Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10


BDFL - Memuneh
61323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12066

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 193105 31-Jan-2009 17:30
Send private message

Oh please... American providers are now moving to cap their connections too. Comcast is the first one with 250GB caps. Of course not as low as New Zealand's options, but there isn't all "unlimited" countries in the world.




671 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 193108 31-Jan-2009 17:47
Send private message

teletek:Maybe FTTH will be crucial in the coming years but only time will tell. Until then xDSL

technology will continue to provide the majority of the planet with enough speed
at a reasonable price point and without having to dig the ground to replace
every cable to every house.


So maybe it will be crucial you say? OK, sure, so we'd better get implementing it, otherwise we won't have it when we need it! Wait...



 

Which OECD report are you quoting from when you make the claim that NZ BB is the worst in the developed world?

When I googled "OECD report new zealand broadband" the most recent link is this:

By Computerworld staff Auckland | Friday, 24 October, 2008

The latest OECD report on broadband services shows broadband penetration is growing, but New Zealand's ranking
remains unchanged.

The local rate of growth rate of broadband penetration is the sixth fastest rate in the developed world, according to the OECD, which continues to rank New Zealand 19 out of 30 for broadband penetration, with 20.4 broadband connections per 100 people.

The statistics, for the second quarter, have been welcomed by the Telecommunications Users Association.

“Although our OECD ranking for broadband  penetration remains at 19th out of 30, our rate of growth at around 4% is substantially better than the OECD average,” TUANZ CEO Ernie Newman says.

 

Conveniently, as you can see in my post just above, I mention that we're 19 out of 30 for broadband penetration, which says nothing of the quality, data caps, etc (we also have very large contention ratios).

 

The only one "whining" so far has been you! The rest seem to be discussing VDSL2.


Whining? How is rebutting you "whining"?



HDTVOIP. - Where is TVoIP now or IPTV as it was called a few years ago? Still missing in action.


Oh, gee, I don't know, perhaps it is "missing in action" because we don't have the broadband to cope with it?

 


No viable business case, no need for FTTH


No viable business case? I guess all those companies who are offering IPTV in other countries are in for a big surprise!

 


You want HDTV movies on demand. Check your local video store. In stock now.


Wow. Incredible. You want to send someone a note? Mail a letter. Avaliable now. You obviously don't "get" the internet if you think this way.



Cloud Storage - For what? Your photo collection, home video collection? You want to trust someone else with your personal data? Get a DVD burner or ext HDD or better yet a NAS. Run CAT5/6 or fibre if you want to each neighbour if you want to set up distributed backups all for the cost of a switch and a couple of boxes of cable. Quicker cheaper and under your own control. - No viable business case for FTTH.


Again, something readily available in other parts of the world that you dismiss. You really don't get it do you?



VNC - Lightweight application designed to run over low speed links. Multi Megabit speeds not required. xDSL can handle this while your on your VOIP conf call, reading the news and downloading your email, all at the same time. - No viable business case for FTTH.


It may have been "designed" to run over low speed links. That doesn't mean it can't be vastly better with fibre quality broadband. Just VNC-ing into my university in town over my 10Mb/s cable connection reveals the limits of typical NZ speeds. To transfer lossless high resolution screen captures at 60 frames per second takes a sight more than less than "multi megabit speeds".

 

Telecommuting -  Thin Client applications off server, VOIP, email. Minimal to medium speed for all but a few business in Movie, CAD, DTP. Majority require only low Mbps connections at the most. - Covered by xDSL tech. - No viable business case for
FTTH. Business should pay anyway not taxpayer subsidising business.


Businesses aren't going to spend the money to hook up their employees with FTTH. It's about creating the business case. The taxpayer won't be subsidising the monthly fees. Last I checked, infrastructure is one of the most important things tax money goes into.



Video Conferencing - Oh yeah the old favourite. Real time video streaming only requires 1.5Mbps to provide Broadcast quality, stereo sound etc. Unless you need the end viewers to have HD quality so they can see the hairs sticking out your ears or the pimple emerging on the tip of your nose that you overlooked in the bathroom mirror that morning.


Conferencing is not limited to one person at a time. Multiply that 1.5Mbps over however many people you're conferencing with. Then add in whatever else you're doing with your connection at the time - downloading, streaming IPTV, etc. Not everyone lives alone.



Imagine Video calls to the Boss with FTTH.

Employee: "Morning Boss, can't come in to work this morning, feeling lowsy!.

Boss: "Well you don't look very sick to me... wait a minute....... mmmm. Iris scan says you have a hangover. Stick your hand on the National IP Vital Signs Sensor and give me your vitals...... mmm... vitals look good. You trying to pull another sickie on me son? Best get your butt into the office pronto or your fired."

.... Video Call Ended.

