Tony Abbott has said he thinks it is “hugely implausible” that the speeds on the National Broadband Network could easily increase by a factor of 10 to the 1 gigabit per second maximum speed now being claimed by the NBN. For his benefit (and the benefit of confused voters), we’re here to explain in simple terms why such a scenario is plausible, even though it doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll get that speed directly into your house.
Picture by NBN Co
The National Broadband Network plan is based around a fibre-optic network. Simply put, this uses fibre-optic cables to transmit data in the form of light waves, rather than the copper cabling which currently connects your telephone line (and ADSL service) to the nearest telephone exchange.
Fibre has two big advantages over copper. Firstly, it experiences much lower levels of data loss and interference than copper cables, which makes it much more suitable for use over long distances. Fibre is already one of the main technologies used for backhaul (transmitting information across the network between exchanges; see our previous explanation of why backhaul matters),
The second advantage of fibre (and the one which particularly matters here) is that it can transmit data much faster than alternative technologies. To put the current Australian argument into perspective, fibre optic networks can theoretically run at up to 14 terabits per second (that’s 14000 gigabits, or 14000 times faster than the newly claimed maximum speed). While that requires very careful construction, building a network that runs at 1 gigabits per second (Gbps) isn’t particularly difficult or expensive.
While fibre has huge theoretical speeds, in practice the speed is largely determined by another element: the equipment in the exchanges connected to the fibre cabling at either end. Unsurprisingly, getting higher speeds requires more complex and more expensive equipment at the exchange level. However, that equipment can be replaced or upgraded to allow higher speeds without requiring the fibre itself to be altered. Determining network speed thus becomes a trade-off between speed and the cost of equipment – which is why the NBN originally set itself a goal of delivering 100 megabits per second (Mbps) to end users.
As with most areas of technology, however, equipment gets more efficient and cheaper over time, making it feasible to deliver higher speeds as the network is built and evolves. Planning for the NBN has been going on for more than a year, so the increase in speed is not that surprising or remarkable, especially given the much higher speeds fibre networks can actually handle. It might well be debatable whether the announcement of that speed increase is a matter of political expediency, but the physics and engineering are well-established and tested.
It’s worth remembering that 1Gbps is a maximum potential speed. The actual speed experienced by the user will be affected by numerous other factors, including the rate at which data is being transmitted from a given site or application, and the speed of networking equipment at the customer end. For instance, if you’ve got a high-speed connection but an old slow wireless router, your maximum speed will be dictated by the router. If you’re accessing an overseas web site, the number of other customers using the same ISP as you also trying to access overseas sites will be a constraint.
However, those same variables also apply to any other kind of internet connection you can think of, whether that’s ADSL or wireless or cable. It’s also important to remember that while most of us think of the Internet in terms of browsing web sites (and downloading torrents), it can also be used to transmit other data using other protocols, some of which can be much more efficient than those current applications.
New use cases also continue to emerge. A decade ago, few people would have imagined that video content could be routinely served onto sites; today, that’s the rather mundane reality of YouTube. Video on demand services are already being promoted by ISPs, but those would be much more accessible on a high-speed network.
While the NBN has promoted ‘fibre to the premises’, this doesn’t actually mean a single unique fibre connected directly to your home for your exclusive use. The NBN uses a network infrastructure known as GPON (gigabit passive optical networking), which uses one fibre to deliver to a group of locations and only splits it close to the premises. This is much cheaper and easier to maintain than a direct fibre connection to every location.
In the case of the NBN, each fibre will serve 32 households. Even if all 32 are connected simultaneously, however, NBN Co calculates that users will get a typical maximum speed of 78Mbps. (In the case of larger premises such as hospitals and universities, the NBN will offer direct fibre connections for better speed.)
Lifehacker 101 is a weekly feature covering fundamental techniques that Lifehacker constantly refers to, explaining them step-by-step. Hey, we were all newbies once, right?
Republished from Lifehacker.




















Fred
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 12:14 PMNow I face the challenge of converting my flat into a hospital…
Stephen Earp
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 12:24 PM*Like*
Stephen Earp
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 12:23 PMFantastic article – There are many, many assumptions made by both the ALP and Coalition re: broadband networks, but it seems that the ALP are more about motivating people to vote based on their gamer ping, while the Coalition are trying their best to beat down the hype.. unfortunately this makes Abbot look like a wanker.
Who oh who will save us from this mediocrity?
Joey
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 1:09 PMIf I’m a healer on world of warcraft does that classify me as a hospital?
Simon Reidy
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 1:23 PMNow that the filter is an impossibility in the senate, the sensible thing to do is to vote Labor. Not because you like them, but because they aren’t the Liberal party.
One party wants to roll out a next generation super-fast network that will serve our needs for decades to come, and propel us into a competitive digital new digital age, the other party doesn’t even understand broadband and wants to chuck a couple of billion into private wireless (which is already expanding without their help) and keep an old antiquated copper network going.
Labor also have a marginally more compassionate approach to refugees, put more money into public schools and hospitals and at least want to do something about global warming (even if it is in the form of a wanky citizen’s assembly).
I’m pretty sure that makes Labor the lesser of two evils.
Cam
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 1:53 PM1gb NBN is a debacle, people care less about raw bandwidth and more about how much data they get to suck down that link for their dollar.
Case in point 1, mobile phones: People prefer to use optus over telstra because its cheaper and offers more data, despite telstra offering a faster network with more coverage.
Case in point 2, current adsl services: People prefer to use TPG because it offers more downloads for your buck than equivalent services from telstra, optus, iinet, internode, whoever.
