[AusNOG] AAB Statement

[roland at chan.id.au]

Are you trying to convince me or should you be talking to someone that:

-) doesn't have kids to put to bed
-) has power
-) isn't constrained by their employment contracts

I fail on 3 of 3.

If you want to call a stakeholder, then I'll let you know when the wee beastie reaches her majority.



Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra

-----Original Message-----
From: "Bevan Slattery" <Bevan.Slattery at staff.pipenetworks.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 20:49:54 
To: <roland at chan.id.au>; <ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>; Andrew Oskam<percy at th3interw3bs.net>
Cc: <ausnog at ausnog.net>
Subject: RE: [AusNOG] AAB Statement

Sorry Roland that we didn't respond to your post within the hour.  I should have not put my kids to bed in the chance you were going to post something.

So we say that we believe that there is a mix which works.  We think our proposal is a better solution.  Unlike NBN 2.0, we would like to sit down with the industry and Government and consider our proposal and if we all agree that it looks good then lets investigate it and perform a thorough analysis on it.   This is contained in item 12 http://www.vocus.com.au/media/AAB_Final2.pdf

"12. We believe that any substantial investment by the taxpayer for any National Broadband Infrastructure (whether it be NBN 2.0 or the examples above) must be subject to serious investigation and independent cost estimations, cost-benefit analysis, genuine industry and public consultation as well as a review of its impact on the Australian competitive telecommunications landscape."

So we are not arrogant and saying that our solution fits exactly and should be followed to the letter - but saying it should be subject to serious investigation if deemed it an appropriate solution.  Unlike NBN 2.0 we have not formed an opinion and assumed it's completely correct and proceed to implementation.  We are saying that we are experienced industry participants prepared to put forward a proposal for consideration and investigation.

Whilst we are confident we have enough humility to recognise that sometimes we're not always right despite how passionate and correct we may feel.

Perhaps that's something that is missing from other parties involved.  A bit of rigour, investigation and an admission of possible fallibility. 

Cheers

[b]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: roland at chan.id.au [mailto:roland at chan.id.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 2 September 2010 8:30 PM
> To: Bevan Slattery; ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net; Andrew Oskam
> Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] AAB Statement
> 
> *crickets*
> 
> Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: roland at chan.id.au
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 09:33:08
> To: Bevan Slattery<Bevan.Slattery at staff.pipenetworks.com>; <ausnog-
> bounces at lists.ausnog.net>; Andrew Oskam<percy at th3interw3bs.net>
> Reply-To: roland at chan.id.au
> Cc: <ausnog at ausnog.net>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] AAB Statement
> 
> Way to equivocate. So you're saying that, as industry experts, you want X, but
> maybe Y is right if perhaps our assumptions are wrong. On that basis, please
> invest in X. Maybe, unless you're wrong. Outside chance. Probably.
> 
> So, as a policy position, what do you actually commit to? What is on offer if
> you are wrong? Try as we might, you aren't going to lose anything if your
> postulation is wrong.
> 
> As a titan of industry: do you give a toss about the short/medium term? Last I
> checked the titans played for keeps.
> 
> I have used the words "wrong" and "policy". Please take that into account.
> 
> :)
> 
> 
> Sent via BlackBerry® from Telstra
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Bevan Slattery" <Bevan.Slattery at staff.pipenetworks.com>
> Sender: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:54:23
> To: Bevan Slattery<Bevan.Slattery at staff.pipenetworks.com>; Andrew
> Oskam<percy at th3interw3bs.net>
> Cc: <ausnog at ausnog.net>
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] AAB Statement
> 
> I'm not saying we may not be wrong though! :)
> 
> [b]
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-
> > bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Bevan Slattery
> > Sent: Thursday, 2 September 2010 4:53 PM
> > To: Andrew Oskam
> > Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
> > Subject: Re: [AusNOG] AAB Statement
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > > Another thing that also has me confused, is how can we honestly say "We
> > don't feel/Australia does not need 1Gbps".
> > > Now, I will be honest and forth coming to say that my experience in the
> > industry is far less than some of you titans here - but I don't see how we can
> > be bold enough to make such a statement.
> >
> > We stated:
> >
> > "For the short to medium term we see, globally, no demonstrated mass
> > requirement for the “up to 1Gbps” speeds to homes and SOHO. Instead, we
> > see the greatest priority is giving broadband to those who don‟t have any,
> > not faster broadband to those that have."
> >
> > If I were to prioritise of 'need' I would say those that are without any choice
> > NEED a broadband choice.  It's a 'bold' statement in so far as there is some
> > future gazing here, but I think people confuse need/desire and want/not
> > prepared to pay.
> >
> > Remember we are talking short/medium term and used the word 'need'.
> >
> > [b]
> > _______________________________________________
> > AusNOG mailing list
> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog