NBN SkyMuster satellite experience

[proftournesol]

14 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

 

Very little does from a retail/consumer connection.    "Browsing the internet faster" (within reason) isn't really the primary use case for any of this.    If I can't send and receive 1GB files within minutes, rather than many hours, then I CAN'T be located in the country.    This is the use case.

 

 

 

Agree, but very few non-business SkyMuster users (and there are no SkyMuster business plans yet) will ever be sending 1GB files. Of course, this is relevant for some, and important, but for most people, it's browsing and mail, streaming music and movies and hence, the relevance of data limits.

[davewantsmoore]

1 hour ago, proftournesol said:

Agree, but very few non-business SkyMuster users (and there are no SkyMuster business plans yet) will ever be sending 1GB files.

On one hand you want business to relocate to remote areas .... yet on the other, you want to compromise their basic ability to.

 

Their are "business grade plans on consumer grade connections" (which is what most small businesses traditionally use).    Proper enterprise grade service don't have a "plan" offering.   You specify the service yourself... and it's not "an internet connection", it more like a private corporate network from an office to an office, or to a datacenter.

 

1 hour ago, proftournesol said:

Of course, this is relevant for some, and important, but for most people, it's browsing and mail

Browsing works fine on most internet.    Mail doesn't when you start dealing with 200mb PDF files (or even much larger files) which are not uncommon today in many industries.    It isn't viable for sending or receiving these things to be taking hours, rather than minutes.

 

1 hour ago, proftournesol said:

the relevance of data limits

So, I ask again, which bit of the puzzle would you (have) tweak(ed) ? ....   that would actually work between 2010 and 2020?

[proftournesol]

1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

On one hand you want business to relocate to remote areas .... yet on the other, you want to compromise their basic ability to.

 

Their are "business grade plans on consumer grade connections" (which is what most small businesses traditionally use).    Proper enterprise grade service don't have a "plan" offering.   You specify the service yourself... and it's not "an internet connection", it more like a private corporate network from an office to an office, or to a datacenter.

 

Browsing works fine on most internet.    Mail doesn't when you start dealing with 200mb PDF files (or even much larger files) which are not uncommon today in many industries.    It isn't viable for sending or receiving these things to be taking hours, rather than minutes.

 

So, I ask again, which bit of the puzzle would you (have) tweak(ed) ? ....   that would actually work between 2010 and 2020?

Business plans (when they're released) presumably will be different from consumer plans as they have different needs, as you say businesses will value upload speeds much more than consumers.

I wouldn't presume to have an answer to the puzzle, I'd ask people like you with expertise in the area, all I can do is report my experience as a user of FTTP and satellite

[davewantsmoore]

10 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

Business plans (when they're released) presumably will be different from consumer plans as they have different needs

They'll be priced like enterprise grade services ... this is much different product/pricing to the sorts of "internet access plans" we are talking about here.     Hundreds per month is "cheap" in that space.

 

[proftournesol]

5 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

They'll be priced like enterprise grade services ... this is much different product/pricing to the sorts of "internet access plans" we are talking about here.     Hundreds per month is "cheap" in that space.

 

Perhaps the only suggestion I would make is to add a third satellite, expensive, but it then removes data allowance and bandwidth (to an extent) limitations from the service. This would have to also come with removing the requirement that the service must be profitable, otherwise equivalent plans are priced out of reach. Again, this is an uninformed suggestion, I'm an end user with an interest in social equity, not an engineer

[davewantsmoore]

15 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

Perhaps the only suggestion I would make is to add a third satellite, expensive, but it then removes data allowance and bandwidth (to an extent) limitations from the service

It wouldn't change 25/5.   It could reduce the restriction on traffic volumes ... but unlikely to remove it completely.

 

You can of course, allow people to connect at whatever higher speed you like .... but this just means either:

 

More restrictions on traffic volumes allowed

 

The inability to guarantee service quality.   eg.   You could have "up to 50mbps with less download/upload limits" ... with the average peak time performance dropping to ~5mbps

 

Higher prices

 

 

None of these things are starters....

