<div>Without wanting to sound like a political shill I distinctly recall Conroy saying at the debate last week that fibre was the only way to do videconferencing, wireless can't cut it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the policy announced yesterday directs health videoconferencing services at the regional and rural areas that are going to miss out on fibre and get WiMax/LTE or satellite instead under the NBN plans.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So either you can do video over wireless/satellite or you can't? What will it be?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It just strikes me that there is such an amazing lack of deductive logic or thought process involved in these policies.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Has anyone thought through the insurance implications of video healthcare or the fact that many specialists or patients might simply refuse it?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It's like when the esteemed expert Rod Tucker said the other idea that a single strand of fibre had 10,000 times the capacity of the entire electromagnetic spectrum (yes I thought lightwaves were a part of the spectrum not the other way around too).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I can see why people here want an NBN and oppose the Coalition's (lack of) policy.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But the rhetoric mounted for NBN policies is so internally contradictory (such as a gigabit speed involves no extra cost as if transit and backhaul are free) that they defy belief and actually invite suspicion!</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 17 August 2010 12:20, Matt Shadbolt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt.shadbolt@gmail.com">matt.shadbolt@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">question is, WHY isn't it being used?<br><font color="#888888"><br>Matt. <br><br></font>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Andrew Oskam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:percy@th3interw3bs.net" target="_blank">percy@th3interw3bs.net</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">
<div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">Interesting points. Thanks John :)
<div><br>
<div><br>
<div><br>
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="650">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><span style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Andrew Oskam</span></p>
<p><span style="COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">E <a href="mailto:percy@th3interw3bs.net" target="_blank">percy@th3interw3bs.net</a></span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><br>
<p><span style="COLOR: grey; FONT-SIZE: 8pt">NOTICE:</span></p>
<p><span style="COLOR: grey; FONT-SIZE: 8pt">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. </span></p>
<br><br></div></div><br></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div>On 17/08/2010, at 2:33 PM, John Edwards wrote:</div><br>
<div><br>On 17/08/2010, at 1:47 PM, Andrew Oskam wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">I just think it's a bit optimistic to have plans to spend so much money on the 1st term when so much is being spent already.<br></blockquote><br>This is one of those economic benefit thingies I was mentioning earlier.<br>
<br>(Disclaimer: I have done a lot of work with a vendor of medical videoconferencing services)<br><br>People are already getting medicare rebates for physical visits to a doctor, but the law stipulates that you actually have to visit the doctor to qualify.<br>
<br>This promise (which a number of parties have been lobbying for for some time now!) will mean that you can get a medicare rebate for a video consultation.<br><br>While this will may well increase the number of rebates due to greater ease-of-use, it's essentially the same rebate money that was being spent anyway.<br>
<br>The "benefit" to most of us is that doctors won't have to pay for a physical waiting room, and people won't have to burn hydrocarbons to "visit" their GP. People won't risk having to catch infectious diseases from other waiting sick people, or sacrifice valuable rest to travel just because their sadistic boss insists on a sick certificate!<br>
<br>These benefits don't even begin to scratch the surface of benefits in healthcare of the elderly - just the ambulance bills in ferrying them around are incredible.<br><br>John<br><br></div></div><br></div></div></div>
<br></div></div>
<div class="im">_______________________________________________<br>AusNOG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net" target="_blank">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>AusNOG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog" target="_blank">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>