[AusNOG] NBN must avoid becoming 'failed state'

[Graeme Allen]

- The nations roads are used to carry stolen goods
- Bigger/better roads means more stolen goods can be carried
- Best have the roads authorities monitor and police road usage to
ensure no resultant increase in crime

I suspect few would think the above makes sense. So why is it some would
apply the same logic to "the internet"?

I believe the real issue with bigger pipes in the context of the NBN is
that without the inherent upload constraint of DSL (generally < 1Mbps),
help desks will need to spend more time passifying customers who have
blown their combined Up&Down caps and get speed limited due to
"unintentional"/"unaware"/"I didn't mean too"/"my sister did it"/"what's
an upload" activity.

My 2c...

-  
Graeme Allen
Director
My Telecom Holdings Pty. Ltd.


On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 11:56 +0930, Mark Newton wrote:
> On 21/09/2010, at 10:19 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> 
> > You've failed to respond to substantive points/questions raised on the actual topic at hand,
> 
> No, I haven't.
> 
> I've addressed the substantiative points/questions raised on the
> actual topic at hand by pouring water on some of the rhetoric that's
> been used to support it.
> 
> You don't agree;  Fine.  I'll let the disconnect between the last
> couple of decades worth of security doomsaying and the actual 
> impact on the overwhelming majority of real people speak to my case,
> and leave it at that.
> 
> > One perhaps couldn't be blamed for reaching the conclusion that your mind is already made up on this topic, and that you believe anyone who disagrees with you to be a dolt, a villain, or both.
> 
> See, that's an example of a way of wording a personal attack in a 
> way that allows you to deny that you ever made it if challenged.
> You don't think I believe anyone who disagrees with me is a dolt,
> a villain, or both;  You just can't be blamed for reaching that
> conclusion.  "I don't actually think that," you could say, "it's 
> just a mistake anyone could make."
> 
> Whatever floats your boat, Roland.  Pretty sure you'd never say 
> that to someone face to face.  And just for the record, in case
> there are some imaginary readers who might be confused, I don't
> believe anything of the sort.
> 
> > You're entitled to your views, of course, but note that a) it's quite possible to disagree with people without demonizing them, and b) some of the people you're keen to tar as being somehow over-the-top have long-established reputations in this industry for being otherwise.
> 
> Meanwhile, when challenged on whether you really meant some of 
> the over-the-top things you said upthread you pointed the finger at
> Jason Bailey.  The "he started it," defence.
> 
> If I've focussed on something you consider to be an off the cuff
> remark, it's only because you made variations of it on at least three
> separate occasions.
> 
> I'm not demonizing you, and I understand your long-established 
> reputation.
> 
> But a reputation doesn't shield anyone from criticism.  
> 
> The very first message you sent in reply to me in this thread (19 Sep
> 4:41pm) had examples of the hype I've been criticising:  You painted a
> picture of people "being unable to access their bank Web sites to
> pay their bills, download or upload content, VPN into their offices,
> buy houses because their credit has been ruined by identity thieves,
> profit from their intellectual efforts because they've been subject
> to corporate espionage," and told me that the sky has already
> actually fallen.
> 
> The events depicted are exaggerations: Nobody will be "unable to
> access their bank websites to pay their bills," on a sufficiently
> permanent basis to cause the bills to fall overdue, and affected
> people could just pay their bills at the post office anyway.  And
> while some peoples' credit will be ruined by fraud (online or off!),
> our societies have mechanisms to recover so that victims can continue
> to buy houses.
> 
> I'd argue that while the probability of any of those events happening
> isn't zero, the consequences of their realization is mostly confined to
> "inconvenience," rather than "economic collapse," a rational risk
> analysis would place them at the low-to-negligible end of the scale,
> and that the sky is still firmly fastened above our heads.
> 
> In response to that low-to-negligible risk, your presentation 
> repeatedly asserts the necessity for monitoring up to layer-7.
> You're (inaccurately) painting NBNCo as a part of the Government,
> and advocating pervasive surveillance, in a country that doesn't
> have any civil rights law and therefore has literally no defensive
> mechanisms which a citizen can use to defend herself from opsec
> threats posed by governmental action -- And, in the ensuing
> discussion thread, arguing that disconnection of entire ISPs from
> the nation's monopoly access network is a legitimate response for
> NBNCo to take.
> 
> So I reckon criticism is perfectly legitimate, and that it's 
> disappointing that you've answered it by upping the rhetoric and
> then finishing up with a personal attack and an appeal to your
> own authority to cast doubt on the questioning from first principles.
> 
> >> I suggest that everyone tone it down a notch.
> > 
> > It's a wise man who listens to his own advice.
> 
> ... says the guy who just "toned it up" by adding plausibly-deniable
> personal attacks to the mix ...
> 
> > ;>
> 
> ... and finishes it all off with a smiley.  "Ha ha, only serious."
> 
> I'm done with this thread.
> 
>   - mark
> 
> --
> Mark Newton                               Email:  newton at internode.com.au (W)
> Network Engineer                          Email:  newton at atdot.dotat.org  (H)
> Internode Pty Ltd                         Desk:   +61-8-82282999
> "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>