NBN Discussion

[drron]

Still a very large area in Green drsmithy.

 

[RooFlyer]

Speaking of straw men, This is a furphy. Australia is big, and there's not a lot of people, but nearly all of them are stuffed into a relative handful of cities. Our urban density is actually quite high - the "aussie bush town" is an anachronism.

This is a deceptive comparison.

Well, I'm sure all the Aussies living in bush towns are very sorry for their anachronistic state! I don't know your circumstances drsmithy but your perspective would also fit perfectly for an inner-urban ponytail type ... can't comprehend the circumstances of anyone not sitting beside them in a café reading The Age or SMH.

And yes, Australia IS a big country with low population densities. And its many of those little, inconsequential anachronistic 'bush town' dots that one mob tried to sell us would be serviced by optic fibre NBN (remember that promise? ) So the diagram is very relevant to the topic and not deceptive at all when we get silly ads on the TV telling us how good the broadband is in Romania.

And I guess Perth is one of your anachronistic 'bush towns'?

 

[whatmeworry]

The other day I was thinking how great it would be if some of the inland towns got FTTP. Imagine some tech startups paying ridiculous rental prices in the big cities could move to the bush.

I would love to live somewhere like on the Murray but of course too much of our industries are concentrated in the capitals.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Actually I think most would be happy with a fibre run down the street and paying to do the last twenty metres.

But this isn't being done. Instead they're running to the end of the street (if you're lucky) and relying on ****ty old copper lines that won't last and the whole shebang will have to be ripped and replaced in a decade or so, when for not a lot more they could have done it properly and future-proofed for many decades by running fibre.

Well not a lot more multiplied by millions of households adds up to be quite a lot. And the copper network will last well beyond 10 years, as it will be maintained just as it is now.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Actually I think most would be happy with a fibre run down the street and paying to do the last twenty metres.

But this isn't being done. Instead they're running to the end of the street (if you're lucky) and relying on ****ty old copper lines that won't last and the whole shebang will have to be ripped and replaced in a decade or so, when for not a lot more they could have done it properly and future-proofed for many decades by running fibre.

Go take a look, the fibre might already be there. You could pay a few thousand bucks and have it connected!

The copper will last longer than a decade. In some areas it's barely 10 years old. Perfect to run technology such as high speed VDSL into the gigabits from the node that will be installed in the street, maybe a few hundred meters away.

Oh and anyone with Foxtel cable - that "copper" can already reach into the gigabits with just an upgrade of equipment on both ends. So I suppose the shouldn't be allowed to use that either as it is not fibre?

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

The other day I was thinking how great it would be if some of the inland towns got FTTP. Imagine some tech startups paying ridiculous rental prices in the big cities could move to the bush.

I would love to live somewhere like on the Murray but of course too much of our industries are concentrated in the capitals.

I'd suggest that creative people want to live in cities and sip lattes and complain about the traffic rather than move to the Murray. Country towns are all but closing down due to lack of sustainable population, and I can tell you it's not due to slow internet speeds.

What we need is new cities. Newcastle, Wollongong, Toowoomba, Sale, etc. developed into major regional cities, not just outposts, with high speed rail connections to the capitals.

But the NIMBYs won't allow that, and none of the politicians have the vision (or the balls) to put up such an idea,

 

[drsmithy]

Well, I'm sure all the Aussies living in bush towns are very sorry for their anachronistic state! I don't know your circumstances drsmithy but your perspective would also fit perfectly for an inner-urban ponytail type ... can't comprehend the circumstances of anyone not sitting beside them in a café reading The Age or SMH.

And yes, Australia IS a big country with low population densities. And its many of those little, inconsequential anachronistic 'bush town' dots that one mob tried to sell us would be serviced by optic fibre NBN (remember that promise? ) So the diagram is very relevant to the topic and not deceptive at all when we get silly ads on the TV telling us how good the broadband is in Romania.

And I guess Perth is one of your anachronistic 'bush towns'?

I grew up in a small country town. I hate cities.

However, nearly 90% of Australians live in an urban area and it is increasing every year as the life gets sucked out of rural areas.

Urban population (% of total) in Australia

Romania, FWIW, is about 50%.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/romania/urban-population-percent-of-total-wb-data.html

 

[drsmithy]

I'd suggest that creative people want to live in cities and sip lattes and complain about the traffic rather than move to the Murray. Country towns are all but closing down due to lack of sustainable population, and I can tell you it's not due to slow internet speeds.

So if some country town did something intelligent like make huge swathes of land around it free to new businesses and their staff, you don't think the presence - or lack thereof - of high speed internet would play a part as to how attractive that country town might be ?

What we need is new cities. Newcastle, Wollongong, Toowoomba, Sale, etc. developed into major regional cities, not just outposts, with high speed rail connections to the capitals.

