liv.id.au

This email was written by someone who is obviously NOT an expert.
Did they really say that? The original email is at the bottom of this article.

Where do we start?

Dispense with the misconceptions first. These type of articles are nearly always biased; the ones that get forwarded on in emails, anyway.
It’s important to understand this, and prudent to make reference to any political leanings; perhaps prefacing the copy, when forwarding such things on.
On the same topic of legitimacy,  look at point 5 in their email.

It’s absurd to think that you could submit an article similar to this, and others, for academic review, minus all of the citations required for any kind of professional review. Some of the articles I’ve seen, are purported to be from real life professors who lecture on economics and politics. I think not.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck… Phrases such as “then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet”, or “zero cost to the tax payer”, or “That’s why no other country has done this” are all without a citation, and I can easily prove them to all be incorrect anyway.
But just to finish on this issue, irrespective of the lack of references to substantiate such propositions. The very nature of such broad statements, reflects an inherent agenda. You can’t believe someone who just comes out and says something like “most people read their emails at night”. How do you know they do?

On the issue of politics, and the whole notion of  policy-vs-policy;  BPD.  Maybe, don’t engage  in religious wars. And that is what the two party political system brings out in certain people.  Lumping things into just two categories, is not an accurate reflection of the real world, it’s not pragmatic, and sometimes hysterical. I am not against a two party preferred system either, it’s just that when people take sides, they sometimes lose perspective I would argue. And the NBN is a great reflection of this.

Before making our way on to the actual topic of the NBN, I should also say that I don’t view the NBN itself as a great concept just because the idea of a great big gnarly network is out there. I just like the idea of something actually being out there. Like I have said before, notwithstanding the cliche of good-economic-management, you have to actually have ideas and develop them to keep moving forward. Innovation has been fundamental to our survival over the millennia, so it could possibly be a good thing. It concerns me greatly that one half of our political representation had no policy at all until just now, and only in response to the other party’s policy. Is it just me that thinks this is a major cause for concern?

What I think is important is to also give some discussion on the idea of private enterprise and the nature of competition being a better approach to the delivery of a national network. Empirically, we have had exactly that. A deregulated and competition driven industry; save for Telstra’s half-monopoly on back-haul. At the retail end of the market, what has that given us relative to the rest of the world? What we have  clearly unsubstantial.  Also, whilst competition is always good for the consumer.  There is a whole other sphere of debate, on whether advantageous factor conditions unexceptionally foster growth  in industries, or eventually become counter intuitive, as complacency sets in, and a lack of local challenges  means companies rarely have to innovate and compete in ways that benefit the consumer.  On a case-by-case basis, in this case the private sector hitherto, has given us slow speeds, relatively expensive pricing and abominable customer support.

Further, private equity in Australia. Are we kidding ourselves?  Australia is famous for bleeding great ideas, only to have them pawned off overseas, because there is no belief in our own intellectual capital. As the saying goes – if nothing changes, nothing changes. As far as I can see the situation is still the same. It’s false hope to suggest that this whole concept is best left to the private sector.

I think that it’s good to also understand that the first draft of anything is just that; a draft. I actually view the NBN as a first draft, and with bi-partisan support, it could be debated, scrutinised, negotiated and reworked into something that is closer to what would actually benefit the country best. Unfortunately the consequence of our current political system yields little forward development in relation to this.

I feel sorry for Malcom Turnbul. Here is a guy who knows and understands the industry, having to kowtow to Tony Abbot. This happens perhaps, in a way that is reminiscent of a middle manager who knows nothing about anything telling the specialist what the ultimate decision is going to be. I know what that feels like, and it’s really sobering. I am making a guess here, but I would lay you all-of-London-to-a-brick  that he doesn’t honestly believe in wireless as a good solution. No one I have spoken to, who knows anything about network infrastructure actually does.

If there’s one thing about IT, it is that, like the automotive industry; the health industry and others, you get what you pay for. Listen to and recognize how all encompassing these well known phrases ring true in life. “You get what you pay for”; “things are cheap for a reason”; “there is no such thing as a good cheap job”. On top of these inherent truths, there is the most famous saying in IT that has been in my experience to encounter and it goes “you always end up spending the money eventually”. Live in reality. A band-aid on a person can be removed after the problem has healed. You can’t expect the same result with  infrastructure.

There are primarily two motivations that should drive the need for a NBN in my mind. First, is the need to provide reach for regional and other ancillary areas that have nothing better than dial-up available to them. The second is to provide a framework for development, expedient communications and opportunistic support for industries like health. The idea of everyone having fast internet is a close third, but still auxiliary in my mind. A good example would be sending an MRI scan over a fiber network from a regional area to a medical hub in a metropolitan area for appraisal. Do you understand how much bandwidth is required to carry a full guts MRI scan? 30 Gigabytes+ for a standard one. Luckily both parties at least agree on this. Raise your glasses.

The NBN should not put fiber out to places that don’t require it. I’m sure you could knock 25% of the cost of the project by doing an appraisal of market demand or something similar; however, the whole model is based on take up, so that’s not really an option. There are long hauls that could be eliminated and the cost could potentially be saved there. The bigger cost is in repeaters, when you run vast distances. It’s not a relatively huge cost to just go and replace long runs of fiber, as the person who authored the original email is suggesting in point 1. Personally I would suggest doing FTTN – fiber to the node or street, and utilising existing copper from there to the home, until those who want it can pay for it. That would knock a bit off the overall cost, whilst still putting everything in place perhaps.

Future technologies are relevant when making an assessment on the value of the capabilities of infrastructure. You have to accept that things will be different in more than five years so you have to envisage that our requirements will be far greater then. The concept of the event horizon illustrates this. Do not apply the requirements of technology of today to the proposed bandwidth and speed of a fiber network. It doesn’t make sense. Here is an article that talks about the growing size of the Internet.

Gartner analysts : At least two-thirds of all IT spending is just to sustain the business, not to change or transform the business. The investments allocated to do new things, to change the business, are usually low, no more than 20 percent, and the investment in innovations which could transform the business is even less. Seize the Day – In some very key business initiatives, IT can and should lead. For some of these top initiatives, IT organizations have the skills in these areas, so they shouldn’t wait for tomorrow, they should seize the day.

Australia is big, it’s incidental for us. It’s not going to be cheap sooner OR later, and we will be the only one who doesn’t have one…

So I’ll pick apart this email below, and at the same time examine the viability of NBN alternative technologies.

Wireless as a substitute.
Wireless suffers from a large collection of issues. 4G will be better, but it still has all the foibles of any other wireless network, namely:

• Even WORSE contention ratios than anything else – over subscription, as a direct function of the limited amount of spectrum available to carry all the data.
• Black spots
• Adverse weather conditions
• It’s an unsecured media – your information is flying around up in the air – if the network was ever hacked?
• Radio tower congestion – the amount of traffic that one tower can handle
• High latency – the technology involves more switching, and as a result is not as seamless as a true cable service

And for a nightcap, surf on over to the forums on http://www.whirlpool.net.au and take inventory of the untold number of horror stories people experience with their wireless broadband service.

And here is a forums topic on this very email that did the rounds, being discussed by people who know something about something.

I will now debunk the author of the original email’s three propositions.

• “then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet”

Is this guy joking? I wonder if he knows what that is. I wonder if ANYONE even knows what that is? Anyway that whole concept of the way this works is skewed. What about point to point is Australia? What about low latency for video calls etc? It’s not all about ‘width’.

• “zero cost to the tax payer”

Does this even need a comment? How can you make a broad statement like that. Everything costs money. Radio towers, second tier technology, technicians, support staff etc.

• “That’s why no other country has done this”

Bwahahahaha!!!  The whole proposition in this person’s article about no other country doing a fiber roll out? I guess someone should have told Paris, Seoul & Tokyo. While we’re at it, someone should really give NZ a heads up too. Oh and just for good measure, there’s a whole Wikipedia page dedicated to countries who have FTTH rolled out already or plan to. “Average real-world speed of FTTH is 66 Mbit/s in the whole of Japan, and 78 Mbit/s in Tokyo.”

Also worth reading is: nbn_3_0_our_reply_alliance_affordable_broadband

_______ ORIGINAL EMAIL ______

Why a NBN??

Read and then forward this extract to everyone who needs to know the facts about the crappy NBN proposed by our even crappier Labor govt., who clearly have no idea or concept of the real world and how it works…..

Labor claim to be the party of infrastructure investment? Bullshit! More the party of massive and unnecessary waste of our hard earned tax dollars.

———————————————————————————————————————————

I am a network architect for one of Australia ’s largest Telco’s – so I speak with some authority on this issue.

