[AusNOG] NBN must avoid becoming 'failed state'

[Dobbins, Roland]

On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Paul Brooks wrote:

> This headline is perfectly appropriate - the NBN cannot be for stupidity of the end-users or their service providers!


Government neither manufacture private automobiles nor drive them for the populace at large (public buses excepted), yet they impose safety standards on said vehicles, compose traffic regulations, and check for compliance with same, withdraw manufacturing/operating permits for compliance failures - how's this any different?

> Now if an ONT was compromised, that would be a different kettle of fish.

Or CPE, or if the attack originated on an NBN-connected end-customer network, or . . . 

The ideas that a) government ought to be in the networking business, yet b) government ought not to set any security standards nor AUPs nor work to enforce same, seem to be mutually countervailing, do they not?

If NBN is deployed and rolled out as has been projected, and no standards are set and enforced with regards to AUP and security capabilities, it's pretty much guaranteed that there will be a great gnashing of teeth and general consternation in the political and/or judicial arenas when it ends up as insecure and unsecurable as other networks around the world.

The primary difference being, of course, that it is a government-owned/-designed/-operated network, which greatly alters public perception and political significance of said network.

Now, if that's what Australians decide is in their best interests, I'm sure that's what will take place - my point is that there's another way to proceed, with extremely few (if any) drawbacks and the potential to make things quite a bit better for end-users than the current general sorry state of affairs to be found on the Internet today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

 	       Sell your computer and buy a guitar.