Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 104593	2009-11-02 02:20:00	Breaking news: No need for FTTH!	Chilling_Silence (9)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
826369	2009-11-02 02:20:00	Well, not quite, I'm twisting the article quite a bit here: www.techday.co.nz But let's be honest here. If the back-end infrastructure surrounding ADSL2+ was solid enough that people *constantly* got the advertised speeds (Well, the speeds they sync at of over 2mbps) then there would be little need for FTTH with the exception of streaming HDTV. You can easily game, use the phone, browse the web, email, chat, and have a good 5-10 people doing that happily with no issues if you're on a good-quality 2mbps dsl line with full-speed upload. In my experience it's when throttling comes in to play (Such as Big Times Traffic Management affecting YouTube etc) and congestion at the Exchange level that causes most of the issues people seem to suffer from. Am I the only one here who has no real *need* for anything faster than 2mbps? The fact I'm currently getting 4.5mbps down and 800kbps upload is just a nice bonus. Large downloads take less time, sure, but other than that ... . ... ... And drop the price too, THAT would be nice ;) Anyways, thought I'd stir up some debate on the topic, mostly coz I reckon that the 8-billion odd that it's supposedly going to cost to roll Fibre to the Home / Node / Cabinet / whatever is a *LOT* of money that could quite honestly be better utilized elsewhere .. Edit: It's probably worth me mentioning that in my experience with around 2-dozen Orcon ADSL2+ connections, they've all constantly attained the max sync speeds in relation to downloads both locally & internationally. It's only where there has been poor cabling to the building that disconnections have been an issue (Aging premises), but other than that, the speeds seem to be attained well. Now, imagine if all ISP's were like that! In terms of ADSL1 connections, they seem to be reselling / wholesaling off Telecom and the service / quality sucks badly :p	Chilling_Silence (9)
826370	2009-11-02 02:22:00	Who cares about a company's productivity. People pay for it, and expect to get decent speeds, from using it	Speedy Gonzales (78)
826371	2009-11-02 02:23:00	Yes but how many businesses do you know that pay for Fibre? In a country where supposedly 95% of businesses are "small businesses", Fibre is WELL out of the reach of many and from what I can tell would provide little to no benefits over the likes of ADSL2+?!	Chilling_Silence (9)
826372	2009-11-02 02:26:00	I dont know of any. Actually I dont even know whos got BB, and who hasnt :p	Speedy Gonzales (78)
826373	2009-11-02 02:28:00	:D	Chilling_Silence (9)
826374	2009-11-02 02:30:00	Chill, Id LOVE to get 2mbps at home, especially on a regular basis. I have a speed unthrottled connection at home (with Telecom) and I'm lucky to get 2mbps on a good day. I'm posting this using a TStick from a client site (no the clock isn't ticking while I type this!) - I am getting between 3mbps and 4.36mbps down and a regular .83mbps up. But the cost!!!! :horrified Thankfully, it's tax-deductible, because everything I do with this laptop is work-related ;)	johcar (6283)
826375	2009-11-02 03:10:00	Exactly, if the back-end actually worked decently, wouldn't that be nice? Sure there are some cases where if you're transferring large files from site-to-site, such as HD Video and things, then it'd be nice if it happened in seconds rather than minutes ... but aren't we spending billions for the special few who are the exception rather than the rule? Does it really matter to your business if you download PDF'd Tender Documents for a new building in 2 seconds or 40 seconds? Do you *really* care?	Chilling_Silence (9)
826376	2009-11-02 03:16:00	I think there's three issues here . (Warning: This is a very long post . ) Firstly, the majority of the cost will be footed by the private sector - the taxpayer is stumping up about $1 . 5b towards the FTTH programme, with the rest of it being covered by private companies . Investors won't put their money towards it unless they see it as a viable investment, and based on early indications it seems that there are plenty of investors willing to put their money where their mouths are and invest in LFCs . The govt . will get the money back over time, so it's not really an "expense" - like the billions we throw at beneficiaries for example . For what is essentially a $1 . 5b "loan" to the private sector, we're getting a world class, open-access fibre network, that will open up a lot of possiblities - including some which we don't even know exist yet (discussed later) . Secondly, FTTH is a long-term initiative . ADSL2+, VDSL and other similar technologies based on the copper network are "transitionary" technologies, which may very well satisfy the needs of users over the next few years . When the copper phone lines were originally put in by the Post & Telegraph Office (or whatever they were called at the time), they put in significantly more capacity than anyone thought would be necessary . Thanks to that over-investment, they able to cater for homes and businesses without needing to tear up the streets to lay more copper as more and more people got home phone lines, sections were subdivided, multiple businesses out of one building, and so on . Fax machines were invented, so all of a sudden the phone line could be used to send text . Dial-up modems and the internet came about, and the copper which used to just carry voice now carries data as well . We've already pushed the limits of copper phone networks quite a bit - there's only so much more that we can do with it, before it becomes either cost prohibitive, or too technically difficult to implement . What about wireless? Well, current technologies like WiMAX and so on sound great, but come nowhere near the performance of fibre . 