[clug] [OT] Broadband clangers

[Robert Edwards]

On 11/08/10 12:21, steve jenkin wrote:
> Bob Edwards wrote on 11/08/10 10:28 AM:
>
>>
>> There was also a debate on ABC News 24 last night with Sen. Conroy
>> (sorry, I simply can't grok the ABC archives...) where he says
>> something like: "we need 100Mbps to enable future technologies like
>> the SmartGrid".
>
> That was probably a debate broadcast from the National Press Club [10PM].
> <http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/all/netw/201008/20100810.htm>
>
> ABC can broadcast (and repeat?) but doesn't have on-line rights.
> [Also on 'Sky'. Press Club will sell you DVD's and transcripts.]
>
> That debate is on you-tube:
> <http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/08/watch-the-ict-debate-again-and-again/?>
> or
> <http://www.youtube.com/australiavotes>
>
> Conroy starts talking about "SmartGrids" around 2:40.
>

Thanks, Steve, for looking into that.

>
>> My grid meter runs at 19200baud and is bursty... I guess they may
>> want to have 5000+ grid meters running per household... that would
>> be a killer app for a 100Mbps connection...
>
> Early on, a Telco Engineer suggested to me that I couldn't read faster
> than 300baud, so why would I want 1200baud or more?
> Good logic, flawed assumptions.

One piece of information often missing is how much does the increase
in speed cost? It the 300baud actually cost $5/month and the 1200
actually cose $50/month, would you still want it? What does "want it"
mean in this context?

>
> It's probably more about other factors besides speed, just as
> 'broadband' is about more than speed - always-on (zero start-up),
> reliable, and guaranteed connectivity.
> I still know folk doing dial-up... Works for them :-)

The question Conroy was asked and his answer were about speed, ie. why
we need 100Mbps instead of the Oppositions minimum 12Mbps (peak).

>
> Having One True Network Everywhere means you can easily sell/buy
> 10-15minutes of electricity, or do "off-peak on steroids".
> Plus much more with environmental/building control.
>
> Early on, Telcos realised that standards (connectors, wiring,
> voltage/current, ...) were A Really Good Idea.
>
> Having a standard CPE network (Customer Premises Equipment) with
> standard access/security and management/control protocols sets the stage
> for standardised devices for all.
> That's the real benefit of FTTH - every house (well 93%) has a LAN and
> standard access kit.

FTTH has nothing to do with LANs etc. and 7% of the population won't
have it anyway, so you can't rely on it for everyone.

The standards that are relevant are IPv[4,6] and UDP and TCP (layers 3
and 4). Layer 1 is irrelevant.

Layer 1 also needs to be technology-agile, in my opinion. People are
going to still want to use their 3G/4G/5G device or Wifi-hotspot to
access the same net-enabled services. FTTH won't help them with that.

>
>
>> I am not necessarily against having a 100Mbps link, I just don't see
>> why the minister is using SmartGrid as part of his argument. This is
>> not going to need anything more than about 300bps, if that. The
>> minister must have more compelling reasons to invest $43B for the
>> NBN than enabling SmartGrids.
>
> Agreed. It isn't about 'speed'.

As above - for this question it was about speed. Conroy was trying to
justify 100Mbps over 12Mbps. He just chose a really dumb use-case.

>
> Paul Budde has been an activist for the NBN for some time.
> "SmartGrid" and "e-Health" are part of his schtick.
> <http://www.budde.com.au/>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bob Edwards.
>
> HTH.
>