Helen Coonan rewrites the laws of WiMax?

In a Sky debate in conjunction with ZDNet Australia last week, Labor communications spokesperson Stephen Conroy accused Coalition Communications Minister Helen Coonan of not only lying but also "rewriting the laws of physics" over claims she made regarding WiMax.

When questioned about the advantages of WiMax technology, Coonan lauded the "innovative wireless service" provided by Internode on the Yorke Peninsula in South Australia. According to the Minister, the ISP was capable of delivering a 12Mbps connection 25km away from the base station.

Conroy leapt on this statement.

"There are so many things that are technically wrong with what Helen has just said. Internode is not suggesting that it can get 12Mbps at 25km. That is just a lie. Internode can't get 12Mbps to 20km. The Minister continues to rewrite the laws of physics," he said.

"If she was a business, Graham Samuel [head of the ACCC] would fine her for false and misleading advertising. He requires Internode, he requires every wireless provider to use the words 'up to' 12Mbps," continued Conroy.

We called Internode to try and get the real figures.

A spokesperson for Internode initially told ZDNet Australia that the company had, in tests conducted using a base station on Mount Rat in SA, managed to connect at 6Mbps 20km away.

However, shortly after the spokesperson discovered his information would be going against the words of the Minister, we received another call telling us that the initial tests were conducted under artificially reduced bandwidth and in reality, there was no reason why 12Mbps is not possible over a distance of 25km.

"The speed of service doesn't degrade from distance," the same spokesperson said. "You can get 12Mbps from 25km [as long as the line of sight is clear]."

With a compromised line of sight, we were now told, it would be possible to get 4Mbps from a distance of 20km.

According to the WiMax Forum, which is a not-for-profit organisation designed to encourage standards and promote the technology, WiMax users should generally expect access speeds between 1Mbps and 5Mbps, depending on factors such as "which frequency is being used, distance of the user from the base station or node, whether there is line of site or NLoS (non-line-of-sight) to the base station, and the number of users on the network".

So it seems that in perfect conditions, the Minister's claims are valid and physics textbooks do not require updating. Unfortunately for Coonan, and for rural Australians, we're still far from a perfect world.

Advertisement

Talkback 9 comments

    wimax at any speed is better than nothing Anonymous -- 21/11/07

    At least Helen Coonan is getting on with the job of providing some broadband to all of us out here who can only get dialup or isdn.
    I dont care if the speed is "only" 6Mbs, or even 2Mbs it is still a lot faster than the 128K that I can get on isdn.
    Mr Conroy should stop trying to score debating points and splitting hairs over stupid little details. I fear if he does get the job we will be waiting a lot longer for any sort of broadband because he will spend all his time making up new words and rewriting contracts instead of just getting on with the job.
    I

    wimax at any speed only if you can get it... Anonymous -- 21/11/07 (in reply to #320090294)

    So many issues with what you have said but the glaringly obvious one is that what Helen says she will deliver (her lies) is certainly not possible, hopefully Helen wins and you are inside her fake map area and when the tower goes in you still get no broadband, perhaps then you will learn why the facts are being shouted so loudly, enjoy your 128K, with the Libs at the reins you will have it for a lot longer.

    Helen's Laws Malcolm Moore -- 21/11/07

    On a clear day - with nobody else on the Internet, WiMax can work fast - and that I think was the phrase that Helen was fillabustering for, and that is why Stephen was snickering during that mashed answer!

    In the real world WiMax is a relatively new Customer Access Network (CAN) technology that to all intents and purposes is extremely similar to that used for the WCDMA/G3 CAN - which also is a customer shared technology that is becoming mainstream in regional, rural and remote areas via Telstra.

    To set the records a little more straight - neither CAN technology can offer high download (or upload) speeds if there is insufficient Inter-Exchange Network (IEN) infrastructure to support all the customers through what is called 'busy hour'.