4th gen LTE networks will have to wait until analogue TV is shut off (still several years away) so they have access to ideal spectrum, and even then, still won't be able to compete with the speed and reliability of fibre . Fibre does seem like overkill now, but in a few decades it'll be essential . Thanks to faster broadband access, we've seen things like VoIP increase in popularity - since it's now viable . Without a high-speed network there, it simply can't gain widespread adoption - imagine trying to run a business like Skype when everyone is on dialup . Likewise, people are using videoconferencing to cut down on travel costs, however are still limited in richness due to poor connection speeds or excessive latency & jitter - it's "good", but it's not great . At the consumer level, who would have thought that sites like Hulu & Youtube would be viable in the past? A lot of new businesses have popped up thanks to the availability of broadband internet, but many are still held back because of the performance (and cost) limitations of current xDSL packages . The only thing we can do now is guess what the future holds - we won't really know until it happens . People have been predicting things like IPTV and so on to gain wider acceptance, but if we're stuck with the aging copper network (and the technical limitations it has), it'll be a compromise between quality, cost, and reliability . Even with Telecom's rollout of cabinets, speeds are still quite variable, and upload speed for instance is still quite poor - which means rather than being content producers, most users are simply content consumers . From a business user's perspective, a lot of decisions around business models and infrastructure investment are made on the basis that the internet connection speed is limited, and as such a lot of stuff has to be done in-house . Small businesses administer and host their own file servers and domain controllers onsite, and because of cost, often don't have the best disaster protection in place (i . e . backups, UPS infrastructure etc . ) . If they could access a server located offsite at near-LAN speed with FTTH/FTTP, there's no reason why "their" servers couldn't reside in a datacentre, or even better - be managed by a cloud vendor . For a lot of the creative industries, there are large files to be shipped back and forth, between employees (working from home for example), and to clients for review . In many cases the easiest way is still to put the files on a disk and courier it - if they could do it quicker, i . e . push it over a fast network to their client, the turnaround times would be shorter, improving productivity and efficiency . NZ businesses could easily service overseas customers, making us an exporter of tertiary services, rather than just primary produce (meat, dairy etc . ) . Finally, something like the FTTH initiative will have a lot of side-effects which may not necessarily be obvious . For people who are happy with the existing xDSL network, the availability of FTTH will likely push down prices for these "less advanced" services . You can compare that to dialup internet today - $10 unlimited per month from KOL, compared to the $30/40 we used to pay for equivalent services not that many years ago . It will also threaten a lot of the incumbent players (Telecom, TelstraClear, Vodafone et al . ) as there is now a duplicated, and higher performing network available, which also has government backing . This should hopefully encourage them to be more competitive (TelstraClear have announced that they're going to compete aggressively against FTTH with their own cable network, for example) . The FTTH plan is a long-term one . Like any major infrastructure investment, it's not intended to just address today's needs - it's something that's intended to support services which haven't even been invented yet, over many decades . ADSL2+ might be fine for now, but in a few years time it won't be . It wasn't that many years ago that Bill Gates famously said "640K of memory should be enough for anybody" - look where we are now . [Disclaimer: Of course the backhaul networks will need investment in order to keep up with increased demand for network capacity, but it is something that will take care of itself - based on the number of companies that sell backhaul fibre capacity today, there's no reason to believe why they won't continue to build more . Pricing for plans will also need to be competitive, but based on current estimates they don't seem unreasonable - I don't have the exact figures handy, but there was a number floating around that an entry level FTTH package would cost around $50+GST/month . ]	somebody (208)
826377	2009-11-02 03:35:00	Just the kind of argument post I was looking for, and you present some very good points indeed, many of which I secretly agree with ;)	Chilling_Silence (9)
826378	2009-11-02 03:40:00	Nice post Somebody. If we all got our line speeds in real time download and upload, all would be gravy, however that just isn't the case.	wratterus (105)
1 2