<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000066">
On 12/08/2010 11:49 AM, Tim McCullagh wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:009601cb39c0$914e6850$6500a8c0@hal" type="cite"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">I think it is far more important to get
broadband to those that have none at all, than to bring faster
broadband to those that already have it. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
So are you now saying we don't need to build ftth where ADSL 2 already
exists <br>
</blockquote>
. <br>
No - see below<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:009601cb39c0$914e6850$6500a8c0@hal" type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> I also think that broadband is about a whole
lot more than simple downstream capacity. Upstream capacity is also
important, latency is also important. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Absolutley, things like need, access, affordability, competition,
choice and so on <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Then lets focus on upstream for a moment - I don't think ADSL2 is
adequate in the long term, because it can't deliver 12 Mbps in the
upstream direction as well as the downstream direction, if we are going
to pick 12 Mbps as the benchmark - and it never can. All this debate
about 12 / 20 / 100 Mbps is all focussed purely on downstream speeds,
when in reality this is only one of several aspects that should be
considered to pick an appropriate technology that is 'fit for purpose'.<br>
. <br>
The two most limiting and inadequate aspects of our broadband today -
the characteristics that most limits how people with access to
broadband use and benefit from their broadband - are not downstream
capacity.<br>
<br>
One is the pitiful sub-1 Mbps upstream capacity, the extreme asymmetry
of the current technology. It limits effective video conferencing, it
limits offsite backups, it limits all forms of symmetric interaction to
the lowest common denominator of each party's upstream or downstream
linkrate. It makes large emails or files that download at one end in
seconds take minutes and sometimes hours to upload. It screws any hope
of doing anything significant that involves transferring very large
files in and out, such as video post-processing. If we're going to
build - or encourage private enterprise to build - a broadband network
infrastructure to underpin a smart economy and enable new applications,
it has to be a lot more symmetric than what we have now - if 12 Mbps
down is to be the 'minimum peak', then it needs to be 12 /12 symmetric
for the most benefit - and 20, 50, maybe even 100 in the future..<br>
ADSL2+ can't do it. HFC won't do it. fixed wireless might - but fibre
certainly will.<br>
<br>
The second is effective QoS and differential queuing, all the way to
the home user. This is the thing that makes a packet-based broadband
service reliable and dependable - that would enable everyone to use
VoIP for important calls without worrying about someone else in the
house killing the call by uploading a big file to youtube, for example.
Thjis is the aspect that enables a broadband infrastructure to be used
reliably for economic gain for the nation, instead of an entertainment
toy.<br>
Its actually not reliant on the NBN/fibre/copper debate, since for the
most part it could be enabled on today's networks if the operators had
a will to - anyone doing IPTV such as iinet have already implemented
it, unfortunately its not extended to residential / SOHO applications
yet. <br>
The NBN would be fully QoS-enabled. I don't see anything in the
coalition policy to indicate any of that infrastructure payed for
through government grants would be so enabled. If all it does is extend
the current best-efforts ADSL and HFC networks to higher downstream
speeds, it will have failed its potential in this regard too. <br>
<br>
Paul.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>