[AusNOG] Flogging a dead horse

[Matthew Moyle-Croft]

On 16/08/2010, at 5:10 PM, Tim McCullagh wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Matthew Moyle-Croft" <mmc at internode.com.au>
> 
> 
>> Tim,
>> The demand for faster services exists.
> 
> I don't doubt it exists, but is it enought to justify $43 billion or more 
> investment?

I think so.   

> If it exists Answer the question , How many people are demanding speed? 
> What percentage of the market specifically.

So, as I keep saying, the %age is growing.  It's not just now, it's onto the future.   This is the whole problem, you're not looking at, well, NBN is 8 years to build and what happens in ten years.  You're looking at right now and ignoring the future completely.   NBN needs to meet demand in 8-10 years plus.   So, the question is - what does it look like then?

> Your continual denial to answer that question suggest you don't know.  You 
> should make yourself aware of some of the demand data, you may find you 
> think differently about it.  I know what it is in my local area.

I work for a national ISP, I'm the guy responsible for our entire DSLAM build from business case to operation - I can see what, as an aggregate our customers are demanding.  Customers keep demanding faster and faster speeds.   The main issue is that people with more than one person in the house are starting to find that at their "peak time" that ADSL2+ in a lot of cases is getting a bit "squeezy".

My Dad still has two of my siblings living at home.  He gets 6Mbps on ADSL2+ and when they're all home just after dinner it often gets a little slow as they all (four people) are using the Internet for work and play.  In a few years time when my kids are using the net more (they're under 5) we'll want faster.

> People are 
> moving from ADSL to mobile wireless becasue they can save $5 per month and 
> it still does everything they need.  I do have doubts about the long term 
> sustainability of such a move.

Maybe in your area.  But I suspect that mobile data is less a replacement than a supplement/complement.    People want both.  Let's give them both.

> 
> Also remember the companies Commindico, Onetel etc.   They built networks on 
> the basis of if we build it they will come.  Where are they now.  What about 
> the power company in Western Australia.  They did a FTTH network on their 
> poles, it is now closed down.  

All old examples, probably before their time.   We should learn from them, but not refuse to do just because someone failed.

Opticomm for example is doing quite well rolling out Greenfields FTTH.

>  There needs to be some thought go into NBN 
> before the mistakes of the past are repeated again.  NBNco needs to come 
> clean with pricing and a business plan, then many will be able to make an 
> informed decision about whether they want it and demand figures will be 
> estimateable.  Until then it is a GIANT CON.    It the demand truely existed 
> someone would be building it now.

I disagree.  As you've said before - you have a warehouse of equipment (apparently) that you didn't deploy because you viewed the risk as too high.

So, the one thing the government can bring to the table, as a national project, is to be able to get the settings right so that this project will work.   That's why governments exist.  To do things that need the whole nation to move in one direction.  Hence why they do health, education, defence etc.

> 
> That is not to say that there should not be focus on addressing needs in 
> areas where the market has failed and we should be deploying next generation 
> solutions in those areas.  However I am sure that will not cost $43 billion.

Maybe not as one project, but I'm quite sure that over time (say 15-20 years) we'll spend more your way.

> 
> 
>> The constant denial that it doesn't and the demand isn't going to grow is 
>> tiring as you know it's not true.
> 
> The demand may be growing and as it reaches a point where it is viable to 
> justify investment then this will be met in most areas as it has beeen since 
> 1995 onwards.  At present the demand is not there to justify a $43 billion 
> investment.

Do YOU have figures to justify that?   Or is it something you're asserting to suit our argument?  What about the demand in 8-10 years or more time?   

>   For those that want fast service you can get them now from any 
> number of suppliers.  The issue is that some of those demanding such 
> services don't want to pay for them at the current market rates, which is 
> exactly the point I am trying to make for the majority of Australians when 
> it comes to the NBN.  Why should the majority have the hide to demand, that 
> everyone else takes a price increase so that they can get something they are 
> currently not prepared to pay for?

Currently.   Stop living in the now and the past.   You know demand will increase and it'll be something that, if we don't move soon will become a major national issue.

> 
>> /me hopes you're going to be vocal about the government spending same kinds 
>> of dollars on a few ships,
>> submarines and fighter planes over the next decade.
> 
> No I am definately not.  I have some idea what role those ships planes and 
> other equipment and personel are used for.
> Just in case you don't know
> Ships patrol our waters to ensure the integrety of our borders so that such 
> things as illegal boats don't bring people, drugs and deseases to our 
> country.

The submarines are not required for this role and destroyers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart_class_destroyer) are air defence - not patrol for people smugglers etc.   The F-35 fighters aren't suitable, so we would be better off buying more and cheaper Global Hawk and equivalent UAVs.   F-35s ($12billion) are going to be the last generation of manned fighters most likely.  Why spend so much on them except for a bit of show?

> For thirty seconds imagine what would happen if we didn't patrol our borders 
> and someone brought in animals from indoneasia with rabbies or foot and 
> mouth and desease in.  That would cost this country a bucket load more than 
> the cost of a few boats.  The beef industry would be decimated for a sta
> and trying to eradicate it in places like kakadu would be a tall order. 
> Imagine what rabies would do to native wildlife.

Maybe upgrade Custom's fleet at lower cost?   Same deal as your piecemeal approach.  Lots less cost.

> Planes they are also used for the purpose above, they are also used in times 
> of natural disasters to ferry necessities to where they are required.
> etc etc etc.  It may pay to see what defence actually does.  

F-35s don't do that.  We'd need to buy C-130s and more related Caribou type aircraft.   (Have we replaced the Caribou yet?)

> On top of that 
> it employs a lot of people in your home state and mine.  It trains a lot of 
> Australians which then contribute to the society in other areas.  It 
> develops technologies that serve to improve civilian technologies.  Think 
> for a moment about the reseach that has gone into such things as batteries 
> used in subs and satelites.  These technologies end up in yours and my daily 
> lives.
> Please don't use such offensive examples.  

Why?  Why is it not okay to question VERY LARGE defence spending when it could be done for a lot less?   It's the same thing.

> Your focus on defense is like 
> saying I am the only one that matters I want my broadband and I don't care 
> if we can't defend ourselves as long as I get my broadband.  I know that is 
> not what you mean.  I understand it is all about getting a balance.

I'm not saying this, I'm saying that FedGovt spends a lot of money on big projects.   You've said above that it's not okay to question some, but you're happy to bag others.

> 
>> Certainly if we can't afford NBN then we can't afford to spend the same 
>> money on defence as well.
> 
> Your kidding aren't you.

See above.

> 
>> Still I see no alternate plan other than "hopefully technology will save 
>> us from ourselves".
> 
> I don't see to much thought going into this in your arguments either.  I 
> haven't seen you rebutt my arguments by addressing the issues.
> 
> I guess someone has to play the devils advocate

I guess ...

> 
> As someone pointed out to me today (thankyou) I am one of those that has 
> invested my own $ in infrastructure and some others are the techs that 
> install and maintain some of the infrastructure and we both see it from 
> different perspectives.  That is good, it all adds to the understanding.

I'm glad that spending your own money is the only qualification needed here and that the rest of us who spend our lives figuring out how to invest other people's money (and do so profitably) are somehow idiots here.

Here's someone who's spent his own money who thinks NBN is a good thing: 
http://www.internode.on.net/news/2009/04/133.php

Here's another:  http://www.iinet.net.au/press/releases/20100621-iinet-welcomes-nbn-telstra-agreement.pdf

Both successful people who've spent their own money (one who's money I spend) building infrastructure who reckon that the NBN isn't such a bad thing.

MMC



> 
> regards
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
>