Quote

This would have to also come with removing the requirement that the service must be profitable, otherwise equivalent plans are priced out of reach. Again, this is an uninformed suggestion

Not really.   This is one of the "non-technical" bits of the puzzle.    "Raise taxes" and "spend more".   It's not something I completely disagree with....   but if you paid attention to any of the NBN debate before or after the project started, you would understand that this is a non-starter for too many voters.

Quote

I'm an end user with an interest in social equity, not an engineer

I understand completely ... that's why I say that you shouldn't infer "they made a mistake" with such things.  Simplistic rhetorical  like "Did they not understand what the usage increase would be????" .... really paints a picture of ineptitude that isn't reality.

 

The average man thinks that the government "stuffed up" the NBN, and this is much more of a reality distortion than is warranted.... and is also some furphy compared to what the "alternative"  (ie. non-NBN) would look like.

Edited October 22, 2018 by davewantsmoore

[proftournesol]

35 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

It wouldn't change 25/5.   It could reduce the restriction on traffic volumes ... but unlikely to remove it completely.

 

You can of course, allow people to connect at whatever higher speed you like .... but this just means either:

 

More restrictions on traffic volumes allowed

 

The inability to guarantee service quality.   eg.   You could have "up to 50mbps with less download/upload limits" ... with the average peak time performance dropping to ~5mbps

 

Higher prices

 

 

None of these things are starters....

Not really.   This is one of the "non-technical" bits of the puzzle.    "Raise taxes" and "spend more".   It's not something I completely disagree with....   but if you paid attention to any of the NBN debate before or after the project started, you would understand that this is a non-starter for too many voters.

I understand completely ... that's why I say that you shouldn't infer "they made a mistake" with such things.  Simplistic rhetorical  like "Did they not understand what the usage increase would be????" .... really paints a picture of ineptitude that isn't reality.

 

The average man thinks that the government "stuffed up" the NBN, and this is much more of a reality distortion than is warranted.... and is also some furphy compared to what the "alternative"  (ie. non-NBN) would look like.

The reason why people oppose things like NBN is that it seems that they are spending a lot of money but, in return, receive a very compromised solution that doesn't meet their needs or is soon inadequate.

Surely the only way to meet the service guarantee with SkyMuster is to launch more satellite, especially as so many fringe urban users are also being connected?

Just to be clear, 'they' doesn't refer to the engineers, it's the people above that level and the politicians like Conroy, Abbott and Turnbull, and, of course, also Murdoch and his lobbying. Murdoch of course, did understand, and that's why he pushed so hard to deliver a sub-optimal solution.

[Guest rmpfyf]

6 hours ago, proftournesol said:

The reason why people oppose things like NBN is that it seems that they are spending a lot of money but, in return, receive a very compromised solution that doesn't meet their needs or is soon inadequate.

The 'a lot' bit is the overstatement. For what it is (NBN) it's actually not 'a lot', though the cost to service satellite customers is disproportionately high, and another satellite (as mentioned) wouldn't change things significantly.

 

For many things that you'd do with broadband, it's quite adequate. 

 

6 hours ago, proftournesol said:

Surely the only way to meet the service guarantee with SkyMuster is to launch more satellite, especially as so many fringe urban users are also being connected?

Well, those satellites are $1B each or so fully launched and operational. So launching a couple more is not economically awesome. 

 

The only way to launch more satellites in an economically (maybe) feasible way is to launch a (lot) more and service a wider area over a longer time. That makes it a beyond-Australia problem. You're a fan of Starlink which isn't the only proposal for a global satellite internet service, though their costs are many multiples of what Sky Muster cost. 

 

6 hours ago, proftournesol said:

Just to be clear, 'they' doesn't refer to the engineers, it's the people above that level and the politicians like Conroy, Abbott and Turnbull, and, of course, also Murdoch and his lobbying. Murdoch of course, did understand, and that's why he pushed so hard to deliver a sub-optimal solution.

if up to them there'd be no Sky Muster at all. You'd be left with private satellite networks serving you, patchy performance and higher cost. 33

[proftournesol]

6 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

The 'a lot' bit is the overstatement. For what it is (NBN) it's actually not 'a lot', though the cost to service satellite customers is disproportionately high, and another satellite (as mentioned) wouldn't change things significantly.

