[AusNOG] NBN: "i want a pony! but can I afford it"

[Mark Smith]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:08:09 +0930
John Edwards <john at netniche.com.au> wrote:

> 
> On 17/08/2010, at 8:19 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:53:51 +0930
> > Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc at internode.com.au> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Awesome - so you're saying we're stuck with what we've got?   Bravo John, very forward looking.
> 
> Just to be clear, I believe we should be going full steam ahead with an FTTH plan, and that any delay to discuss alternatives reduces the economic benefit we might receive while increasing construction costs. Changing direction will deceptively cost us more than any savings realised by the alternative plan.
> 
> > 
> > Thinking about it a bit more, I think 3G and the iPhone were the game
> > changers that have emerged in the last 3-4 years. 
> 
> 3G and iPhones exist *because* of fixed broadband, not instead of them. They are a substitute and a compromise.
> 

Didn't say that. I said that when it comes to spending billions of
dollars on telecommunications infrastructure, completely ignoring the
rapid growth in mobile internet devices in the past 3 to 4 years is
questionable.

> Wireless technologies have objections, limitations and just too many variables to give anyone certainty of access.
> 
> Fibre will just work. Every time.
> 

So you don't have a mobile phone?

If you do, then you've been willing to compromise a level of quality
and reliability for mobility. Everybody who has a mobile phone has.

People are willing to compromise on their broadband performance as a
trade off for mobility, as long as it is comparable.

I don't think used GPRS very often for Internet access because it was
dialup speed, in comparison to their broadband at home, and that the
screen on their phone was typically no more than a 1.5 inches square.
3G and the iPhone made the mobile experience far closer and comparable
to broadband.

> Consumers and business alike abhor complexity. For whatever application anyone dreams up, the FTTH solution will be able to give them a yes or no answer on its suitability. Given a DSL connection today, a service provider cannot guarantee that a 64K VoIP service will work as well as a 50 year old telephone.

And yet, strangely enough, people use VoIP all the time, including
abandoning POTS dialtone. VoIP is a service that isn't guaranteed, and
may not be using PCMA codecs, so will be lower quality than the old POTS
service.

Why do you think that is? I think there are a number of reasons -

- people's acceptable quatity of call expectations have been lowered
  due to their mobile phone use.

- phone calls are generally cheaper. Although technically they may not
  be because you have to have a broadband service, however it's just
  another broadband application (like a game, web browser etc.), so it
  is an absorbed cost.

People obviously don't care about the guarantees that you seem to think
they do.

> Applications on wireless technologies will always have an asterisk* on
> the terms and conditions, and this will be enough to create doubts
> that prevent our society from getting the maximum benefit of network
> effects and operating efficiencies driven by multiple users.
> 

Are you saying this mobile phone thing that has driven the cost per
handset down from $6000 to $60 in the last twenty or so years is a
random anomaly? I thought it was "network effects and operating
efficiencies driven by multiple users."