NBN Numbers

April 8th, 2009

Duncan Riley has made some interesting comments about the cost of the governments announced fibre optic broadband network. He argues that the cost is too high for what we are getting and that it will be obsolete at least by 2038. While I agree the cost does seem rather high, I believe we have to do it.

Firstly, lets make one thing very clear. This is fibre optic cable that is being laid to everyone’s house. The initial speed touted by the government is 100mbit, but that speed is only dictated by the hardware located at the end-point and the local exchange (or similar). One would expect that this would be increased to Gigabit speeds and beyond to fully utilise the fibre optic cable lying dormant.

Fibre optic cable is a glass or plastic fibre that can carry large volumes of digital data at the speed of light. A typical cable contains many of these fibres (aka channels) to build a very large throughput of digital data. Per-channel light signals propagating in the fiber can be modulated at rates as high as 111 gigabits per second (10-40Gbps more typical at the moment) and typical commercial roll outs have approximately 80 channels.

So what is the maximum thoughput of a typical commercial fibre cable using existing technology?

40 Gbps x 80 channels = 3,200 Gbps !

Assume the average internet user in Australia has 1mbit internet currently (yes, some have 20mbit and some have dialup, but I’d guestimate most bigpond customers are sitting at around 1mbit).

Assume that Moore’s law applies to broadband speeds (no evidence of this anywhere, but we’ll run with it). So, internet speed should double every 18 months. How long does it take for us to reach 3,200 Gbps?

Answer: 32 years.
(2^21.6 ~ 3.2m, so 21.6 time intervals of 18 months ~ 32 years)

So it will still be a suitable technology in 2041, likely even longer if we make further progress on how to better utilise fibre optical cables - just like ADSL and ADSL2+ we both invented to better utilise copper phone lines.

I have also been rather conservative using Moore’s Law. I first got internet around 1993 and it was 28.8kbps. I now have the best ADSL available where I am which is 2000kbps. So in 16 years my internet has increased 70 fold. Which is a doubling every 2.5 years.

Using the same numbers above, but with a doubling every 2.5 years the new fibre optic plan will be more than suitable in (2.5 x 21.6) 54 years - 2063.

The other key thing to note is that optical fibre is the best solution we have right now. Other countries (ie: Korea) have already paid the upfront infrastucture cost to lay the cable. If we don’t follow suit (and soon) we will be quickly left behind in the digital age. When you hear Malcolm Turnbull say it is too risky to build the NBN, he has it backwards. It is too risky for Australian NOT to build the NBN.

Learn more about Optical Fibre on Wikipedia

Denmark Censorship List Leaked

December 24th, 2008

Denmark’s censorship list has been leaked today, two days after Thailand’s censorship list was leaked.

From the leaked comments:

Most sites on the list are still censored (i.e must be on the current list), even though many have clearly changed owners or were possibly even wrongly placed on the list.

The list has been leaked because cases such as Thailand and Finland demonstrate that once a secret censorship system is established for pornographic content the same system can rapidly expand to cover other material, including political material, at the worst possible moment — when government needs reform.

Minister Conroy on: Promoting a civil and confident society online

December 22nd, 2008

The government has created a blog post wanting to get feedback on the Internet filter, which can be found here.

Comments are enabled and I encourage everyone opposed to the filter to make their thoughts known. Below is my contribution to the debate.

“We are happy to have an open debate about these technical issues. However, the Government does not view this debate as an argument about freedom of speech…. there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content.”

Firstly, Freedom of speech is not restricted to just political content. Artists generate content that is controversial, take Bill Henson as a classic example. Secondly, why is this only a debate about the technical capabilities of the filter? Why can’t Australian’s have this debate? Introducing the filter is one of the most draconian and offensive pieces of law to be introduced into parliament and should be widely discussed throughout the whole community.

Technically the filter is fundamentally flawed. It is not possible to block content. Off the top of my head the following technologies could all be used to circumnavigate any filter: SSH, GPG, PGP, Tor, Google cache of websites, Archive.org of websites, Anonymous browsers that obfuscate the URL. If anyone in the government wants me to demonstrate, just send me an email - it’s not very difficult.

Additionally, what mechanisms will be in place for those incorrectly filtered? What rights will those have to challenge the decision? What right to compensation will they have if incorrectly blocked by the filter? How can Australians check the list of blocked content to verify if it should be blocked?

This is one issue that will change my vote and the vote of many other young Australians.

Australian Sex Party

November 30th, 2008

Australian Sex Party Logo

There is a new Australian Political Party that has launched. They appear to have a solid list of relevant policy initiatives, however there’s one that stood out to me that I strongly disagree with. I thought it would be good to give them some feedback (sent via email):

Hi,
I like the comprehensive list of relevant policies. My only comment is that I strongly disagree with this policy:
“To hold a referendum to create mandatory equal numbers of women in the Senate and State Upper Houses.”
I agree that there is an unequal gender balance, however resolving this through a mandatory system doesn’t solve the core issues and causes of inequality. Such a mandatory system would be a step backwards as it would weaken the power of the women already in politics and cheapen those that arrive in the future. It’s better women reach such positions through an equality based political system that encourages promotion through merit, not gender.