Here are the technical reasons this will fail :
1) fibre optic cable has a maximum theoretical lifespan of 25 years when installed in conduit.  Over time, the glass actually degrades (long story), and eventually it can’t do it`s bouncing of light thing anymore. But when you install fibre outside on overhead wiring (as will be done for much of Australia ’s houses, except newer suburbs with underground wiring), then the fibre degrades much quicker due to wind, temperature variation and solar/cosmic radiation. The glass in this case will last no more than 15 years. So after 15 years, you will have to replace it.  Whereas the copper network will last for many decades to come.  Fibre is not the best technology for the last mile. That`s why no other country has done this.

2) You cannot give every house 100Mbps.  If you give several million households 100Mbps bandwidth, then you have exceeded the entire bandwidth of the whole internet.  In reality, there is a thing called contention. Today, every ADSL service with 20Mbps has a contention ratio of around 20:1 (or more for some carriers).  That means, you share that 20Mbps with 20 other people.  It`s a long story why, but there will NEVER be the case of people getting 100Mbps of actual bandwidth.  Not for several decades at current carrier equipment rates of evolution.  The “Core” cannot and will not be able to handle that sort of bandwidth.  The 100Mbps or 1Gbps is only the speed from your house to the exchange.  From there to the Internet, you will get the same speeds you get now.  The “Core” of Australia ’s network is already fibre (many times over).  And even so, we still have high contention ratios.  Providing fibre to the home just means those contention ratios go up.  You will not get better download speeds.

3) new DSL technologies will emerge.  15 years ago we had 56k dial-up. Then 12 years ago we got 256k ADSL, then 8 years ago 1.5Mbps ADSL2, then 5 years ago 20Mbps ADSL2+.  There are already new DSL technologies being experimented on that will deliver over 50Mbps on the same copper we have now. $zero cost to the tax payer

4) 4G wireless is being standardised now.  The current 3G wireless was developed for voice and not for data, and even so it can deliver up to 21Mbps in Australia . There are problems with it, but remember that it was developed for voice. The 4G standard is specifically being developed for data, and will deliver 100Mbps bandwidth with much higher reliability (yes, the same contention issues apply mentioned earlier).  $zero cost to the tax payer

5) The “NBN” will be one of the largest single networks ever built on earth.  There are only a few companies who could do it – Japan ’s Nippon NTT, BT, AT&T;, Deutsche Telekom etc.  Even Telstra would struggle to built something on this scale.  Yet we are led to believe that the same people who can’t build school halls or install insulation without being ripped off are going to do it ???  Here at Telstra, we are laughing our heads off !! Because when it all comes crumbling down, after they have spent $60+billion and the network is no more than 1/2 complete, it will be up to Telstra to pick up the pieces !  (shhhh don’t tell anyone, it`s our secret)

This is not so much a book review, but more of a reflection on the story of one of the characters, and what it symbolizes. As Anathem is only the second Neal Stephenson book I have read; the first being Cryptonomicon; I can only suggest that this book and it’s characters represent an achieved style of drama, compared to, say Cryptonomicon. It isn’t hysterically funny, and more poignantly, is not the same kind of book. What it is though, is a sincere meditation on technology, philosophy, the wonder of knowledge, and respect for the knowledge of others. The difference between knowing something, and really believing it. Faith is hardly exclusive to religion. That is where, this review begins.

The World of Anathem:

Thousands of years prior to the events in the novel, society was on the verge of collapse due to unchecked technological development, especially in the areas of genetic engineering and nuclear warfare. After much disaster, the solution was to have two societies, and so it was for a few thousand years. One like ours, and the other made up of the mathematicians and scientists, the intellectuals; those who live to work things out on a chalk board, instead of using computers. These people have chosen to live like this; to maintain great knowledge, and not be corrupted by the influences and extravagances of the outside.

Communication does of course exist between each society, and there is a hierarchy of persons to facilitate this on different levels. It serves the planet well to have equilibrium in this way. Little technology allowed inside the Mathic society, and there are rules, and violation of such rules result in one being thrown back (expelled). Note also, that neither society is more inherently intelligent than the other. Simply put, people have chosen their way of life.

The Story of Orolo (the cosmographer):

The thing most noteworthy of Orolo’s character, is that he was truly looked upon, as not only an intellectual, but as a spiritual leader by many amongst his students. He was special to them; he had something like that warm kind of respect that you get from people who can’t help but believe in you.

The launch [pun intended] in the story entails something that puts Orolo on his journey. It is not specifically the incident itself, mind. But the challenges and revelations that are resultant. He is provided a glimpse of something; that for someone like Orolo, instantly gives purchase on something that is bigger than just about everything. It’s cosmic.

