Why the NBN is NOT Gen Alpha's Beta

On August 1, Sophie Mirabella posted this article on The Punch (and probably other places). An uninformed and agenda-driven piece, she made painfully obvious her lack of technical knowledge yet tried to convince us of technological issues using an anecdote so vague it's hard to see how it could be drawn with Bow River (see what I did there?!)

She uses the analogy of Beta tapes vs VHS to compare the NBN to... Well, nothing. Was it wireless? She makes a fleeting reference to DIDO, apparently unaware of what it is, but we'll get to that later.

The battle of Beta vs VHS was a war of contemporaries. 2 rival technologies, providing a similar service, emerging at the same time, each trying to capture market share. The causes of the eventual triumph of VHS aren't a mystery - they were cheaper to make, and could record for 3 times as long.

The case of the NBN can better be compared to digital mediums vs analogue mediums. The comparison would be Fibre Optics vs copper.

First we should look at what the NBN actually is. The NBN is a project to replace current aging copper cables with modern fibre optic cables. Copper cables have been used to transmit data since the invention of the telegram in the early 1800's. In the case of Australia, we have been using copper wiring for over 150 years. They've been doing the job so well until now, why should we replace it? Well, several reasons, actually..

Copper is expensive. More importantly, though, the value of copper is increasing rapidly. It also has a relatively short life expectancy. For a short, succinct account of the disadvantages of copper, see here.

This is a very interesting read on the pro's and con's of copper and fibre in different circumstances, and makes strong points for both when they are appropriate.

Back to the point though. The major bug bear of so many opposers of the NBN seems to be the price. $35 billion. Over 10 years. $3.5 billion per year. To replace a national facility that is well and truly at end-of-life.

Unrelated to the NBN, there is $36 billion being spent on infratsructure in the 2011/2012 FY.

I find it hard to complain about those numbers. 10% of the budget for infrastructure being applied to a service that will benefit 100% of Australians, either directly or indirectly. What exactly is the problem with that?

I suppose that brings us on to DIDO and the demand for wireless services. I agree wholeheartedly that wireless will be a massive component of future internet use. True, wireless usage may even surpass wired. But it is not an alternative. The advantages and disadvantages of both are well documented. This is just one example.

As for DIDO, it is a fascinating technology. Without going in to too much detail, it is about providing a wireless service that is not subject to the bandwidth issues currently experienced with wireless. Here is a link to the DIDo white paper, and here is a link to a critique of the same.

One of the problems with the DIDO system is the required infrastructure to support such a system. Even IF the technology works as promoted, the requirement is for large data centres to do the wireless processing and re-transmitting. In order to avoid bandwidth congestion, one must wirelessly connect directly to the data centre - that is, without going via a tower. So, we replace the towers with data centres... Uh... Hang on... Aren't towers fairly innocuous things on street corners and up light poles? And aren't there dozens of them in every district? And aren't data centres sort of, like, buildings? Short answer, yes. And even then, the data centres would presumably transmit the data via fibre. So it's a cool technology, but it doesn't appear to be, at least at this stage, a viable solution in and of itself.

To put it bluntly, I am more than a little disappointed that the woman who penned the above-linked article is the Shadow Minister for Innovation. Innovation does not mean sitting on your hands waiting for someone to come up with something better than is currently available. Innovation is using the resources at your disposal to come up with something new to solve a problem. We have a problem. Several, in fact. The Government is solving them innovatively.

Wouldn't it be nice, just for once, to see the Opposition line up behind the Government?

Pseudo Journalism for Pseudo Humans

Figures suggest an alarming number of Australians are suckers for right wing sensationalist "journalism". Every evening our television screens are bombarded with stories designed to elicit fear in the masses, not-so-cleverly-veiled advertising, and biased reports doctored to meet hidden agendas.

In 2008, A Current Affair allegedly reached an audience in excess of 1.12 million viewers, marginally behind Today Tonight's tally of 1.37 million. How? Today Tonight airs from 6:30pm - 7:00pm, ACA from 7:00pm - 7:30pm. Does that mean we have 2.5 million blind idiotic sheep in this country, or half that number that are so hopelessly pathetic in their own lives that they are prepared to watch a full hour of conservative scare mongering in an attempt to validate their own existing by judging fatties and the unemployed and shivering in to their empty ice cream containers hearing about how walking out your front door is a recipe for annihilation?

Few things grind my gears as badly.

As I type, Tracy Grimshaw is telling me that street gangs of 12 and 13 year olds are going to stab me if I go in to a train station. No doubt the next "story" will be telling me that if I drive my car instead of taking the train I'm an anarchist.

OK, so it's no secret that I despise these shows and their pathetic excuse for entertainment, but they do have me thinking - are there some connections between ACA and TT viewers, and Coalition voters?

It has become public knowledge that when Julia Gillard announced the Carbon Tax plan, Tony Abbott specifically forbade his caucus from discussing the science of climate change and to focus on the election campaign lie. This is obviously a political strategy - and who can deny him that, he's the leader of the opposition - but, ignoring the fact that he is utterly clueless about the science anyway, it is really a very clever plan of attack.

You see, Tony Abbott is ugly. I know I'm no oil painting, but he has a head like a squashed bullfrog. More than that though, he looks like he can't be trusted. He looks slimy. The only way Tony Abbott will ever become Prime Minister is if he discredits the competition and terrifies the masses. It is the basis of all of his campaigns; fear. The thing that scares me, though, is, if you look at the figures of the drones watching Nine from 7pm on weeknights, it seems to be working.