[LINK] Turnbull's NBN

[Richard]

On 10/04/13 11:17 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> At 10:26 +1000 10/4/13, Paul Brooks wrote:
>> 75% of the cost to build 70% of the network in 80% of the timeframe
>> to provide less than 10% of the capacity - visionary.
> Great 20-second sound-bite!
>
>
> At 10:26 +1000 10/4/13, Paul Brooks wrote:
>> VDSL2 is really just ADSL2+++  -  VDSL2 on a single phone line can
>> get up to 80 Mbps if you are real close to the exchange and have a
>> good line, and beyond about 800 metres line length the speed has
>> decreased to be identical with ADSL2+ speeds at that distance, and
>> then decreases with distance just as ADSL2+ does.
>> They are proposing to put nodes out on the street side with the
>> VDSL2 equipment that would normally be in the exchange, and
>> reterminate the middle of existing phone lines into the node
>> cabinets. so that they can guarantee that nobody's phone line is
>> longer than 800 metres. That 800 metre figure has not been chosen at
>> random. And they are proposing to replace the last-mile cable IF it
>> won't support the 25 Mbps speed.
>> Effectively its a whole pile more RIM cabinets, except that the
>> current RIM cabinets are sited so the maximum line length is around
>> 1.5 km - which was Telstra's original NBN 1.0 proposal back in 2005,
>> based on ADSL2+. This coalition proposal is NBN 5.0
> Great thanks Paul!  I *think* there's nearly enough there to audit
> whatever Turnbull said about the number of suburban boxes.
>
> But I'm not good enough on surfaces theory, or is it string theory,
> or travelling-salesman modelling, or Petri nets, or ... ?
>
> Thinking inner urban areas only, and assuming 20-60 dwellings per
> hectare, and that a suburb of 100 hectares might have 4,000 dwellings
> and 15km of streets, and laying along streets only, not across
> properties, and there are no parks or other common land to exploit
> (etc., etc.).
>
> To have every home within 800m of a box, I'm guessing 20 boxes for
> 4,000 dwellings.
>
> If 'inner urban' is 10 million people at 2.5 people per dwelling,
> that's 4 million dwellings.
>
> That's 20,000 boxes, for the half of the population in inner urban areas.
>
> The next quarter are half as dense (the population numbers, I mean,
> as distinct from the people ...).
>
> That's another, say, 20,000 boxes for the less dense suburbs and towns.
>
> Did Malcolm say 40,000 boxes?
>
> And I wonder how much NIMBY reaction there would be.  (No doubt some
> group would emerge to tell us that the emanations from the boxes
> fades your genes).
>
>
> Isn't it lucky that the 'plan' will become a non-core promise about a
> year after the election.
>
>
Roger,

I can't find a reference, but Mr Turnbull has apparently told someone 
"60,000 nodes", because that's appearing in various outlets.

That's in line with my understanding of the total number of distribution 
areas in Australia.

(In my GIS software, the problem you're referring to isn't the 
travelling salesman, but a Steiner Tree - what's the shortest set of 
paths from a single start point.)

RC