Which muppet you voting for?

[w00dsy]

I'm not a fan or either the Liberals or Labor right now, never have been really, but I'm deeply worried about what sort of damage Abbott could do with his conservative thinking. I'd rather see a PM that is willing to push us forward into the future than one whose ideals are from last century. So I'll vote for whoever isn't Tony Abbott.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

[wobblysauce]

What about when Johnny was in office and the Ministers for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, did not even have a computer at home, they did not even use the one in his office because they preferred paper to read.

Helen Coonan was a bit better she tried to update a few things, then there was Conroy.. 10 foot pole. Albanese knows he is no Tech person but has three others he talks to below him, Ed Husic is the one for broadband.

[Montey]

Lets saddle the Country with crippling debt so we can download porn faster! Yay!

Well I'd rather saddle it with crippling debt knowing we can download porn substantially faster than saddle it with slightly less crippling debt to download porn at the same speed, then put it into more debt when we need to upgrade again.

And that's the crux of it - the NBN they're building currently is a 100+ years future-safe infrastructure as far as i know. It requires no maintenance, no power, it's sitting there transferring light. The end points can be upgraded for even greater speed.

However, the alternative is a very expensive stop-gap solution.

Labor here, partly 'cause the NBN partly cause Abbott is such a dickhead, he's unable to think on his feet and he's too much of an idiot even to lie properly. He's not a leader, really just a muppet.

And this shows part of the problem with the NBN debate.

The fiber technology being rolled out today is not 100+ year future proof. There is this false image that is peddled that says that once you lay the fiber, barring breakages, it will never need replacing. This is simply not true. There is a maximum capacity for the fiber that is being rolled out. This is why fiber is rolled out in bundles of pairs and not just a single pair (e.g. my server room at work has 24 pairs of fiber in to it). In 20 years time there is a reasonable probability that where some places are still waiting for NBN 1.0 to be rolled out other places will start screaming for NBN 2.0 to be commenced as demand has exceeded the capacity of the current fiber.

It's also worth mentioning that when breakages do occur with fiber it takes much longer and is much more expensive to fix.

Additionally, the maximum capacity of copper is much higher than those chasing the NBN nirvana advertise. In my server room, again, I have a 10Gbps copper network for my SAN. The main limiting factor for copper, in the NBN context, is the increased distances and areas that have degraded copper functionality. But the opposition policy in these respects is that VDSL will provide a minimum of 25Mbps. Where that can't be achieved because the node is too far away from the premises a sub-node will be deployed to bring the fiber closer to the user (think a small pit unit like in front of many houses today). Where the existing copper is too poor to achieve reliable 25Mbps they will replace it with FTTH.

So, the obvious response to this is "25Mbps is crap when compared to 1000Mbps!!!!" But lets reality check this a bit. If you're a major provider of content to the Internet, for example the Sydney Morning Herald website, you probably have access to, at most, 100Gbps of inbound bandwidth in your hosting facility. On that basis you would be able to serve a maximum of 100 concurrent users with NBN before they start whinging that their Internet is slow (meanwhile everyone else in that hosting facility is DoSed off the air). But lets be more realistic.... almost nobody has 100Gbbps of connectivity. Major universities in Australia are doing well when they hit 40Gbps (I know this because my company manages one of their gateways). If that same website has 40Gbps of upstream capacity it means that they could only serve 40 concurrent users before suffering a DoS.

The FTTH NBN proponents are very quick to advocate the benefits of 1Gbps capacity, but never quite get to discussing what the actual, realised, throughput is likely to be. On that first day when users of 1Gbps connections, or even 100Mbps connections, start they are most likely going to be super impressed about how its faster than their current ADSL and will be super impressed with speedtest.net, but once they start seeing their speed ratings against common websites they will start to wonder where the rest of their throughput went. There will be nothing wrong with their end, its the servers that won't be able to keep up.

What I see in the NBN debate is the NBN zealots comparing the maximum achievable performance of the FTTH option against the minimum that will be achieved with the FTTN option. This is massively misleading at best and downright dishonest at worst.

Consequently I support the opposition policy as it doesn't put all of our money in to one model and allows the model to evolve as technology evolves.

[wobblysauce]

Montey, From the Example point of view it is right from the server side, but IRL you would not get that any way as it would be a scale of server load/ users trying to access, as the slowest thing is the thing you are connecting to, rather then you your self, in which people are already facing the bandwidth available to them wall from services. So the realistic speeds will not change that much.

Still quite a difference from a file server to say 'Sydney Morning Herald website', being most will find it better from the point of being able to connect to more sites, rather then just the one, which is the family usage comments.

As quite a few are confusing 'Bandwidth' and 'Throughput' and the QoS is still the same.

Bandwidth refers to the maximum potential volume. Throughput is the actual volume.

[Crowella]

And this shows part of the problem with the NBN debate.

Consequently I support the opposition policy as it doesn't put all of our money in to one model and allows the model to evolve as technology evolves.