It will be interesting to see how the media portrays this party…

Jury Duty

September 25th, 2008

Note: This ended up being rather long-winded… and it took me a good couple of months to get around finishing.

I’ve always been curious about doing jury duty to get an insight into our justice system. I haven’t known anyone who has done it before so always assumed the odds of me being chosen were quite slim. This changed a month ago when I received a letter saying I was required as a potential Juror.

On Monday I arrived at the Perth District Court at 8:15am as stipulated on the notification letter. I was surprised to find there was at least 100 people already in the court building waiting to get through the security scanners. Everyone was processed rather quickly and was ushered up to the second floor into the Juror waiting area. This was a large room separated into two sections. The section on the left was filled with tables and chairs in a lunch room style. It contained a communal kitchen, toilets and an outdoor area for smokers. The section on the right, holding the majority of the potential jurors, was completely filled with chairs pointing towards a booth in the middle of the room. This booth housed a number of officials with microphones and computers so they could talk with us all.

I was seated on the right section among approximately 200 other potential jurors and it soon became apparent that things weren’t going to move very quickly. At approximately 9am a video began playing on the various televisions throughout the room. The video gave a fairly good introduction into the Jury process and what we would expect over the next few days. We had all been randomly selected from the electoral roll and would be allocated to trails. Most starting today, but some not for a day or two.

As part of the registration process on arrival every juror is assigned a number. From that point on everyone is referred to by that number for privacy purposes. After a few hours waiting around watching other jurors get their name called out, my number was called out for an assault trial. I was led out of the common area with approximately 30 other jurors. We were led into the court room where the two lawyers and the accused (in the dock) were waiting for us and the judge. Once settled in the judge appeared and the jury selection process begun. They wanted to choose 13 jurors (only 12 is required, but it’s good to have a spare) and proceeded to again call out numbers from a box. One by one the potential jurors were selected until the full 13 were selected.

I wasn’t one of the chosen. The 17 remaining potential jurors were led back out and we were told to come back the following day to start the whole process again. Since it was before 12pm, everyone was informed that they would be paid for a half day and we should go back to work for the afternoon if possible. If you were currently employed the government pays for any time that you miss work while fulfilling jury duties. If you are unemployed and receiving government assistance, you receive an extra $5 / day (seemingly a token gesture). All jurors have money paid into their bank account to cover the costs of getting to the court via public transport - regardless of how you actually get to the court house.

The following day I went back and went through the same process, however this time I was selected on a case. This time some of the jurors that were selected were challenged and weren’t permitted to be on the jury. Either of the two lawyers can challenge a juror and prevent them being part of the case without providing any reason.

Once we were all selected (again, 13 were chosen in case a juror fell sick and there were still the 12 required for a full jury) we were led back to the juror’s area of the court room and had to choose a foreman. What I expected would involve some level of debate, become a non-event, with one juror suggesting a juror based on their appearance - and everyone agreeing that sounded ok! It turned out he was a chemist and probably the best educated and clearly spoken of everyone present. +1 for judging a book by its cover.

We then went back into the courtroom and announced who our foreman was (he was required to sit in the first jurors seat) and the case started. The case involved around an alleged abduction of a young girl from a bus stop in addition to sexual assault and in the end ran for 3 days. On day 1 both lawyers provided a run down on the events they believe occurred and the prosecution showed video evidence of the accused being interrogated by police. On day 2 we were shown long video evidence of the young girl as she was under 16 at the time of the incident and is not permitted to appear in court. Near the end of the day some expert witnesses were shown and the accused took the stand. At this point we had heard all the evidence so the judge let us go early.’

On day 3 both lawyers presented their summaries of the case and made it very clear at what points the specific charges were alleged to have occurred and which evidence was or wasn’t relevant. Once the lawyers had said their bit (about an hour each), the judge had his turn. The judge went into even more detail about the specifics of the law and read the relevant sections from his “magic” book of law. I was impressed with his ability to convert complex law into something logical and understandable for the jurors - and relevant to the case at hand.

I started out very skeptical of the jury system. Many of the potential jurors had already made themselves unavailable to jury duty as a result of work commitments or having jobs deemed too important (doctors, defense personnel, lawyers etc.) I expected this would leave us with the unemployed and generally less educated parts of society. Accordingly I assumed that this would compromise the decision making process of the jury to make the best decision on the case at hand.

Although my case was only one of many and not necessarily representative, it did appear to have the makeup I expected. One juror couldn’t read and about half were unemployed, however there were a few young people (myself included), which I hadn’t initially considered.

Throughout the court proceedings there wasn’t huge amounts of time for the jury to discuss the case. In the breaks we did have the jurors appeared more interested in cracking fairly crude jokes (especially considering the case) and I thought things were looking a little bleak for a rational decision. However, once all the evidence was heard and we started deliberating everyone suddenly took their role as a juror much more seriously - to my relief.

Unfortunately (but appropriately) I am prohibited from discussing what the jury discussed behind closed doors, however my confidence in the jury system was enhanced. Our jury was a variety of people from different ages, location and walks of life - each with different experiences. As the two key people in the trial were young, the older jurors looked at us younger ones as a guide to what was “reasonable” as a young person. This differing of views, experiences and opinion is what provided the basis for an appropriate decision - rather than education, intelligence or social status.

We were required for all 12 members of the jury (the 13th had been removed with a ballot earlier) to arrive at a unanimous decision. I feel that the case we had was fairly clear cut and it took us less than an hour to reach a verdict on all the charges placed before us. The comment was made by a few of us that if our case had been harder or involved murder it would be a very difficult process, especially if one or two jurors couldn’t be convinced one way or the other. This is obviously an issue as all the jurors are clearly told that they should try to make the correct decision regarding guilt and leave the sentencing up to the judge. There is also extensive support and counseling available to the jurors once the case is over.

Overall, I learnt a valuable lesson about not pre-judging a group of people and gained an increased faith in our criminal justice system. Some of the other jurors had been selected previously and there was an assumption if chosen once, it was likely you would be chosen again. If I do get the opportunity again, I will certainly take it.

Are you interested in politics?

October 3rd, 2006

I am looking for some feedback from young Australians…. so please point some blog posts this way and/or make some comments

As a young Australian I follow the media and politics fairly closely, but I feel far removed from politics. I have handed out how-to vote cards for a few elections and am happy to discuss politics with friends and family, but that’s about where things stop.

We are presentnly entering a golden era of fast, efficient communication using email, blogs, SMS, YouTube etc. however politics doesn’t appear to have evolved to use these technologies. Many popular websites use polls and voting systems to establish public sentiment - why can’t the major political parties do the same? How about openly discussing policies on Internet forums?

I have spoken to a few friends and they share similar sentiments. What is the solution? I don’t have the answers but am interested in others thoughts. I have posed some questions below, so please feel free to comment providing some guidance on the following:

  • Are you interested in politics? (include why/why not)
  • How can technology be used to better engage young people?
  • How can technology be used to improve the political process
  • How long do you think it will be before an Australian blogger is voted into parliament?

I have also posted this onto MySpace here

Free Hugs

October 3rd, 2006

Just heard about this on JJJ and thought it was great. SickPuppies were originally unearthed by JJJ and are now finalising a new album in Los Angeles. This is a video they randomly put on YouTube and within 7 days it has received 1.5million views and the guys are expected to appear on Oprah among other things!

The Fisherman and The Investment Banker

October 2nd, 2006

via Bluinc.com

The American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellow fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The fisherman replied, only a little while.

The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish?

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs.

The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?”

The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos, I have a full and busy life.”

The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat with the proceeds from the bigger boat you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC where you will run your expanding enterprise.”

The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?”

To which the American replied, “15-20 years.” “But what then?”

The American laughed and said that’s the best part. “When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions.”

“Millions.. Then what?”

The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”

Telstra (SELL)

October 2nd, 2006

Telstra is in trouble. I have thought this for a while, but never really written down why - so here’s a couple of reasons:

1. They have had a monopoly for years and earnings have peaked with fixed phone calls (telstra’s main revenue stream)
2. Sensis is terrible. It won’t ever meet its unreasonable revenue/profit forcasts as their websites are very poor and there’s ever increasing competition from yahoo and google in the online space.
3. Other broadband operaters are putting lots of preassure on the government and Telstra to gain more and more access to fixed lines so they can deliver ADSL at affordable speeds. The ACCC has repeatedly shown that they won’t budge - despite T3 being prepared, so expect things to only get worse for Telstra on this front.
4. Increasing competition from VOIP and wireless broadband services will continue to erode Telstra’s revenue and profit, making it difficult to see any upside to the stock.

Any others?

Read the latest stories on Telstra with NewsAlerts

Victoria Park

September 21st, 2006

I live very close to Victoria Park, but as we have 3 race tracks in Adelaide I can never remember its name. I have a theory that if I blog the name of the park - I won’t forget it!
Anyway, I did some searching to at least make this post informative, and the only place I could get any information about the racetrack was from the Sky Channel website.
Full track details here

Outer Circumference: 2360 metres
Length of Straight: 601 metres

Update: Clockwerx rightly points out more info is available via Wikipedia - not sure why I didn’t think of that… I think the problem is that I googled for “Victoria Park”, but then restricted by Australia. Of course that would have made Wikipedia entries not to appear - perhaps that’s something Google should look at considering Wikipedia and Google are quite closely related these days.