[AusNOG] Long live the NBN. The NBN is dead?! [personal]

[Tim McCullagh]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Brooks" <pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au>


> No, I'm not. I'm saying that the attitude of 'I've got 22 Mbps on my DSL, 
> so I don't care that the people outside DSL range have nothing at all, and 
> no hope of getting anything" isn't helpful.

No one is saying that.   If you read the posts I and others have written 
they say there are areas that don't have solutions and this is where the 
focus should be.  Please stop misrepresenting the issue.      In fact I can 
tell you that my daughter is one of those people where satellite is her only 
option and she gets 1GB for $50 per month then something like $0.5 per meg 
excess.  Her bill last month was $600 for a bit over 2Gb. 
..........................

NBNco is focusing their ftth on larger cities and regional towns where adsl 
2 is already available or where there are 2 cable networks capable of being 
upgraded to provide 100Mbps if there is demand.  This is what the argument 
is about.  Spending large sums of money to duplicate and ultimately shut 
down any competition.   What sort of a dumb idea is that.   We should be 
focusing on fixing the issues now, not on what may or may not happen in 10 
years.    I am a big believer in ftth, but only where there is a need.  It 
will happen regardless of NBN, but it will happen when there is either a 
need or a cost benefit in doing so.   We definately do not need to go back 
tot he PMG days of monopoly government ownership for this to happen.

As far as those areas you mention that can't get or have limited access to 
solutions NBNco has put diddly squats worth of effert into those areas.  It 
has directed all its effort to focus on serving those areas that already 
have commercial solutions.

> I think it is far more important to get broadband to those that have none 
> at all, than to bring faster broadband to those that already have it.

So are you now saying we don't need to build ftth where ADSL 2 already 
exists

>  I also think that broadband is about a whole lot more than simple 
> downstream capacity. Upstream capacity  is also important, latency is also 
> important.

Absolutley,   things like need, access, affordability, competition, choice 
and so on

> These three together determine the usability of a broadband link, and this 
> focus of all of us here, you, and the policy wonks on simplistic 
> spleen-venting based on only downstream linkrate is disappointing.

Give me a bucket.  Policy wonks and spleen venting  Pleeeeeeease
It is about focusing on delivery where there is a need and whether NBN is 
commercially viable.  It is about whether there is justification to spend 
$43 Billion and forcing all australians to pay for it.  It is about 
overbuilding 3 competing networks and closing them down so we can go back to 
the PMG monopoly days.  It is about whether we want governments to do to the 
pricing of communications what they have done to say water pricing in south 
east queensland.   It is about good financial management of taxpayers 
resources and the use of such scarce resources.  Should I go 
on???????????????????????????????????????????


>
> Enough with the emotive car analogies Tim - its not comparable.

I beg to differ.   It is much more like a car then it ever will be like a 
road.

Should I explain?
Of course

Communications infrastructure including ftth has technolgical obsolesence. 
Like a car.  New features, different applications.   I am yet to see a road 
that is not still a road in 50 years.  Yes it may be wider or made out of a 
different material, but it is still a road. Whereas ftth gateways head end 
routers etc all have a finite life.   Many organisations change there 
routers at 4 years or less.  It is true that the cable is in a sence similar 
to a road, however there are new fibre technoliogies and specs evolving all 
the time and some of the non passive components will dictate which fibre 
type is required.   Then there is the issue of the storms on Melbourne this 
morning and other place on a regular basis.   When trees come down which 
they will how long will it take to fix it.  Where are the staff and 
materials going to come from? Fibre is much different to copper in such 
situations.

I could go on   ...... and on


> A better analogy is the width of the road. I'm saying we should look to 
> the long term. If you had your way, when they built the harbour bridge 
> they would have made it only one lane either way,

What a load of rubbish.

Are you saying that we need to build harbour bridges across every creek and 
river in the country.  There is a big difference between builing arterial 
roads and streets in the suburbs. The arterial road is like the fibre links 
between exchanges and ftth is like a quiet street.  There is a major 
difference

> because thats all we needed at the time. By now we'd have had to build 5 
> harbour bridges side-by-side to carry the offered demand traffic, and they 
> would have cost in aggregate more than the single bridge big enough to 
> carry it all.

This is a terrible anology, and factually incorrect
>
>>
>> Granted there are parts of australia that have poor or no service then 
>> this is where the focus should be.  Not building a forth network over the 
>> top of 3 other networks that can supply what is needed for many users 
>> today and then scrapping the 3 existing networks so that the 4 th network 
>> owner can charge whatever they like.
> Actually, on this point I think we agree.  The issue of course is how to 
> reach those places that have poor or no service, but are inside the 
> nominal footprint of those existing networks.

That is easy, you focus your efforts on finding a solution and it will 
happen if the effort is genuine.  At present that is not the case.  The 
focus is on overbuilding existing functioning networks with a veiw to 
shutting the competing networks down and doing back to tthe PMG days of a 
government owned monopoly network.

Believe it or not I have experience in both the ftth and rural issues and I 
speak with end users every day.  I could devolop and start deploying 
solutions within 2 weeks. if the regulatory environment had some certainty. 
Many others are doing so now and providing solutions where the need exists, 
with some government assistance of course.  In essence there are a number of 
people with the skills to provide these solutions now and at a lower cost 
than any government department will ever do.

regards

Tim