I put the video up knowing that it's the video is not entirely true and doesn't take into account client side issues however I can't justify the Government blowing so much money on what is the esentially the same technology knowing that we're going to have to upgrade at some point in the future, even if it is 10-15 years time. I would be happier if the Liberals just scrapped the NBN altogether and waited until a possible future solution is better since it'll be better than what they're currently offering.

The point where this upgrade excels is in situations like mine where you are having from 4-8 machines requiring internet access at any time rather than getting the ultimate speeds. We have an average connection here but our nodes are maxed out and with all the machines at home fighting for bandwith, it becomes frustrating. I can't even stream youtube videos at 240p when everyone is on their machines/servers are running.

What I see in the NBN debate is the NBN zealots comparing the maximum achievable performance of the FTTH option against the minimum that will be achieved with the FTTN option. This is massively misleading at best and downright dishonest at worst.

This is what I agree with. Take the video I posted as "virtual figures". Realistic figures will be much slower BUT still substantially better. Those with larger families/small businesses will appreciate the Labor option more in my opinion.

[Quincy]

Get the fuck of the internet and go for a walk, or grow some vegies. . .

Obviously my vote will not be determined on my internet speed.



I'm a swinging voter, recently my vote has been swingin like a 3 year old on his first swing at the local park.

[DexterPunk]

I don't know that the issue is based around *your* Internet speed. That's not why it needs to be done. Industry is going to require it.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[Crowella]

Hey. My vote isn't solely based on internet speed but I feel that its crucial to my industry I'm entering soon so I'd rather that benefit.

The main issue I have is both parties are fairly similar bar a few policies. I also have some distain for the Greens since I feel they don't take enough account into business/financial issues. If anything, I care far more about State elections than National.

[dvestate]

Nice post Montey, plenty of info there for everyone.

In reference to his numbers I think people need to remember that when we all have 1gb fibre that busniess will cram more data to there sites knowing we have the bandwidth to handle it (higher quality video streams, advertising etc). They won't be building websites thinking that half the users will have rubbish net connections

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[ysu]

Hey Montey, let's talk (not fight, just talk, ok?)

There is a maximum capacity for the fiber that is being rolled out.

Yes, however, the amount of data you can put through a single fiber is insane and we haven't even gotten near to its capacity. Look at records eg: http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articl ... 598036.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I don't think copper can get near this speed over distance. Ever. Probably because copper works with electrical signals, while the fiber with light. And the light spectrum is really-really wide...and there's no outside interference in the cable either!

This is why fiber is rolled out in bundles of pairs and not just a single pair

Do you know this or just think this maybe the reason? I can think of it as a security backup against braking, too. But I don't know.
By the by; do they roll the fiber out as a "pairs"? For what reason? A single fiber is all it takes...pairs are needed for electrical cabling only, no?

In 20 years time there is a reasonable probability that where some places are still waiting for NBN 1.0 to be rolled out other places will start screaming for NBN 2.0 to be commenced as demand has exceeded the capacity of the current fiber.

Places waiting for NB in 20 years? Yes, but unless the opposition cuts the rollout, it'll only be a few remote places, right? Or you know something we don't? There's nothing to indicate that there are huge problems delivering the network, so far, is there? I think this is just some speculation on your part

The FTTH NBN proponents are very quick to advocate the benefits of 1Gbps capacity, but never quite get to discussing what the actual, realised, throughput is likely to be. On that first day when users of 1Gbps connections, or even 100Mbps connections, start they are most likely going to be super impressed about how its faster than their current ADSL and will be super impressed with speedtest.net, but once they start seeing their speed ratings against common websites they will start to wonder where the rest of their throughput went. There will be nothing wrong with their end, its the servers that won't be able to keep up.

If they can send the file at the maximum speed, it'll be finished much quicker. So the congestion will kick in much later because it'll not be necessary to keep connections served too long. And there's p2p, I reckon with such a network it'll serve everyone very well. This is for file-servers. Regular web servers seldom use up their bandwidth in my experience; cpu, ram and especially I/O problems seem to come in much earlier. A gigabit port, especially a 10gbps port will go a long way.
But aside that, I think the biggest advantage is that it also means you can download & browse & watch something at the same time without problems. (and even in a medium family it'll happen more and more often)

What I see in the NBN debate is the NBN zealots comparing the maximum achievable performance of the FTTH option against the minimum that will be achieved with the FTTN option.

Why? What will be the speed of the copper according to your knowledge? The ftth 1Gbps is a proven, working limit, is it not? I thought the fttn 25 was the working limit as well, but please give us more info on the subject, I'm quite interested!

Consequently I support the opposition policy as it doesn't put all of our money in to one model and allows the model to evolve as technology evolves.

That's a weird statement in my opinion (but I may have mis-undestood you). Why? Because the technological evolution is the fiber, not the copper, that much I'm pretty sure of.
Plus if you leave it to telstras to bring you the good speed, then as it's shown, you'll wait pretty much forever. The tech may be available, but if there's no great pressure it'll not be used.
Sometimes things need a bit of a push


But importantly:
- Do you really believe the opposition's solution is adequate? Wherever I look around in the (advanced) world - eg europe, us - 100Mb+ connections are quite common at friends & family. I feel we're being left behind already.
- Don't you need/want more than 25Mpbs? (altho with distance degradation I think it's unlikely ppl will get that on average)
- Do you really think the fttn alternative is so much cheaper that it's worth considering? (mind you we can only guess how much each solution will cost over a 10 or 20 year span!)
How long before the copper network is totally-completely rotten away and need replacing? Why not replace it with a more future-proof solution right now? I mean copper is bound to be far more corrodible than an optical fiber.