If you want a case study to use as a base to where the NBN is going to end up, go back a few years and watch what happened to the Telstra NextG network. Sure a lot of people in the country use it, but you just cant beat low cost, high data plans in the CBD where there is more competition.
QMan
Saturday, August 14, 2010 at 2:41 AM@Cam: “people” is a nebulous and anonymous way of attempting to justify an argument.
Raw bandwidth vs Quota: I choose raw bandwidth: thie fibre plans that iinet has released are comparable with ADSL2+, and oh, so much faster.
“Case in point 1″: refuted: I cancelled my Three mobile plan because, even though the price was more competitive than Telstra’s, their coverage was so poor that I couldn’t use all of the plan’s quota, and that was being used in an area in, around, and with clear sight to the Sydney and Melbourne CBDs. I initially thought it was a problem with my phone, but swapped the SIM for a pre-paid NextG SIM, and now get better plans than Three and can use my phone for the purpose for which I bought it – to browse the net and make the occasional call.
“Case in point 2″: refuted: I use iinet because they increase my quota often and haven’t given me a good reason to switch. I would prefer faster speeds over increased quota, but that aint possible with copper.
On “If you want a case study…”: refer to “Case in point 1″.
Dean
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 1:55 PM“The actual speed experienced by the user will be affected by numerous other factors, including the rate at which data is being transmitted from a given site or application”
No, no, no, no, the benefit of having 1Gbps isn’t that any one download can be faster, it’s that a household can have _multiple_ high volume data streams downloading at once. The idea of a single computer on the end of the incoming data pipe is very last century.
Households now have multiple computers sharing a single connection. Add in Internet TVs, Internet radio, VoIP, video phone, smart meters, Internet connected appliances etc and very soon you will use up that 1Gbps pipe.
The big change though will come from fibre’s ability to dramatically increase upload speed. The limits of current technologies that restrict upload speeds to a trickle have resulted in households being net consumers of data. Remove that limitation and we will see a revolution that makes the invention of the printing press look like kindergarten.
moloko
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 2:53 PMI think the people that don’t want this should STFU. Its not all about the major cities ,Regional broadband is shit,overpriced and falling apart run on ancient telstra copper with a crap company all about making more money and servicing less. Putting a huge fibre network is a good thing for the future and is worth the dollars.
Ha
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 4:24 PMExactly, and it’s not just regional broadband that’s shit either. Places that are within 25km of Sydney have shit internet as well.
And Telstra do absolutely nothing about it because it’s not worth it for them.
Ward Paterson
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 5:49 PMBut I’m already on Optus Fibre!
So why not pay Optus to to update their 10Mbit head ends to 1Gbit?
Doesn’t that make sense?
Cam
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 6:06 PMAnd you reckon regional locations are going to get fibre? They might luck out with wimax but chances are satellite is as good as it will get.
I do agree with your rant, I mean, sentiment. Dollars need to be spent getting the areas which arent within 20 kilometres of a city centre up to decent adsl speeds before we start entertaining the thought of 1gbps fibre to the home.
Daz
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 4:12 PMCam,
The reason people choose other providers over telstra is because they’re fed up with the poor customer service.
Cheshire Cat
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 6:53 PMWhen you consider the cost on a per user $ value and then consider the ongoing implications (its future benefit and for how long) the NBN project is really costing us a pittance.
Even on insight last week Mr Abetz was complaining about it being $2000 per person. when I pointed out that wasn’t really very much he tried to say that figure isn’t costed. make up your mind….
It’s just more classic Liberal policy… the opposite of what Labor says. A real shame as EVERY lower house member is elected to run the country, not just the party with the biggest majority. Vote against every incumbant and send a REAL message to polliticians WE HATE YOU ALL AND YOUR PETTY SQUABLING GAMES.
Ryan
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 8:37 PMIn regards to Business needs, both sides need to seriously look at expanding the bandwidth (and the cost of this bandwidth) that goes in and out of Australia. I have to host our web applications in Singapore as clients who try to connect to our sites in Australia from Japan or Phillipines (anywhere but Singapore) are faced with dial-up speed downloads.
V
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 11:43 PMYou’ll be please to know some kiwi entrepreneurs are taking care of this. http://www.pacificfibre.net/
You are right this is the unseen side of these FTTH debates, it’s all very well everyone having 1Gb/s, but if they all try to hit the international pipes at the same time – good luck with that.
Ryan
Saturday, August 14, 2010 at 9:05 AMYeah, I read about that. Personally most of our growth is in Asia where Singapore is the hub, I know it makes sense to do it that way but they really need to up the speed (or price) of that backbone.
V
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 11:36 PMI’m all in favour of a fibre to the premises network. However I have two questions.
a) Why didn’t Axia Netmedia get the tender when the government was tendering for FTTN and Axia provided a tender based on FTTH and has experience in at least 3 other countries providing such networks.
b) Why is the cost of this network 40 billion, or approx. $2000 per person, when NZ will also be delivering a FTTH network for around $500 per person.
This shouldn’t be a competition about who can spend the most which is what the current NBN seems to be.
Colin
Monday, August 16, 2010 at 5:12 PMV,
I think the answer to both of your questions are probably very similar. That is its simply the geographical size of Australia thats the issue. NZ’s surface area is smaller than that of NSW.
Running fibre between every major town and city here, not the 3% covered by the satelite portion of the NBN, requires a lot more resources.
And if everyone thinks wireless technology will work just as well you still need sufficient fibre backbone between regions to handle the traffic connecting to those towers.