 

 

 

Well, those satellites are $1B each or so fully launched and operational. So launching a couple more is not economically awesome. 

 

 

 

'A lot' as in 'a lot of cost to the taxpayer'.

[Guest rmpfyf]

11 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

'A lot' as in 'a lot of cost to the taxpayer'.

Can you embrace that what you what is 'a lot more cost to the taxpayer'?

[davewantsmoore]

6 hours ago, proftournesol said:

...it's the people above that level and the politicians like Conroy, Abbott and Turnbull, and, of course, also Murdoch and his lobbying. Murdoch of course, did understand, and that's why he pushed so hard to deliver a sub-optimal solution.

So... we're only talking about non-engineering things here, right.... like:

 

1. Budget

2. Timeframe

3. Decision to reuse existing networks

 

Let's ignore #3 for now.   It doesn't contribute to a significantly suboptimal solution now.... it will be a debacle later, but not for the "technical" reasons people expect.

 

I don't believe that #1 and #2 were something that the dial could be turned on (ie. how about let's spend double or triple or more, and take a lot longer?!?!).   Friends in the Future Party even struggled.

 

7 hours ago, proftournesol said:

Surely the only way to meet the service guarantee with SkyMuster is to launch more satellite, especially as so many fringe urban users are also being connected?

The primary deliverable 25/5 is met.   In the future?.... No.   An alternative to launching more satellites, would be to move users off to other types of wireless services.

 

7 hours ago, proftournesol said:

The reason why people oppose things like NBN is that it seems that they are spending a lot of money but, in return, receive a very compromised solution that doesn't meet their needs or is soon inadequate.

Exactly.   They incorrectly think that better could have been done with the same $/time....  and here we are.

 

7 hours ago, proftournesol said:

Murdoch of course, did understand, and that's why he pushed so hard to deliver a sub-optimal solution.

Murdoch had no influence in design and construction of such a project.... and he knew he wouldn't.    None of what he (or politicians) did resulted in the situation today  (aside from decisions about budget and timeframe, which we've covered).

 

What he ACTUALLY did - rather than influencing anything that happened - was to influence how people felt.... so people would think they were not getting the "optimal solution"....  this then allowed for the second play, which was to push to "complicate" the future politics of the network, in the name of "getting people the optimal solution they needed" (aka. the MTM*).

 

HowThese people play a long game....  

 

All this results in a network which:

• Has more complex politics when upgrades are considered in the future
• Has more interoperability challenges
• Is more difficult/complex to regulate effectively
• Allows niche (non-NBN) players to enter certain segments
• Will be seen as a "stuff up" by the average-man

The intention it to increase the likelihood that the network will be:

• Sold
• Not effectively regulated
• Require specialised 'skills' to operate
• Not able to be easily upgraded, without complexity and delays (and bad politics)

 

Guess who's angling to buy our (relatively optimal) NBN, and be the only game in town (hello vertical integration).

 

 

*MTM.   

There isn't anything wrong with the MTM (contrary to popular belief), if we keep control of the network in NBN-Co and keep it fully regulated.... and the people get the politicians to continue to look after it.   Everyone will make good.

[davewantsmoore]

47 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

'A lot' as in 'a lot of cost to the taxpayer'.

The reality is it a cost we (the taxpayer) were going to pay one way or another.   The networks get paid for one way or another (or they never exist) - so if we didn't use tax revenue, then we would be paying for it though further increased network costs (to the corporation who built it).

 

Profit is not evil .... but the lack of choice that private ownership can mean for difficult to enter markets (like communications networks, or other utilities) can lead to bad outcomes.

Edited October 22, 2018 by davewantsmoore

[proftournesol]

2 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

Murdoch had no influence in design and construction of such a project.... and he knew he wouldn't.    None of what he (or politicians) did resulted in the situation today  (aside from decisions about budget and timeframe, which we've covered).

 

What he ACTUALLY did - rather than influencing anything that happened - was to influence how people felt.... so people would think they were not getting the "optimal solution"....  this then allowed for the second play, which was to push to "complicate" the future politics of the network, in the name of "getting people the optimal solution they needed" (aka. the MTM*).

