Why the NBN satelites are needed

[Jovial Monk]

Why NBN Co needs those satellites at $620m

or

Turnbull is an idiot


http://delimiter.com.au/2012/02/11/the- ... witterfeed

[mantra]

I don't think Turnbull is an idiot. We can't afford the NBN. Why can't we rent satellites? If we buy our own it will be a never ending expense in maintaining them.

When it is finally connected to our homes - we will be paying double and there will be no competition left to use as an alternative. If we refuse to connect immediately - the threat is when it becomes compulsory, the cost of installation will increase substantially.

[Super Nova]

Bloody hell Monk. NBN is a waste of money.

Why would you want satellites when you have argued we only need fibre.

Satellites use EM/Wireless so that is against the argument you have represented over the last 2 years.

Satellites are not needed to support NBN. They may be useful for anything provided that anything is not NBN.

[mantra]

That's interesting SN. So we don't even need satellites. My understanding of technology isn't great, but why are we going down this path anyway of purchasing satellites if they're not needed for fibre? The article says it is for people in remote areas. So I gather these people won't be able to access the NBN?

[Jovial Monk]

The satelites are for people in the vast interior, not for the cities—in the cities the vast population would cause the old problem with any type of wireless—contention. The satelites are for the people living on sheepstations etc, the remote aboriginal settlements.

[Super Nova]

That's interesting SN. So we don't even need satellites. My understanding of technology isn't great, but why are we going down this path anyway of purchasing satellites if they're not needed for fibre? The article says it is for people in remote areas. So I gather these people won't be getting fibre.

People in remote areas.... they should all get fibre run to each of their homes, since the NBN is so fantastic and there is nit need for wireless as it is crap technology that cannot meet the data needs.

More seriously,

Remote locations would probably best be served by satellite.

Why buy them.

[Jovial Monk]

If you read the Delimiter article, Mantra, you will see why NBN Co are building and launching the satellites. They are currently renting space on existing satellites but there is not enough spare capacity there to cover the inland.

We can afford the NBN, we cannot afford as a nation NOT to instal it.

[Super Nova]

We can afford not to install it.

It's tpo fullfil a government directive that needs that 3% in the middle of nowhere to get broadband.

With respect to the broadband policy question, I do believe that remote Australians deserve and will definitely fully utilise broadband speeds of 12Mbps and increased quotas. Certainly we do in the cities — in rural areas such as farms and properties I can only see an increased need for good broadband.

Who needs 12Mbps. For fuck sake Monk... why does the avergae home need this sort of bandwidth and why does a bushy need it.

Of course, as always, I will be happy to look at any evidence to the contrary — please send it to me if you have some — but for now, technically speaking, it appears as if NBN Co has made the right technical decision with its satellite contract announcement this week.

Maybe a great technical decision but a poor financial one. This is a policy driven decision. Nothing to do with good sense.

[mantra]

If you read the Delimiter article, Mantra, you will see why NBN Co are building and launching the satellites. They are currently renting space on existing satellites but there is not enough spare capacity there to cover the inland.

We can afford the NBN, we cannot afford as a nation NOT to instal it.

There aren't that many people left in remote areas apart from the mining corporations and a straggle of aborigines. It's obvious that the sales pitch used for the NBN that it was needed in remote areas was a lie.

[Jovial Monk]

What nonsense Mantra. The sheep and cattle stations are still there.

To SN: Do you want to go back to dialup speeds? I mean, you could use the net with dialup and about 9% of internet users still are on dialup—too far away from the exchnange for ADSL and maybe in terrain too hilly for wireless. No, you wouldn’t want to go back to dialup—websites are richer in content, more images, video, audio etc.

The video is now getting ever higher definition which means much more data.

Game playing over the net similarly requires ever more bandwidth. A household may have more than one device connected to the net etc etc. Bandwidth needs will only grow. Business likewise, government incl schools, hospitals. Business being done on line more and more.

Then the internet of things becoming established needs bandwidth.

In ten years time ADSL speed will be like dialup. The copper CAN is reaching the end of its life and so it is being replaced and replaced by optical fibre.

Wireless suffers from contention, it will never be the main network medium, just a supplementary one.