Employee: "Blasted HDTV, IP Med and that stupid National FTTH connection. Who was the Don Key who though of that.  A geek can't even pull a  sickie anymore."


This really helps your argument...



Scientific Collaboration:  Universities already have this. FTTH not required unless you want the professors to have 365 days of holidays as opposed to the 200 they have already, at your expense already I might add. FTTH fails the test once again.


Last I checked, not every scientist works at a University. And like I said, it is especially useful for scientists at HOME. Believe it or not, scientists aren't the "go home and have a rest" type.



Got any more Apps?


Not for you, since you'll just reject them all out of your false logic and poor understanding of the advantages of the internet.



You know personally I really don't care if you get FTTH or not because by the time it happens I'll be retiring so I get to surf the networks all day while you're out working your balls off to pay the high taxes that will be required to pay off the loans that the Guberment, you voted for, chalked up.


Good for you.


I can tell you right now for the nationwide FTTH network you're imagining you are looking closer to $1 trillion by the time it happens.

You laugh?

NZ Herald - Saturday Jan 31, 2009

Previous estimates of $1.89 billion for two-lane tunnels each way along the
4.5km Waterview route or $2.14 billion for three-lane links - as sought by the
Automobile Association and business groups - did not include any of those costs.
The new estimates are $2.77 billion for a 3.2km pair of two-lane tunnels and
$3.16 billion for three lanes in each direction.

$3 billion for 4.5k of Tunnel. How far do you think you're going to get  tunnelling new fibre past every house in the country for $1.5 billion?

:-)


"$1 trillion". "every house in the country". "for $1.5 billion" (hint: that's what the government is putting in. That's not how much they said it will cost). Comparing fibre laying to road tunnels. Well that settles it. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


xDSL is good enough for now and the next 10 years until some Geek comes up with the wonder app that needs more than 100Mbps min. When that happens happens you'll probably be lining up to have a port in the back of your head to stick
the fiber in because you won't be able to interface fast enough using traditional input mechanisms such as keyboard, mouse, etc.


Too bad we won't have FTTH in 10 years under your scheme.



Till then xDSL rocks compared to dialup and I'm happy with my ADSL1 connection.


No surprises there. Just because you are satisfied doesn't mean the rest of us should be.


671 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 193109 31-Jan-2009 17:48
Send private message

freitasm: Oh please... American providers are now moving to cap their connections too. Comcast is the first one with 250GB caps. Of course not as low as New Zealand's options, but there isn't all "unlimited" countries in the world.


I would kill to have a 250GB cap...

Anyway, I never said everywhere else had uncapped broadband. It is however the majority of OECD counties.

45 posts

Geek


  Reply # 193120 31-Jan-2009 19:33
Send private message

Screeb

Again, something readily available in other parts of the world that you dismiss. You really don't get it do you?

Not for you, since you'll just reject them all out of your false logic and poor understanding of the advantages of the internet.

You obviously don't "get" the internet if you think this way.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.



Oh how mistaken you are.

I was getting and delivering Comms and Internet to thousands of people before you even got your first Playstation.

The concepts are the same today as they were then, except back then we managed to do it on bps links not Mbps links. Todays xDSL tech was not even a dream at that point so by those standards you are part of the bandwidth spoiled generation.

For all your ridicule you still have failed the test I challenged you with, which was to come up with ONE application that clearly demonstrates the need for FTTH above xDSL technology, for the majority of the population, not just you.

You have failed, decisively, to provide a clear example to justify the massive investment that FTTH requires. Period.

I wouldn't take it personally as you're not alone in this regard. I'm yet to see any justification or costing on how the investment will be recouped by way of a necessary application/s that benefits the majority and hence justify the investment by the majority.

I can only deduce from your responces to this this thread that you are only interested in ensuring YOU have fast access to whatever it is YOU demand without regard to the cost to the rest of society.

You'll make a good banker, stock trader or politician and a lousy solutions provider.

So here's another challenge which I know you'll fail as well, but you could give it a try. Order your FTTH connection to show your intent and thereby help drive a business case for it and then trying holding your breath until they deliver it to your door.

;-)




671 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 193123 31-Jan-2009 20:09
Send private message

teletek:
Oh how mistaken you are.

I was getting and delivering Comms and Internet to thousands of people before you even got your first Playstation.

The concepts are the same today as they were then, except back then we managed to do it on bps links not Mbps links. Todays xDSL tech was not even a dream at that point so by those standards you are part of the bandwidth spoiled generation.

For all your ridicule you still have failed the test I challenged you with, which was to come up with ONE application that clearly demonstrates the need for FTTH above xDSL technology, for the majority of the population, not just you.

You have failed, decisively, to provide a clear example to justify the massive investment that FTTH requires. Period.

