[AusNOG] A look at the coalitions NBN so far

[Paul Jones]

But what’s that got to do with it? Copper and Fibre are not variations of the same thing, they are entirely different, and both have extra expenses and savings. Would it be fair if I made the claim that the cost of building last mile fibre is met by the saving that comes from not maintaining and upgrading the copper? It might be true (or not), but such claims are invalid because there is more to it than that.

Cheers,
Paul. J
(how many Pauls do we have on list!)

From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul Wallace
Sent: Wednesday, 9 September 2015 2:41 PM
To: Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] A look at the coalitions NBN so far

If I read it correctly Rod Tuckers suggestion that the new NBN is to cost roughly similar to the Labours build estimate, when obviously an enormous portion of the build cost is withdrawn by no longer requiring the last mile build to every single home on every single occasion is frankly embarrassing.

-P




From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul Wilkins
Sent: Wednesday, 9 September 2015 1:20 PM
To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:ausnog at lists.ausnog.net>
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] A look at the coalitions NBN so far

Karl,
Thanks for the interesting reply.
I think it's unfair to compare the NBN's actual performance under Turnbull, with NBN's initial FTTP estimates. I think it's fairly partisan to suggest that there wouldn't have been cost blowouts under Labor. For one thing, the exchange rate has moved considerably.
Kind regards
Paul Wilkins


On 9 September 2015 at 12:39, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au<mailto:kauer at biplane.com.au>> wrote:
On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 12:12 +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:
> Those are Prof Rod Tucker (of University Melbourne)'s views and figures. He
> wanted $43bn from Stephen Conroy back in 2009 for a FTTN network. This was
> when the AUD was trading at USD$1.15. His is a fairly partisan position.

To assume someone is partisan because they argue for one position or
another is very poor form indeed, unless you can demonstrate their bias.
And even if someone IS partisan, they may still be right, even if for
the wrong reasons. That's the problem with ad hominem attacks - they
don't address the facts.

A position that is argued from supportable facts is not partisan unless
other facts are being deliberately ignored. If you have a problem with
an article, you need to attack the statements made in it, either by
showing that the facts being used are not true, by showing that
information the writer had access to is being ignored, or by showing
that the facts as given do not support the conclusions drawn.

So - is the author wrong? If so, how so?

Regards, K.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au<mailto:kauer at biplane.com.au>)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882


_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20150909/c4da36e3/attachment.html>