But the NIMBYs won't allow that, and none of the politicians have the vision (or the balls) to put up such an idea,

HSR ? Holy cough, and you're trying to dis the NBN as expensive, pointless and uneconomic ?

I'm all in favour of a much larger number of smaller cities, and HSR is awesome, but you couldn't even make it work between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne, FFS. Even $100b on the NBN is pocket change compared to what a nationwide HSR network would cost.

OTOH, if you really do want a Government to stand up and build HSR, vote Greens. As a side benefit, you'll get a better country across the board out of it, economic policies that might actually be sustainable, and vastly more transparent Government.

 

[drsmithy]

Well not a lot more multiplied by millions of households adds up to be quite a lot.

Not in aggregate.

And the copper network will last well beyond 10 years, as it will be maintained just as it is now.

So, poorly ?

 

[drron]

I grew up in a small country town. I hate cities.

However, nearly 90% of Australians live in an urban area and it is increasing every year as the life gets sucked out of rural areas.

Urban population (% of total) in Australia

Romania, FWIW, is about 50%.

Urban population (% of total) in Romania

It would help to know what the UN/World bank define as urban.Australia's 50 largest cities population doesn't add up to the >21 million they define as urban Australia.
In 2013 the 50th city was Alice Springs with 28,720 population.A little bit distant for fibre all the way.Devonport is number 49.So less than 3km from the centre of the CBD you have these scenes of Urbanisation-

.

.

I'd reckon that many would regard this as a small country city/town.

Australia's top 50 largest cities and towns by population | id

 

[drsmithy]

It would help to know what the UN/World bank define as urban.Australia's 50 largest cities population doesn't add up to the >21 million they define as urban Australia.
In 2013 the 50th city was Alice Springs with 28,720 population.A little bit distant for fibre all the way.Devonport is number 49.So less than 3km from the centre of the CBD you have these scenes of Urbanisation-

.

.

I'd reckon that many would regard this as a small country city/town.

Australia's top 50 largest cities and towns by population | id

The point is that we no longer have large numbers of people living in relatively sparse residential areas.

Even in rural areas, new developments are squeezing people onto tiny 500m^2 postage stamps while surrounded by thousands of acres of empty space and have been for years.

In that map you posted above, just from eyeballing it easily 3/4 is excluded as white.

 

[RooFlyer]

The point is that we no longer have large numbers of people living in relatively sparse residential areas.

Even in rural areas, new developments are squeezing people onto tiny 500m^2 postage stamps while surrounded by thousands of acres of empty space and have been for years.

In that map you posted above, just from eyeballing it easily 3/4 is excluded as white.

(my bolding)

So then the question is - how do you service the white bits - with decent broadband? Possible responses are:

1) "Tough luck; there's not many of you. You still have a telegram office, don't you?"

2) "Ever heard of Terra Nullius?" (The bit I made bold above, refers; sound familiar?)

3) "Where's Zeehan? And do they serve decent lattes?"

4) "Sure, we have a technology called Fixed Wireless which can deliver fast broadband cheaply and effectively."

5) "Serves you right. You should live in a city. Why do you live in the country anyway? Its not as if you can't buy meat and vegies in the city."

 

[drron]

The point is that we no longer have large numbers of people living in relatively sparse residential areas.

Even in rural areas, new developments are squeezing people onto tiny 500m^2 postage stamps while surrounded by thousands of acres of empty space and have been for years.

In that map you posted above, just from eyeballing it easily 3/4 is excluded as white.

And you talk about straw men.The area in white is a berry farm with them being grown under cover ie traditional rural land.
Your dismissal of the map of Australia is incredible.From Port Lincoln to Cairns via the coast virtually the whole distance is in green corresponding to your "urban areas".The distance though is >5000Km.Where in your list of countries less urbanised than Australia can you travel that far.
You brought up Romania as being much less urbanised than Australia but Romania has an area of ~238,400 Sq.Km with a population of 19.94 million.Australia's most densely populated state is Victoria-virtually the same size as Romania at ~237,600 Sq.Km but a population of 5.4 million the vast majority in Melbourne but virtually all of it in green hence qualifying as urban on your World Bank link.
NSW has an area of 809.444 Sq.Km with a population of 7.5 million.Even if you accept that only 30% is "urbanised" it is still larger than Romania with ~ 40% of Romania's population.Of course you would be leaving some cities such as Broken Hill and Griffith both of which are in Australia's top 100 in population without any reception.Not what Minister Conroy promised.

Get over it.Australia is a vast place and the coastal urbanised strip is still larger than most countries in Europe.

 

[jb747]

..... And the copper network will last well beyond 10 years, as it will be maintained just as it is now.

Just as it is now....what a scary comment. I've been battling with Telstra for around a year over various line issues. And I live in one of the major towns, not in the middle of nowhere. As best I can tell, the lines are only about 15 years old and they are already terrible.