    It is my understanding that Telstra is in the middle stages of introducing a very extensive regional, rural and remote 1 Gb/s / 10 Gb/s SDH/MPLS OF rings IEN to suppport mobile and fixed access Internet and telephony services, through CAN technologies that include ADSL, WCDMA/G3, FTTH, and WiMax. I also understand that this IEN infrastructure will synergetically have the throughput capacity to provide backup connection between major capital cities if there is a major IEN failure in the 'Golden Boomerang'.

    As I also understand it, the OPEL/Elders sub-duplicated IEN will apparently consist of direct links of OF running 1 Gb/s or possibly 10Gb/s as another isolated backbone for regional, rural and remote telecommunication services. This very thin backbone will apparently provide the bandwidth for WiMax CAN services to customers to connect fixed access Internet (and telephony).

    Oh yes, remember Newton - well the WiMax service speed does degrade with distance as this is digital technology running on an analouge radio transmission, so there is a sharp dropout between working and not - based on the signal to background channel noise level!

    Oh yes, remember Erlang - when it comes to the IEN, all customer telecommunications service speeds are limited by network occupancy and switch congestion - this affects all CAN technologies including at least: copper pair, ADSL, G3, CDMA, DOCSYS Cable, WiMax, etc...

    So Helen actually scored a single point against Stephen (though she didn't seem to know how)!

    Oh No - Competition does not fix the problem, competition aggreviates service standards!

    Interference Anonymous -- 21/11/07

    Line of sight doesn't usually affect a radio transmission. Its the reflections that destroy a transmission, and the out of phase reflections at that. Try getting 20meg if you have a lake or pool of water somewhere near you. Water is like a mirror at the wimax frequencies, and it will make your signal to noise go through the roof, which in laymens terms means your connection speed will go down big time.

    WIMAX is a fantastic idea for delivering broadband to the people in truly remote areas, a small number of towers with a satellite / radio backhaul could provide very reasonable speeds to a geographically sparse community. However WIMAX will degrade just like a mobile phone tower will, too many users will make the speed and quality bad.

    What we really need is FTTN/ FTTH to bring high quality broadband to everyone.BTW I live in the suburbs in Brisbane, in a reasonable area. I have ADSL2+ and Cable, and the fastest connection on either was 400KBytes a second, which is 3.2megabit.

    Interference Malcolm Moore -- 21/11/07 (in reply to #320090316)

    Anonymous - you are spot on! :)

    FTTH is the real answer as it replaces FTTN/copper/ADSL, HFC/DOCSYS, and copper pair/PGS, and provides the capability for Foxtel - Pay TV and FTA TV, Broadband Internet, Datacasting (ASX), Digital Radio and Telephony on the OF CAN - at a distance well exceeding 30 km if not passively split.

    If we really want to advance Australia beyond the very expensive capital city/suburbs and really decentralise our populations and businesses, then FTTH is the telecomms CAN platform for our future.

    FFTH Anonymous -- 22/11/07 (in reply to #320090319)

    Anon from above ;)

    Cost unfortunately. I do agree its the best technical solution, however one thing WIMAX has on its side is cost, again as I said for geographically sparse areas it works great for limited investment. FTTH will be awesome, but its incredibly expensive.

    IMHO Telecomms backhaul (ie wimax, adsl, fttn, ftth) is a SERVICE. A PUBLIC SERVICE. It isn't, shouldn't be, and never should of been privatised. Right now, the government could have upgraded the network in the interests of the nation, and passed that cost fairly onto users of the service (i.e through a line rental commensurate with the cost of maintaining and enhancing the service, not the cost of profits for a shareholder)

    There is only one group responsible for floating Telstra as is and creating the massive mess we have today.

    FFTH? FTTH! Malcolm Moore -- 23/11/07 (in reply to #320090343)

    Everything has its use-by date and pair copper lasts for about 40 years before it moves into high maintenance. Guess what? Most of the pair copper Customer Access Network (CAN) has reached its use-by date!

    Granted that it would take about 5 years to roll out an FTTH CAN, the infrastructure budget was there until Telstra was privatised, and these funds were I believe, then squandered on dividends to support the flagging share price.