Mind you, there's one thing that really bugs me; the standing telstra fiber should not have been wasted, IMHO. They should have simply declared it as a national treasure or something
Shame on those involved and especially shame on telstra for putting aside a national interests for a pocketful more of the shinies!

[pixelboy]

So, the obvious response to this is "25Mbps is crap when compared to 1000Mbps!!!!" But lets reality check this a bit. If you're a major provider of content to the Internet, for example the Sydney Morning Herald website, you probably have access to, at most, 100Gbps of inbound bandwidth in your hosting facility. On that basis you would be able to serve a maximum of 100 concurrent users with NBN before they start whinging that their Internet is slow (meanwhile everyone else in that hosting facility is DoSed off the air). But lets be more realistic.... almost nobody has 100Gbbps of connectivity. Major universities in Australia are doing well when they hit 40Gbps (I know this because my company manages one of their gateways). If that same website has 40Gbps of upstream capacity it means that they could only serve 40 concurrent users before suffering a DoS.

Hey? I thought you worked in IT dude? 99% of traffic to SMH.com.au doesn't go anywhere near the Fairfax data centre. CDN's spread the load and enable scaling to stupid capacities.. They would average in excess of 100gb/s on a normal day.

And let me get this right.. The point you were making was that we shouldn't have NBN because the internet can't cope with the traffic??

Cmon mate.. Think that through.

Ohhh.. And I've voted labour all my life but I'll be voting informal this time around. Abbott is an idiot from the past and Labor have sacrificed every moral they had over the past few years to cling on to power.

It's fucking grim!

[ysu]

I think, pix, it was just an example. Small/large sites individual servers and server farms all have different needs and infrastructure, so in hindsight, maybe that part is pointless to discuss in too much detail, really.

[J.D.]

Why you should never waste your vote;

[smithcorp]

Thanks for the reminder JD - just this morning I was getting so disillusioned I was considering an informal vote for the first time ever.

[ysu]

That's quite a good explanation. Never seen the likes before - it removes the confusion for me, thanks mate!

[Dr. Pain]

I've only ever voted informal once and that was at the last Victorian election. It's something I don't plan to do in a federal election though.

[Shonky]

That's a good explanation, first time the preferential voting system ever made sense to me.

[J.D.]

The really, really important implication is that you should never vote informal because you could allow someone you don't like into a position of power.

*Seriously* don't do it.

[pab]

But I think the problem this year is the number of people who feel that someone they don't like will be in a position of power no matter who wins?

[ysu]

But I think the problem this year is the number of people who feel that someone they don't like will be in a position of power no matter who wins?

if enough ppl would feel like that and vote accordingly, there could be a minor party in power

[wobblysauce]

While it sounds good it will not happen, just cross out the name and write Devil.

[DexterPunk]

So is the internet more predominantly populated by lefties? I know we here at ARSE are a fairly small cross section of the Australian public, but Its just made me wonder if there would be a correlation. Only because the debate was clearly won by Rudd according to the twitter feedback when I was watching. Yet 7's worm, and also recent news polls etc are showing Abbott is basically going to shit it in.

[J.D.]

But I think the problem this year is the number of people who feel that someone they don't like will be in a position of power no matter who wins?

Unfortunately we live in a less than perfect world. Here's what a mate of mine has to say about it:

Listen up. If you're a lazy senate voter (i.e. you stick a number above the line) check this out to see where your preferences go.

For example, in NSW, the ALP has the shooting and fishing bogans up very high (true).

You have no excuse. If you vote ALP above the line and the gun totin' bogans get a senate spot, I will hold you personally responsible.

http://www.aec.gov.au/election/nsw/files/nsw-gvt.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/vic/files/vic-gvt.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/qld/files/qld-gvt.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/sa/files/sa-gvt.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/nt/files/nt-gvt.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/act/files/act-gvt.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.aec.gov.au/election/tas/files/tas-gvt.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Durrie]

Dear God! - you guys have to be shitting us.

You don't know how it works?

How many times have you voted and just what the fuck did you think you were doing?

I think we're talking about the wrong muppets.

FFS.

[Crowella]

I've always known that BUT there still to this day seems to be a lot that don't. I thought that voting was taught at school. I'm also that boring sod that puts a number in every box under the line. I'm just that pedantic.

So is the internet more predominantly populated by lefties? I know we here at ARSE are a fairly small cross section of the Australian public, but Its just made me wonder if there would be a correlation. Only because the debate was clearly won by Rudd according to the twitter feedback when I was watching. Yet 7's worm, and also recent news polls etc are showing Abbott is basically going to shit it in.

To be honest, what I'm getting here is that the forum generally leans more to the right than I was expecting. Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing.