

And the Libs have said everyone will get 12Mbps, and in reality very few will actually get it there either. They're talking about filling in a few holes in the system we already have, which definitely doesn't ever deliver the goods we're told it can.

 

Sure, Labor's new number is bullshit, but it's not like any of the other numbers being bandied around are gospel truth either. At least this claim of 1Gbps is using the same bullshit metric so we can compare it.

 

Not really.

 

More people will achieve 12 Mbps under the Lib plan than will achieve 1Gbps under Labor's plan.

 

The original aim for the NBN was 100Mbps, which a lot more people are likely to get. And you don't think not quite hitting a high target is better than not quite hitting a low one?

 

You're talking about people supposedly being able to get a speed that is slower than what many Australians are already supposed to be getting now with ADSL2. That's not much of a goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole "We can achieve 1GBb/s" is simply to show that the network can be upgraded over time to cope with rising demand.

 

Some people estimate a need for 100Mb/s by 2015, and 1Gb/s by 2020.

 

We don't need those speeds today, but we can start installing the infrastructure to support those speeds today.

Edited by smadge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original aim for the NBN was 100Mbps, which a lot more people are likely to get. And you don't think not quite hitting a high target is better than not quite hitting a low one?

 

You're talking about people supposedly being able to get a speed that is slower than what many Australians are already supposed to be getting now with ADSL2. That's not much of a goal.

As I said previously, I wasn't commenting on the NBN, I'm commenting on Conroy's announcement. It's bullshit, a lie. The 12Mbps from the Liberal Party, while a hell of a lot slower, is also realistic, i.e., less likely to be a lie.

Edited by Mac Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people insist on carrying on about single download speeds in relation to 100 Mbps or 1Gbps?

That's not the point of these sorts of speeds on the whole. The beauty of these sorts of connection speeds is a household or business can be doing multiple things at once without affecting each other.

Eg online gaming, plus live streaming HD video or IPTV (probably in a free zone), plus downloading large files for later use etc etc. Stop being so bloody tunnel visioned about these sorts of connections.

 

The Gigabit speeds are initially going to be offered to business only, some of whom I am sure can really make use of those sorts of speeds, especially considering you would need something special in the way of a router to handle that sort of connection.

 

As far as international capacity goes, a bit of quick hunting found this

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-repli...68045#r24968045

as a starting point

Current transit links:

PPC-1: 2.56Tb/s

S-M-W-3: 930Gb/s

Southern Cross: 2.4Tb/s (2x 1.2Tb/s paths)

JASURAUS: 5Gb/s

APNG-2: 1.1Gb/s

Telstra Endevour: 1.28Tb/s (only 80G is lit up atm)

AJC: 1Tb/s (from what i can tell only 240g is lit up atm)

 

Plus from memory another bunch is planning to start a new trans Pacific cable in the next 3 or 4 years, well within the NBN timeframe. Remember it is 8 years to build it.

 

 

If international capacity becomes too congested or prices stay too high it may also become feasible to start more local caching of data, like some ISPs do with their file mirrors, only on a much bigger scale. Although unlikely this could actually end up reducing international capacity demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as international capacity goes, a bit of quick hunting found this

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-repli...68045#r24968045

 

Plus from memory another bunch is planning to start a new trans Pacific cable in the next 3 or 4 years, well within the NBN timeframe. Remember it is 8 years to build it.

 

 

If international capacity becomes too congested or prices stay too high it may also become feasible to start more local caching of data, like some ISPs do with their file mirrors, only on a much bigger scale. Although unlikely this could actually end up reducing international capacity demand.

Given that's pretty much what I said, I'm not sure on your point.

 

I was stating that even at 100mb, our international capacity is out by a factor of 10. You can service, currently, half a million people at 10mb/s across the existing links (I'm not including mirroring and reverse proxying and a number of other potential technologies here.. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as international capacity goes, a bit of quick hunting found this

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-repli...68045#r24968045

 

Plus from memory another bunch is planning to start a new trans Pacific cable in the next 3 or 4 years, well within the NBN timeframe. Remember it is 8 years to build it.

 

 

If international capacity becomes too congested or prices stay too high it may also become feasible to start more local caching of data, like some ISPs do with their file mirrors, only on a much bigger scale. Although unlikely this could actually end up reducing international capacity demand.

Given that's pretty much what I said, I'm not sure on your point.

 

I was stating that even at 100mb, our international capacity is out by a factor of 10. You can service, currently, half a million people at 10mb/s across the existing links (I'm not including mirroring and reverse proxying and a number of other potential technologies here.. )

 

I'd be interested to see how the demand compares against that figure. How many users are online at any given moment, and how much data are they requesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I barely saturated my 17Mb/s cable connection, now it's upgraded to 30Mb/s I don't have to worry about hitting the upper stop for a while.

 

I can't say that that won't happen in 5, 10, 20 or 50 years from now though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link speeds of 1GB/s but download speeds won't be 1 Gigabit/s

 

it'll still be limited by the international links and upload speed of the servers.

 

Just another way for them to try and secure an election win.

P2P though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think its much of a stretch to think that you could get 1GB/S with Fibre. Remember the theoretical limit of copper wire has long since been blown away.

Its election talk, yes. But it isn't neccesarily an incorrect statement.

 

If I could get 1Gb I think the bottleneck would be my system bus.....

 

I don't think its much of a stretch to think that you could get 1GB/S with Fibre. Remember the theoretical limit of copper wire has long since been blown away.

Its election talk, yes. But it isn't neccesarily an incorrect statement.

 

If I could get 1Gb I think the bottleneck would be my system bus.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the number of Internet connected devices is also increasing. We now have TVs with youtube connectivity and IPTV, a couple of these in a large to medium household would need a fair chunk of bandwidth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I view this is much the same as I view my move from dial-up to cable.

 

I started with one device on dial-up, very slow performance, limited options on what I could use the internet for. Now I have cable I have 7 devices connected to the internet, most of them permanently. The small amount of new technologies I've been able to experience from going to cable is great.

 

I'm sure with a fibre to the node we will see a lot more technology develop to use this bandwidth. PCoIP and IPTV are just two current technologies that will make great use of the bandwidth. Hopefully we can even see a move to more people telecommuting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I may need a quota increase.

 

FWIW I think the NBN is a necessary investment in Australia's future competitiveness. It will be a 'force multiplier' for the economy in all sorts of ways. For a country as far away, and with its major population centers so dispersed, a high speed broadband network is as necessary as highways and airports.

Edited by Virtuoso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the network is capable of it.

The hardware is capable, we don't have the bandwidth to provide it though.

 

You're both incorrect.

 

We don't have the hardware to service a suburb of 1Gbps connections much less the hardware to service the backhaul aggregation.

 

For example, a Cisco 6513 Core Switch (ethernet) has a 720Gbps backplane. If you had 350 NBN connections to the Exchange and then used the other 350 ports in an ether-channel, yeah, you could guarantee 1Gbps speeds nationally.

 

Otherwise it's just more of Conroy's BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×