 

HowThese people play a long game....  

 

All this results in a network which:

• Has more complex politics when upgrades are considered in the future
• Has more interoperability challenges
• Is more difficult/complex to regulate effectively
• Allows niche (non-NBN) players to enter certain segments
• Will be seen as a "stuff up" by the average-man

The intention it to increase the likelihood that the network will be:

• Sold
• Not effectively regulated
• Require specialised 'skills' to operate
• Not able to be easily upgraded, without complexity and delays (and bad politics)

 

Guess who's angling to buy our (relatively optimal) NBN, and be the only game in town (hello vertical integration).

 

This

[proftournesol]

2 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

The reality is it a cost we (the taxpayer) were going to pay one way or another.   The networks get paid for one way or another (or they never exist) - so if we didn't use tax revenue, then we would be paying for it though further increased network costs (to the corporation who built it).

 

Profit is not evil .... but the lack of choice that private ownership can mean for difficult to enter markets (like communications networks, or other utilities) can lead to bad outcomes.

Agree. The other problem I have with private ownership is not inherent in private ownership, but somehow we seem to end up with de-regulation and duopolies that are neither efficient nor cheap

[proftournesol]

3 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

Can you embrace that what you what is 'a lot more cost to the taxpayer'?

You misunderstand me, I, personally don't think that it's a lot. I would have spent more. The Murdoch press have reshaped the story so that the taxpayer is spending a lot and getting very little. That's only true with SkyMuster

[Guest rmpfyf]

6 hours ago, proftournesol said:

You misunderstand me, I, personally don't think that it's a lot. I would have spent more. The Murdoch press have reshaped the story so that the taxpayer is spending a lot and getting very little. That's only true with SkyMuster

It's actually quite a lot for little material difference - to get materially beyond the performance you don't like you're talking a constellation of very many satellites, which is a multi-$B dollar job. So is rolling fibre everywhere.

 

Other countries don't have state-sponsored satellite internet offering a level of coverage and reliability for all. Like the USA, for instance, doesn't. 

[davewantsmoore]

8 hours ago, proftournesol said:

That's only true with SkyMuster

"Spending A lot and getting very little" ....  value is a relative measure.

 

If you think Skymuster was "bad value" (ie. a lot of $ for little outcome) then explain to us the alternative, that would be relatively better.   Remember that handwaving about "I'd just spend more, and surely there is something else which could be done" needs to not ignore fundamental realities.

 

Let's gift the budget issue.   You have now convinced the voter to go deep into permanent cashflow negative for this.   (I would vote for you, but only along with more generally progressive tax reform)

 

 

OK.  You're going to ask people to wait until when?  (how do you think this would go down, given the whinging you have undoubtedly seen about "when will I get my NBN")

 

What technology is this that you're going to deploy?

 

Will it work?  Does it make sense?  What will it ultimately deliver?  Can it support the primary use case of the NBN (which is to allow me to have a guaranteed 25/5 that works reliably at this speed all the time).

 

 

Once you've answered these, we can revisit you quoted statement above.   Is it true?   If no, then....???

[davewantsmoore]

8 hours ago, proftournesol said:

This

So you would agree (?!) that repeating the line (to the average man) that poor decisions about the implementation of the NBN have resulted in a sub-optimal solution (within the budget and timeframe agreed).    Is not only wrong .... but plays right in to the Murdoch script.

 

Let's remember than in a similar type of democracy/politic/culture to ours ..... they let their "privatised incumbent" build and operate the NBN.   The tried to pass a law to give everyone 10mbps by 2020, but this failed.   People in regional areas have often dramatically less than this.

 

USAs "NBN" says that 30% of people will have 100mbps by 2020.   No restriction on where they live (so this means metro), and no lower limit for the other 70%.    Ours will be >>50%, with a lower limit of 25/5

[proftournesol]

2 hours ago, rmpfyf said:

It's actually quite a lot for little material difference - to get materially beyond the performance you don't like you're talking a constellation of very many satellites, which is a multi-$B dollar job. So is rolling fibre everywhere.

