[LINK] Is the NBN Ready for Extreme Weather?

[Michael Skeggs mike@bystander.net]

There is no incentive for the least congested network to open it's capacity
to accommodate customers on more congested networks, especially when the
cheapest tend to be the most congested.
Consider Vodafone has spent half a billion dollars in the last two years
upgrading their network, and losing 400k users over the same period, yet in
many areas the performance remains terrible.
But this is a problem dealing with dense, high load traffic. Emergency
grade communications can be poorer - an SMS is an acceptable comms channel
in many emergencies, and quite acheiveable in theory.
I think a suitable emergency comms system could rely on broadcast radio and
television supplemented by cellular SMS and 2g equivalent voice for
personal comms to deliver a standard of emergency information transfer that
is pretty robust.
The copper CAN has a nice benefit of inherent power supply, but so does a
mobile phone with a wind-up or solar charger. If the local CAN network can
be kept powered, then so can mobile tower infrastructure, and the
individual customer can decide their own level of redundancy for
communications.
Where I live power interruptions are common, and my needs for
telecommunications are high, so I have a fixed PSTN phone, a mobile that
can act as a wifi AP, and a 3g modem in my laptop, which between them
provide survivability of voice and data in power loss scenarios (tested
last year when my area had no mains for 4 days).
My biggest issue was the instant gas hot water system needs power for a
pilot spark (fixed now with a small SLA battery and inverter).
I probably will get a backup battery in my NBN cabinet, assuming they are
optional, to stop minor interruptions, but they are only designed for a few
hours of operation.
Better, in my view, to establish the comms requirement and cobble together
a raft of technologies to meet that, rather than over-engineering the NBN
to provide always on, 100% service even in emergency scenarios.
Regards,
Michael Skeggs


On 6 December 2012 21:36, Kim Holburn <kim.holburn at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 2012/Dec/06, at 8:52 PM, Michael Skeggs mike at bystander.net wrote:
>
> > On 6 December 2012 20:13, Kim Holburn <kim.holburn at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >> Except the "mobile network" is not a single network, it's a number of
> >> parallel competing networks.  If we could use any cell then we wouldn't
> >> have that problem.
> >>
> >> Kim
> >>
> >>
> >
> > What makes you think this? Surely if Telstra Vodafone and Optus are all
> > individually congested at a football match etc. then roaming will offer
> > little benefit?
>
> I just watched an ABC TV show recently called "Over Australia" or "Looking
> down on Australia" or something and in one episode they went over the
> shenanigans involved in a telecom coping with a grand final in Melbourne.
>
> But really, congestion at football matches?  Talk to someone who cares
> about football ;-)
>
> As far as the roaming thing goes, if we had a system that allowed sharing
> of cells in a unified network then perhaps we could have a system where
> companies could cooperate to give us more coverage...nah, it won't happen
> at the moment.
>
> > On the same subject, can I keep this article for the next non-engineer
> who
> > tells me wireless would be a reasonable substitute for the NBN? My
> Telstra
> > NextG iPhone typically gets 1Mbps or so for downloads. My ADSL does
> about 8
> > times better, and I trust a fibre link will be better yet.
>
> AFAIC mobile voice calls barely work and they're what 2-6k bits per second?
>
> Kim
>
> --
> Kim Holburn
> IT Network & Security Consultant
> T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
> mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
> skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>