[AusNOG] Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal]

[Paul Brooks]

On 12/08/2010 11:49 AM, Tim McCullagh wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> So are you now saying we don't need to build ftth where ADSL 2 already 
> exists
.
No - see below

>>  I also think that broadband is about a whole lot more than simple 
>> downstream capacity. Upstream capacity  is also important, latency is 
>> also important.
>
> Absolutley,   things like need, access, affordability, competition, 
> choice and so on

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'.
.
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.

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..
ADSL2+ can't do it. HFC won't do it. fixed wireless might - but fibre 
certainly will.

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.
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.
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.

Paul.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20100813/694c0445/attachment.html>