[AusNOG] Government sets parameters for NBN

[Alex Samad - Yieldbroker]

1) they should just shut it down instead of killing it for the next 20-30 years
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle   80 / 20 seems to be playing love this rule.
3) There should be a campaign ... send you local member and turnbull an email when you internet goes crappy (cause of rain -- easy to tell, or congestion not so easy to tell)


I get the feeling Turnbill is a smart man, but party lines have been set, and what sets this government apart from a good government is the ability to say, okay we got it wrong, this is the best for the country (and not just the best for our friends)

But I think it has got a lot of other 3rd parties talking about fibre... Maybe I can find a business reason to have fibre at the home ....!

A


> -----Original Message-----
> From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Jake
> Anderson
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 April 2014 5:58 PM
> To: Ross Wheeler; ausnog at lists.aussag.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Government sets parameters for NBN
> 
> So because 3% of the population would be getting satellite  (which seems to
> be something heavily in demand already, with the whole over-subscription
> and stop sale thing) the whole project should be scrapped?
> 
> I reckon covering 93% of the population with the best thing available and 5-
> 6% with decent wireless it really is pretty good and probably worth the $1bn
> it costs to roll that over the MTM (read the review, in detail, ignore the peak
> spend figure and look at the actual cost full FTTH is $1Bn more than MTM).
> 
> Now you are going to have 20% of the population covered with glass, and
> 80% covered with a mismash of crap, and the same 3% on satellite are still on
> that.
> 
> btw, regarding the satellite latency problem, whilst its not ideal I know of at
> least a few places with GEO birds that people are running voice links over. For
> non "trained" people (ie people who don't know its a satellite service) they
> seem to not have much in the way of trouble with it.
> 
> I like to call it The "Malcom Turnbull Mess" option btw.
> 
> On 09/04/14 17:37, Ross Wheeler wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Apr 2014, Greg Anderson wrote:
> >
> >> In my opinion, the FTTH was expensive but invaluable, however this
> >> technology mix (lets call it PN for public network) is not going to
> >> solve a majority of the problems we have in place today - only the
> >> dire ones (like pair gain problems preventing any kind of fixed line
> >> networking at all).
> >
> > Lets not lose sight of the great number of people who were never going
> > to get glass ANYWAY under the original scheme. There have been flaws
> > at every stage of this thing, it's just how many people were affected,
> > and how noisy those people were (or politically influential).
> >
> > When the highest population-density areas (read, those who already had
> > ADSL2, wireless and multiple other technologies from a variety of
> > vendors - ie the metro areas particularly) were going to get their
> > feeble 5 megabits services upgraded to hundred megabits+ over glass,
> > all those people who were stuck with dial-up modems (or aspired to
> > have a line good enough to use a dial-up modem), or who limped along
> > with 256Kbps adsl1 (because it was the best they could get), or were
> > forced back to high-latency, expensive, unreliable satellite services
> > that are entirely unsuitable for voice or real interactive
> > applications) - were unlikely to actually see any benefit ANYWAY.
> >
> > Expensive solutions or not, don't fool yourself that EITHER party was
> > going to actually deliver FTEP. (Fiber-To-EVERY-Premesis)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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