 

[RooFlyer]

Just as it is now....what a scary comment. I've been battling with Telstra for around a year over various line issues. And I live in one of the major towns, not in the middle of nowhere. As best I can tell, the lines are only about 15 years old and they are already terrible.

I'm also battling with Telstra re their copper network (can't get ADSL at all). Answer? (To the effect of) "Oh, NBN is coming, so we are not investing in upgrading copper at all any more."

 

[drsmithy]

(my bolding)

So then the question is - how do you service the white bits - with decent broadband? Possible responses are:

The discussion isn't about the massive, empty, white bits. It's about serving rural TOWNS where residences are CLUSTERED TOGETHER so you can efficiently run CABLES TO AND WITHIN THEM.


Yes, if you're living past the black stump and your nearest neighbour is a half hour drive away, wireless or satellite is the best option. Nobody disagrees. But if you're in a town of, say, 10,000+ people, then it's probably a reasonable idea to run fibre past most homes within the town limits.


That covers the vast, vast majority of Australians. Well into 80%. Because we are a highly urbanised country.

 

[drsmithy]

And you talk about straw men.The area in white is a berry farm with them being grown under cover ie traditional rural land.

No, it's mostly empty desert with some empty tropical rainforest in the north.

Your dismissal of the map of Australia is incredible.From Port Lincoln to Cairns via the coast virtually the whole distance is in green corresponding to your "urban areas".The distance though is >5000Km.Where in your list of countries less urbanised than Australia can you travel that far.

They're not "my" urban areas, and I didn't post that map.

"Urban areas" in Australia are defined as "population clusters of 1000 or more people, with a density of at least 200/km". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_area#Australia)

The whole point I'm making here is that yes, it's a long way between towns, BUT MOST OF THE POPULATION LIVES WITHIN THOSE TOWNS NOT SPREAD OUT BETWEEN THEM.

You brought up Romania [...]

No, somebody else did.

Australia's most densely populated state is Victoria-virtually the same size as Romania at ~237,600 Sq.Km but a population of 5.4 million the vast majority in Melbourne but virtually all of it in green hence qualifying as urban on your World Bank link.

You are confusing the map drron posted with the ABS definition of "urban".

Get over it.Australia is a vast place and the coastal urbanised strip is still larger than most countries in Europe.

Nobody is arguing it's not a big place. The point is that most of it is empty and 80-90% of the population live in suburban houses in fairly close proximity to each other.

I don't know where you live, but I imagine there is at least one nearby area where a reasonable amount of houses remain on classic 1/4 acre - or at least 1000m^2+ - blocks. Go for a drive through it, and consider that probably 85-90% of the population lives in higher-density residential areas than that.

 

[drsmithy]

Just for those who are geographically challenged, see here:
View attachment 54697

Maybe these will help illustrate the point:

 

[drron]

The discussion isn't about the massive, empty, white bits. It's about serving rural TOWNS where residences are CLUSTERED TOGETHER so you can efficiently run CABLES TO AND WITHIN THEM.


Yes, if you're living past the black stump and your nearest neighbour is a half hour drive away, wireless or satellite is the best option. Nobody disagrees. But if you're in a town of, say, 10,000+ people, then it's probably a reasonable idea to run fibre past most homes within the town limits.


That covers the vast, vast majority of Australians. Well into 80%. Because we are a highly urbanised country.

I grew up in a small country town. I hate cities.

However, nearly 90% of Australians live in an urban area and it is increasing every year as the life gets sucked out of rural areas.

Urban population (% of total) in Australia

Romania, FWIW, is about 50%.

Urban population (% of total) in Romania

Yes you did mention Romania.
You also admit we have to run cables TO those centres of urbanisation-and I see you use centres over 1000.
So my mentioning the distance from Port Lincoln[pop-14,086] to Cairns[pop-154,820] being 5000Km is relevant.Hardly any of that distance is a vast tract of unpopulated land.

How are you going to get the service to Darwin,Perth,Kalgoorlie,Alice Springs,Broken Hill.You are talking about Places that are included in your 90% urbanisation figures according to your World Bank link.
The 90% was also the figure announced by Minister Conroy-
National Broadband Network Overview
So you are talking a lot of cable to be laid.
Also WA,QLD,NT,SA and NSW are in area all larger than any European country.


PS-if you pictures in post 538 were to the same scale it would prove just how much more cable you need to lay in Australia to get coverage of our Urban centres.

 

[significance]

Maybe these will help illustrate the point:

Yes, those images illustrate the point very nicely: despite having a large total area, the vast majority of the population of Australia is clustered into a small few regions near the coast. We have a highly urbanised, centralised population, so the size of the country isn't an excuse for poor infrastructure in towns and cities.