I wouldn't take it personally as you're not alone in this regard. I'm yet to see any justification or costing on how the investment will be recouped by way of a necessary application/s that benefits the majority and hence justify the investment by the majority.

I can only deduce from your responces to this this thread that you are only interested in ensuring YOU have fast access to whatever it is YOU demand without regard to the cost to the rest of society.

You'll make a good banker, stock trader or politician and a lousy solutions provider.

So here's another challenge which I know you'll fail as well, but you could give it a try. Order your FTTH connection to show your intent and thereby help drive a business case for it and then trying holding your breath until they deliver it to your door.

;-)


I have failed merely to convince you. I'm sure we would be having the same conversation in the 1970s. Interconnecting hundreds of thousands of computers (millions? Hah!) across the world? Think of the massive cost! You can't possibly justify that!

You simply seem stuck in the past if you can't see that high speed internet is a good thing, and apparently nothing I say can convince you that this brave new world is full of opportunities neither you or I can think of.

You would make a good conservative CEO, but a lousy pioneer.

134 posts

Master Geek


  Reply # 193187 1-Feb-2009 11:48
Send private message

From March 2009, VDSL2 line cards will be progressively installed into all roadside cabinets
and local telephone exchanges in towns and cities with more than 500 lines


So in that statement pretty much every town / city that is getting adsl2+ will be getting Vdsl2

423 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

Trusted
Chorus NZ

  Reply # 193195 1-Feb-2009 12:46
Send private message

Can we just agree that installing the best and fastest (?) DSL technology that is currently around is a good thing?  Even if rolling out VDSL2/cabinetisation isn't going as far/fast as some would like (ie: FTTH) it is still progressively pushing fibre out closer and closer to the homes at an affordable rate.  I would also think the cabinets would be used to a certain extent when fibre goes even further wouldn't it?  ie: Used to split fibre out into the streets, so not a complete duplication of technology.

Also, even if the plans to roll out fibre to every home were announced tomorrow, would we want to sit on DSL2+ technology for a few more years while it happens?  No, so this is good either way.  And whether it is agreed to or not, there isn't alot out there that VDSL2 can't do, so there isn't a huge rush needed (not to mention there is existing fibre around that you can connect to in places anyway).  Look on the bright side, it is all a step in the right direction and we will get there in the end.

I have some questions specifically about VDSL2 though:  I thought it was theoretically possible for VDSL2 to provide up to 250mbps, but more likely 100mbps @ 500m, so why are they saying 50?  Is that the specific profile they will be using or are they trying to lower expectations?  I'm about 200m from Auckland Central exchange so am keen to know.

Also, hardly any shops sell VDSL2 modems, that will need to change pretty quick and what price should we expect to pay?

PJ.

423 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

Trusted
Chorus NZ

  Reply # 193198 1-Feb-2009 13:07
Send private message

Also I don't think Telecom as a whole should be blamed for the mistakes made (there are heaps of great enthusiastic people at Telecom). For their first 10 years (87-97) they made some huge improvements, especially in Rural NZ (which they seem to have forgotten about), eg: Getting rid of party lines/manual exchanges, rolling out standardised wiring, improving quality, greatly improving calling rates and implementing a really good Broadband network when it first started. The disasterous years have been the next 10 (roughly 97-07) where Senior management should be blamed (ie: Roderick Deane and Therresa Gattung). They stopped focussing on customers, and just worried about shareholders, milking customers for everything, slowing down broadband etc. Paul Reynolds has only been in the job a little while and under huge pressure from all corners, he has some balls and knows what he is talking about, so give the guy a chance, things are looking positive.

I also get annoyed when people talk about "Telecom's monopoly"! If companies don't like Telecom doing what any other business in their place would do then they are quite welcome to build their own multi-billion dollar network around the country! But no they went crying to mummy Labour (or should I say Nanny-Labour -?who privatised Telecom in the first place) and said they wanted the rules changed because they don't have a business case to exist.

Don't get me wrong, Telecom have made some big mistakes and probably should have operationally separated before, but no one is calling for Vodafone or Telstra-clear to do this are they?? I don't think it is the governments place to do this kind of thing and one of the many reasons Labour got turfed out on their ear.

6312 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 293

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 193200 1-Feb-2009 13:16
Send private message

Hi, the Alcatel ISAM family of gear includes FTTH line cards in addition to the copper based line cards currently deployed, so the next step to push the fibre from the exhange/cabinet network into the local reticulation loop is a natural expectation, however to dig every street and house entry is not cheap, therefore the pregnant pause!

I think the release of plans based on 50/20 is a good one, its a safe achievable service for a majority of <1km tails, no use offering something you cannot reliably deliver close to, for domestic grade broadband to currently offer plans north of this places a serious backhaul onus on ISPs which for current domestic requirements is not justified, IMHO.