    Telecomms is a very poor choice for investment as this is a service industry as you have pointed out, and the World Trade Organisation has a lot to answer for in forcing the deregulation of telecomms on a worldwide basis. This privatisation practice has crippled many of our industries.

    Fiscally, the savings from introducing FTTH (with a very thick national IEN to support it) are absolutely immense - and it is Australia's only hope after being mined out of mineral resources in the next 10 years.

    We have moved from Pastoral to Mining and now have to move to Intelligence (read Patents) and this is diametric shift in business cannot be constrained by urban living. So we have to get our people out of our overcrowded cities and into our undercrowded regions - and FTTH is one of the primary fulcrums!

    Think laterally - how good is it to be in a farm (or beach house) with magnificent views, several km from the nearest town, no pollution, high earnings through excellent telecomms via FTTH.

    This is the food for our incredible future if and when the Government cracks Telstra into two di-separate entities "Non-competitive Infrastructure" (Telstra) and "Competitive Retailing - (BigPond); then does the same to Optus and the other wannabies!

    Yeah but that's all emotional garbage. Matthew Smith -- 22/11/07 (in reply to #320090319)

    Who the hell's going to pay the $150bn+ it'd cost to role out FTTH to every home?

    FTTN including regional areas would be well over $20+bn.

    The fact is, the future of broaband in AUSTRALIA in REGIONAL AREAS is via the AIR.

    Telstra realize this with it's 3G network, except they're a monopoly so they'll forever gouge the eyes out of regional folk for $$$.

    That's where WiMAX competition comes in.

    I can't see what the rush is, in 2-4 years time, 1gbps wireless will be the norm... you wouldn't have even got 1/2 way through a regional FTTN rollout by then, ignoring the fact most of the copper probably would of packed it in by then leaving the 'nodes' basically useless.

    Emo Garbage Malcolm Moore -- 23/11/07 (in reply to #320090357)

    Matthew, I believe that your FTTH figure is carrying far too much fat - but remember simply putting in the FTTH is about a third of a network solution. (I believe that the ACCC, DCITA etc have not woken up on that one yet - as they seem to be using the wrong connectivity model - and that is one main reason OPEL got funding!)

    Business Engineering practicality precludes putting in FTTH to 100%, but it does not preclude 97% and leave the last 3% for WiMax similar technologies with massive bandwidth capabilities. (Check the CSIRO for their latest Wideband Radio specs that the US manufacturers are all upset about because Australia has the patents.)

    In flogging off Telstra into the Private Equity market, the Australian Federal Government forced the hand of Telstra to radically change from an infrastructure business position providing maximised telecomms services at minimised end user costs, into a competitive business position providing minimised services at maximum profit. Don't blame Telstra - they have been raped too.

    Competitive infrastructures - like competitive WiMax is a total waste of fiscal resources, and I strongly believe that it is grossly irresponible for any Government to support this very short term thinking.

    Matthew: Regional means non-capital cities like Bendigo, Orange, Dubbo, Toowoomba, Townsville etc, down to towns of about 500 people. Rural means beyond 4 km to about 12 km from these regional locations. Remote means beyond 12 km from these regional locations.

    Nobody should be investing in FTTN - nobody!

    There is a synergy with Telstra's Regional 3G Inter-Exchange Network (IEN) that makes very good business sense and will provide the solid backbone for Broadband Internet in these areas and beyond.

    No, I don't work for Telstra!

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Chris Duckett Get extensions going in Firefox, redux
    Previously on Null Pointer we looked at getting extensions working in Firefox betas, and that was great until the fine folks at Firefox changed their minds.
  • Array How reliable is IP telephony?
    Have you ever heard a weird kind of hissing, crackling or popping noise when calling someone on an IP telephony line? How rare is the phenomenon these days?
  • Array Forget the NBN, 100Mbps is already here
    Telstra and TransACT will shortly begin offering 100Mbps broadband to many customers. By moving early, the companies have not only raised the bar for Australia's broadband services, but thrown down a challenge to a government that now faces increased pressure to deliver the NBN as promised.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured