<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a pony!" (was Re:Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>...and the market adapts to these technology changes as demand increases.<BR>
<BR>
Point in hand: there are many businesses which REQUIRE high speed connectivity as a part of their business. That's why Optus, PowerTel, NextGen, Primus, Digital River, UEcomm, Telstra, PIPE, AAPT, Verizon/WorldCom etc. all have optical rings around most east-coast CBDs and people like Polyfone, BigAir, Allegro etc. build competitive fixed-wireless alternatives to reach where these rings do not.<BR>
<BR>
100Mbps/100Mbps is available in any major city, where the highest density of users who require it are, and usually less than $3k/month.<BR>
<BR>
If your business has a genuine requirement for high speed connectivity, then you build the cost of acquiring that service into your business model and pricing structure. That's how a free market economy works.<BR>
<BR>
I do not deny that we need to focus on regional telecommunications, but I firmly believe that the NBN is not the answer. The government can build regional backhaul networks and let ISPs deliver the local loop (via FTTP, WLL, copper, whatever is most effective). The market will set demand, the regional blackspot issues resolved and we've spent a hell of a lot less than a metro FTTP network which duplicates what's already covered by 1xCopper, 2xHFC, 4xMobile and countless fixed wireless providers.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Andrew Oskam [<A HREF="mailto:percy@th3interw3bs.net">mailto:percy@th3interw3bs.net</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thu 8/12/2010 1:37 PM<BR>
To: Curtis Bayne<BR>
Cc: Daniel Hood; Tom Sykes; ausnog@ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a pony!" (was Re:Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])<BR>
<BR>
What if something better than Citrix comes along in 10-20 years time?<BR>
<BR>
Things change. Technology eventually becomes redundant.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Andrew Oskam<BR>
E percy@th3interw3bs.net<BR>
<BR>
NOTICE:<BR>
These comments are my own personal opinions only and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of my employer or their affiliates. All comments are based upon my current knowledge and my own personal experiences. You should conduct independent tests to verify the validity of any statements made in this email before basing any decisions upon those statements.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 12/08/2010, at 10:43 AM, Curtis Bayne wrote:<BR>
<BR>
Beyond 1Mbps and with appropriate latency a Citrix session is indistinguishable from a local host.<BR>
<BR>
There are many regional mining companies with 4Mbps/4Mbps ATM circuits from Telstra with 100-400 thin clients hanging off the end who have great success.<BR>
<BR>
A 1.5Mbps DSL circuit is perfectly suitable for teleworking.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Daniel Hood [<A HREF="mailto:dsmhood@gmail.com">mailto:dsmhood@gmail.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Thu 8/12/2010 10:11 AM<BR>
To: Curtis Bayne<BR>
Cc: Andrew Oskam; Tom Sykes; ausnog@ausnog.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a pony!" (was Re:Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])<BR>
<BR>
Fine and at normal speed are two very different things.<BR>
<BR>
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Curtis Bayne <curtis@bayne.com.au> wrote:<BR>
> Citrix runs perfectly fine under 512Kbps, ensuring latency is less than<BR>
> 100ms end-to-end.<BR>
><BR>
> I used to do this over VodafoneAU GPRS many moons ago...<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: ausnog-bounces@lists.ausnog.net on behalf of Daniel Hood<BR>
> Sent: Thu 8/12/2010 9:57 AM<BR>
> To: Andrew Oskam<BR>
> Cc: Tom Sykes; ausnog@ausnog.net<BR>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] background radiation was: "i want a pony!" (was<BR>
> Re:Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal])<BR>
><BR>
> Yea come on guys.<BR>
><BR>
> Botnet providers would only need maybe 10 bots to successfully bring<BR>
> down a 100mbit datacenter connection without the bot infected pc<BR>
> owners finding out.<BR>
><BR>
> Or even better, you could brute force a data center server and have<BR>
> the only bottleneck being both end-points processors, no longer the<BR>
> slow 6mbit DSL or such.<BR>
><BR>
> Think of the positives guys!<BR>
><BR>
> But more importantly. I like the fact that I could actually get<BR>
> employee's to start working properly from home. E.G, they have a<BR>
> netbook loaded up with just a thin client then they have their work<BR>
> pc, that they can connect from they're home 100mbit fibre, work<BR>
> 100mbit LAN or 42mbit (Telstra's just about got them out) mobile<BR>
> internet card. Seriously, when I can have mobile employee's connecting<BR>
> to a virtualised pc at work, my life becomes a lot easier.<BR>
><BR>
> Also, the other positive is the possibility for people to be able to<BR>
> do home / SoHo offsite backups. House fires, floods and other natural<BR>
> disasters... Thief... All wouldn't matter as much anymore. Because<BR>
> your data would be safe...<BR>
><BR>
> Just my 2 cents.<BR>
><BR>
> Dan<BR>
><BR>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Andrew Oskam <percy@th3interw3bs.net><BR>
> wrote:<BR>
>> I also dislike that people either forget or assume that the Internet will<BR>
>> be the same in 10 or 20 years.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Look how much it's changed in 15.<BR>
>><BR>
>> In my own opinion we are are just barely able to cope with the content we<BR>
>> have now on the current model.<BR>
>><BR>
>> Sent from my iPhone<BR>
>> -------------<BR>
>> Andrew Oskam<BR>
>><BR>
>> On 11/08/2010, at 11:46 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:<BR>
>><BR>
>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010, Anand Kumria wrote:<BR>
>>><BR>
>>>>> to 3, that means in the slightly above average case there are 5 people<BR>
>>>>> living in a residence. If each of those people wants to conduct a high<BR>
>>>>> definition video conference at the same time, that is approximately 5 x<BR>
>>>>> 8 Mbps symmetric bandwidth [0], or 40Mbps. That is of course peak<BR>
>>>>> bandwidth, and worst case. 3 children is not that common, and I think 5<BR>
>>>>> concurrent HD video conferences is even less likely to happen. However,<BR>
>>>>> it is a feasible and possible use case.<BR>
>>>>><BR>
>>>>> So what is the other 60Mbps for?<BR>
>>>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Whatever the hell people dream up.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>>> I see that close to 30% utilisation across some (others have close to<BR>
>>>> 10%)<BR>
>>>> of my DSL links is just Internet background radiation.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>>> I assume things will be even less predictable when TV providers decide<BR>
>>>> to<BR>
>>>> 'pre-stream' shows to a bunch of households as well.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> I dislike how people keep focusing on traditional media rather than<BR>
>>> wondering<BR>
>>> what people could do with it.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> (Besides porn, of course.)<BR>
>>><BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Adrian<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>>> AusNOG mailing list<BR>
>>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
>>> <A HREF="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</A><BR>
>> _______________________________________________<BR>
>> AusNOG mailing list<BR>
>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
>> <A HREF="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</A><BR>
>><BR>
> _______________________________________________<BR>
> AusNOG mailing list<BR>
> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<BR>
> <A HREF="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</A><BR>
><BR>
><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>