I have played with VDSL2 CPE from 2wire and Huawai (sp?), nothing special, but current prices are greater than ADSL2+ CPE, but its all  matter of market demand push the the price, once numbers pick up expect them to reduce in price.

One nice feature of VDSL2 is that the ATM wrapper is done away with. The new ISAMs are IP DSLAMs (for both ADSL and VDSL) as opposed to the older ATM based ASAMs, this means that the uplink and backhaul infratructure is based on IP on Ethernet MPLS (metro lan) which is cheaper than ATM to expand and rollout. VDSL2 is a direct ethernet based IP bridge, where as ADSL2 still has to wrap traffic into ATM in the leg between the DSLAM and your modem, reducing complexity.

Cyril

423 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 83

Trusted
Chorus NZ

  Reply # 193202 1-Feb-2009 13:39
Send private message

Hi Cyril,

So would the limit of 50mbps be a software or hardware limit?

PJ.

8027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 387

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 193227 1-Feb-2009 15:36
Send private message

50Mbit would be your VDSL modem's sync rate to your local cabinet.


671 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 193256 1-Feb-2009 17:39
Send private message

pjamieson: I also get annoyed when people talk about "Telecom's monopoly"! If companies don't like Telecom doing what any other business in their place would do then they are quite welcome to build their own multi-billion dollar network around the country! But no they went crying to mummy Labour (or should I say Nanny-Labour -?who privatised Telecom in the first place) and said they wanted the rules changed because they don't have a business case to exist.

Don't get me wrong, Telecom have made some big mistakes and probably should have operationally separated before, but no one is calling for Vodafone or Telstra-clear to do this are they?? I don't think it is the governments place to do this kind of thing and one of the many reasons Labour got turfed out on their ear.


I agree with everything else you said, but I take issue with this. Telecom wasn't a simple "monopoly", they were (and remain) a natural monopoly, something quite different. It would be incredibly wasteful and uneconomic for any company to duplicate the copper Telecom owns all around the country, thus they are forced to buy wholesale access. Telecom used their natural monopoly to extract the highest prices possible (which is to be expected of any monopoly), thus the government saw fit to regulate it. Regulation of natural monopolies is essential, especially in infrastructure. Imagine if a private company owned all the roads in the country, and charged large fees for using them - I'm sure you wouldn't suggest that another company suck it up and build their own roads, rather than asking the government to regulate them.

Sure there are alternatives to Telecom's network - wireless and satellite for example - but they aren't equal replacements. Just like helicopters and planes aren't equal replacements for roads.

939 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 16

Trusted

  Reply # 193261 1-Feb-2009 17:52
Send private message

Screeb: 
Telecom wasn't a simple "monopoly", they were (and remain) a natural monopoly, something quite different.


To pick holes in this, because I'm feeling mean and nothing else - it's Chorus who have a natural monopoly - and that's only on the Copper PSTN network (of which services rely on).

To further throw a spanner in the works, it can and does make sense for other companies to duplicate the coverage footprint of this network - as TelstraClear has done - with different (but similar) technologies, such as HFC (again, like TelstraClear).




munchkin | Troll | Author | Artist | Citizen | Friend | Misanthrope

Join us in the Geekzone IRC channel!

 


All information contained in posts made by me shall be treated as PotatoZoo's own personal opinion unless otherwise specified.

 


671 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 193271 1-Feb-2009 19:16
Send private message

munchkin:
To pick holes in this, because I'm feeling mean and nothing else - it's Chorus who have a natural monopoly - and that's only on the Copper PSTN network (of which services rely on).


Yeah yeah, Chorus, whatever, you know what I mean. (Still owned by Telecom NZ though)


To further throw a spanner in the works, it can and does make sense for other companies to duplicate the coverage footprint of this network - as TelstraClear has done - with different (but similar) technologies, such as HFC (again, like TelstraClear).


It certainly does not make sense to duplicate say the entire copper loop. HFC is different because it provides other services such as cable TV, which is what it was originally rolled out for in NZ.

939 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 16

Trusted

  Reply # 193273 1-Feb-2009 19:20
Send private message

Screeb:
It certainly does not make sense to duplicate say the entire copper loop. HFC is different because it provides other services such as cable TV, which is what it was originally built for.


I didn't say "the entire copper loop", did I? I said the coverage footprint of this network with different technologies, ie, HFC.

I know full-well that the TelstraClear HFC network provides different services; The Telecom/Chorus network is also capable of providing many different services, too.




munchkin | Troll | Author | Artist | Citizen | Friend | Misanthrope

Join us in the Geekzone IRC channel!

 


All information contained in posts made by me shall be treated as PotatoZoo's own personal opinion unless otherwise specified.

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.