 

Other countries don't have state-sponsored satellite internet offering a level of coverage and reliability for all. Like the USA, for instance, doesn't. 

Fine, the SkyMuster should be offered at a far reduced price, proportional to it's limitations

[proftournesol]

3 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

So you would agree (?!) that repeating the line (to the average man) that poor decisions about the implementation of the NBN have resulted in a sub-optimal solution (within the budget and timeframe agreed).    Is not only wrong .... but plays right in to the Murdoch script.

 

Let's remember than in a similar type of democracy/politic/culture to ours ..... they let their "privatised incumbent" build and operate the NBN.   The tried to pass a law to give everyone 10mbps by 2020, but this failed.   People in regional areas have often dramatically less than this.

 

USAs "NBN" says that 30% of people will have 100mbps by 2020.   No restriction on where they live (so this means metro), and no lower limit for the other 70%.    Ours will be >>50%, with a lower limit of 25/5

The initial decision that NBN be developed by a Government owned and operated agency was a good one. I agree that if it had just been left to the private sector then rural citizens would have been offered nothing. The scope of what was proposed was not ambitious enough from a social equity perspective,  ultimately a political decision. The Abbott/Turnbull modifications have made it complex as you say, this is a politically driven decision, that's the level I have problems with. I don't have an issue with SkyMuster as such, only that it should be used for those that are truly remote. I also have problems with the profitability demands placed on NBN by the Coal-ition, SkyMuster should be priced according to its limitations. It's an underwhelming experience for an end-user

[davewantsmoore]

2 minutes ago, proftournesol said:

Fine, the SkyMuster should be offered at a far reduced price, proportional to it's limitations

100%

 

The government took away rules to cross subsidise wireless/sat services from metro services.    This has made metro services cheaper, and regionals more expensive.     Now they're going to put (a different) "tax" back on metro services, and have been making loud noises about how this "will slug metro services with higher prices due to the need to subsidise 'unaffordable' regional services".

 

Hmmmm.....   Think about the psychological conditioning going on here.    Nothing has changed but the psychology.

[davewantsmoore]

1 minute ago, proftournesol said:

The scope of what was proposed was not ambitious enough from a social equity perspective,  ultimately a political decision.

That is on us.    Not enough people would vote for a more ambitious plan.   The NBN that we got only just made it over the line.

1 minute ago, proftournesol said:

this is a politically driven decision, that's the level I have problems with.

It's worth repeating that private ownership, or the "MTM" "complexity" don't have to be problems given effective regulation.... but people need to vote loud and strong for this.    The "politics" play is designed to ensure they won't.   The people need to "ask" for the "give it back to Telstra" solution to this "mess".

1 minute ago, proftournesol said:

I don't have an issue with SkyMuster as such, only that it should be used for those that are truly remote.

It seems sensible, but you have to find the resources to service "fringe satellite" with.    It's staggeringly expensive and difficult.

1 minute ago, proftournesol said:

I also have problems with the profitability demands placed on NBN by the Coal-ition

False.   Both major parties had profitability demands on the NBN.

 

Labor projected a profit of 7.1% .... and under the current plan the profitability has been reduced to projected 3.2-3.7%

[proftournesol]

5 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

 Both major parties had profitability demands on the NBN.

 

Labor projected a profit of 7.1% .... and under the current plan the profitability has been reduced to projected 3.2-3.7%

 

Then both branches of Laberal are responsible

[Guest rmpfyf]

11 hours ago, proftournesol said:

Fine, the SkyMuster should be offered at a far reduced price, proportional to it's limitations

To some degree, yes. Don’t think it’s quite as ‘far’ as what you might be thinking, nor would it allow more bandwidth to cost equitably to city services (there’s just not enough bandwidth to go around ultimately) but yes, what you get should cost less for what it is.

[proftournesol]

11 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

To some degree, yes. Don’t think it’s quite as ‘far’ as what you might be thinking, nor would it allow more bandwidth to cost equitably to city services (there’s just not enough bandwidth to go around ultimately) but yes, what you get should cost less for what it is.

...instead of paying nearly double