AU.HOD2.COMAustralia News Blog

Copper is aging but we’ve heard that doom and gloom about copper for over ten to fifteen years then ADSL and ADSL 2 took on and the same copper keeps going and going, every new home and townhouse and office keep getting copper connected … so it can’t be all that bad to upkeep or expand. I admit though that technically I’m out of my depth a bit on that – just observing what keeps happening and works. Cable was the main thrust on my post. I thought that cable is way cheaper and easier to upgrade and maintain than copper.

Some other post mentioned that DOSCIS 3 is “interesting” but that like Conray said it doesn’t have the upload speed/bandwidth so that future StartTrek style smooth domestic video SKYPE for example or the like won’t work on cable. I was advised by a Siemens installer here for our cable that the upload speed is not an inherent technical limitation of cable, rather a current marketing cost decision based on olden times of earlier internet when people more downloaded than needed fast and larger bandwidth for upload.

Cable can do it but as I said its headers and all that stuff and street circuits would need upgrading massively but much of the infrastructure in the cabling on the poles (Optus) and underground (Telstra) is at that capability NOW … just expand it. Sure it needs the courage and vision of Optus and Telstra to do such and overall the whole thing needs gov’t assistance of some kind as well but why oh heck duplicate it all with billions of tax payers money?

Maybe it would be cheaper for the gov’t to buy Optus and Telstra HFC systems or get hold of their cable systems in return for Optus and Telstra to have some part ownership of the new expanded system but it seems so wasteful to just duplicate past 3 millions homes or more teh current very capable and very expandable HFC systems.

It is ‘amusing’ marketing rhetoric and disingenuous of how the govt talks of fibre being used as the new ‘vision’ when HFC systems of Optus and Telstra/Foxtel have used optic fibre for part of its systems for years and years though, I agree, the last kilometre or two in the streets to the house is a special coax 75 ohm system – hence hyrbrid system. But it can do higher speeds on the current system so just expand it with more hub circuits (so more people don’t slow down the current neighborhood circuits – a potential but not if managed properly weakness of cable in speed terms) so that cable can do more of this multi video and whatever people supposedly want in the future (half of which I wouldn’t think most people, even younger people would know exist or even need/want?

We use video SKYPE heaps and it hardly if even staggers in the video on our cable but sure .. it does stagger a little now and then which is so irritating and is a smallish picture so, certainly it would be nice to have a bigger, 100% smooth and clearer picture on video phone like SKYPE .. but I repeat .. do we need billions of dollars sunk to provide 100mbps to everyone just so that SKYPE can feed a large screen crystal sharp? I ‘d think 30 mbps would suffice with better uploads and be more cost effective using a shrewd MIX of current (upgraded) and new systems.

Uploads speed and bandwidth on cable or ADSL is not restricted currently because those technologies can’t do better, they can, but because of historical reasons that people never needed it so the ISPs made a cost decision on their infrastructure at the exchange (ADSL) and cable headers and servers and so forth but cable and ADSL COULD do way faster uploads if the ISPs WANTED it to be. Does it, however, need a Rudd multi billion dollar tax payer DUPLICATED system?