Immediately following this, is the first indication of real faith; when Orolo, in a serious violation of the Discipline — as commerce is not allowed — sells the Math’s mead to purchase a Speelycaptor after learning about the increased resolution of the newest models. He is of course then subsequently thrown back.

Faith

The relevance here is that selflessness is in lieu of any other affection. There is no want of validation in trying to convince others of his findings, and certainly no need for Orolo to make it known that he had discovered something with such overarching impact. Only the thunderous silence of the unspoken actions set forth by a man so obviously at peace with with an unshakable belief.

Further to all of this is the notion that Orolo was a man acting only on the indication of something; the details are really fuzzy, but the initial event is enough for someone who knows something so deeply in their heart to sacrifice everything in their life, an Orolo does, including, quite obviously, his own existence.

This really is a beautiful story within the real story, because, in saying that Orolo has already wholeheartedly consigned himself to sacrifice, it is really something more than a simple act of bravado, more than putting his life on the line for another, or even one million or even the whole world. It is this unshakable belief in something so much deeper, so profound. It is faith, and an elegant fervor for a philosophical view of existence of everything, bigger than religion. Something that might unite everyone under the whole raft of different religious beliefs.

This all seems grandiose I’m sure, and it kind of is. But it got me writing for at least two reasons. 1. It’s great to read such a massive work, in both it’s actual volume, and the audacious scope of topic that’s explored. 2. It got me thinking about belief, and how fragile our belief systems really are. For all the front that we have most of the time, we really are unsure of so much, so much of the time.

Moral courage is often so misrepresented; with definitions of such usually existing somewhere left field of where it’s claimed to be. Well, hopefully it is somewhere betwixt here and there that my examination of this whole allegory takes place.

I still remember what it was like to take a day off. Although, it’s been a long time since I did that for a specific reason. As much as I can see it from a certain perspective, I personally have never really been able to understand why toast comes to me unbuttered; no one even asks. Of course, such things are a matter of taste, but I’m not the kind of person who enjoys a dry chewy salad either. I expect food that has has been prepared with that vital ingredient called passion.

Perhaps it’s got a lot to do with age, and if so is all the more ironic. Another thing worth mentioning is that as far as I can tell, everyone actually wants something like the same, and why wouldn’t you? Literature, and movies endlessly stream out messages of the desire to live beyond the pale, proportionate to our encroaching middle agedness and beyond. Yet, mostly we don’t really do that.

In my experience the best relations are born of intimacy. I’m not talking about the kind of fantasist romantic reckoning that is an endless stream of dates; gentle conversations and late night text messages. Likewise, numerous times I have engaged in the back-and-forth of email messages; wondrous correspondence; massively stimulating; finding out much about someone, who in actuality, exists only as a visage projected through eyes of interpretation. Meeting in person is not the same thing. We may well have been pen pals. The sex was missing. Sexy, sweaty, slippery, salivating, nasty, noisy, dirty sex.

Strangely, as this would be obvious to many people, paradoxically, a good portion of society subscribes to the archaic concept of dating, right? There’s nothing actually wrong with dating itself, but there are at least two major downsides to the whole practice. I have always believed that there’s no romance without good sex; potential or realized. So firstly, for some pairs, it’s just not necessary. Here’s the kicker though, I do not want to wait a long time for my order, only to find that my toast hasn’t been buttered.

Hang in there, it goes deeper. When was the last time you went out to dinner; ate incredible food; got drunk; went out drinking some more; started kissing in public; got nasty in the taxi; woke up in the morning and both decided to take the day off work and stay in bed? Lucky for those of you who can say yes. The point of all this is that what was really going on in this example was passion and simply taking a chance. Sometimes, an endless procession of dates is really just putting-the-cart-before-the-horse.

The disclaimer here, is of course, that it’s not the same for everyone or every situation, and sometimes, dating someone and moving towards something greater really works, but ultimately it’s the sex, that’s the rub.

I like going out on dates, but it seems that with real sex not out of the way, the spell is not really cast, and to to the contrary, what would be dates, are now romantic dinners, with intimacy not possible without the precursor of great sex, and real closeness.

Even a kiss; sometimes, there is so much in a kiss.

This guy was a good manager, because he was always on deck, and not sending emails from his quarters.

10 – 1 Signs that people are not doing things the way they should be

10 -1  Reasons why it’s no greater knowledge than leaving school

10 – 1 Analogies (using items in a pencil case – Rules, Protractor etc)