[LINK] Does NBN need a third satellite?

[Paul Brooks]

Alternative view - a third is needed to be planned at least, to provide N+1
redundancy, because of the very long replacement time if one of the existing
satellites is knocked out by debris, meteoroid, accident or malfunction.

We've seen what happens in the current Basslink cable situation. For a decade the
Basslink electricity cable has been criticised by Tasmanians as an unnecessary and
expensive parasite on the Tasmanian budget.  Now that it has unexpectedly failed for a
few months, it has suddenly become critical infrastructure with calls for several
state and commonwealth inquiries, heads to roll, and a second cable to be built to
ensure non-stop supply from the mainland so that Tasmania never again has to choose
between drinking the water or keeping the lights on.

Thats what happens when you rely on one of something.

Same calls at the moment for the optical fibre cable component, with calls for
'someone' to build another fibre cable into Tasmania, even though Tasmania still has 2
out of 3 optical fibre cables operating.

The initial NBN satellite was planned as a pair, operating as active-active with
roughly 50% load on both, to provide this redundancy if one should fail in orbit (or
be lost at launch), with latent capacity to cater for a decade of future growth. The
experience of the interim service demand profile indicates both satellites will
running above 50% capacity soon after the second is launched - which means if one of
the satellites fails in orbit, the satellite NBN service will instantly become as
congested and unusable as the current interim service is - and would remain like that
for years if the replacement satellite wasn't even on the planning table at the time.

Paul.



On 25/03/2016 8:40 AM, David Boxall wrote:
> A third? The first isn't fully operational and the second hasn't even launched!
> Didn't Turnbull say that the satellites are unnecessary extravagances?
>
> <http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2016/3/21/technology/does-nbn-need-third-satellite>
>
> "Australia’s efforts to become a leader in the global digital economy will soon take
> another giant stride ..." Sounds like propaganda.
>
> "The NBN is a visionary nation building infrastructure project ..." Come now! It's
> an effort to repair some of the harm done by alienating essential natural-monopoly
> infrastructure from public ownership.
>
> "... there is growing demand from business and industry for improved broadband in
> regional and remote Australia." At what point does it become more cost-effective to
> build optical fibre infrastructure, with its century or so service life, than to
> repeatedly replace multi-billion-dollar satellites, with their one to two decade
> service life?
>
> "Australia has been lagging behind other nations when it comes to building
> infrastructure and providing future-proof broadband, especially in regional and
> remote areas." Was that true before the infrastructure was privatised? Are
> satellites future-proof?
>