You and Tony are the first people I have met who think that CVC is a good idea
or somehow normal or okay compared with what we have today.
No – please don’t conflate Tony’s opinion with mine.
I think we should build an FTTP network, because that’s where the rest of the
world appears to be going, if starting from scratch. I don’t really care much
about the implementation details – I’ll let others who know more about the
issue figure that out. You say CVC is a bad idea – fine, I’m happy to accept
that.
Strategically, FTTP is the best way forward IMHO. And nothing we’ve seen in the
past 30+ years indicates that we won’t find more incredibly useful things to do
with more compute power, more storage, more bandwidth or better ways to gather,
manipulate and integrate data.
Strategy ---> Architecture (Bus & Tech) ---> Design (inc technical, financial
models, operations)
^
^
Ken
David & Tony
We’re talking about two completely different things. The cost model is mostly
implementation detail. If a future government wanted to change it, they could
very easily. It might cost $10bn or $20bn or whatever, but government’s spend
that sort of money all the time – some new submarines for the Navy, or Parental
Leave schemes, or small business tax write-offs. I don’t want to sound clichéd,
but “it’s just money” – it’s something that can be changed pretty rapidly given
financing and political will. Deploying an FTTN is the complete opposite – not
something that can be changed relatively quickly – it’s something we’ll be
locked into for decades.
Cheers
Ken
From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On
Behalf Of David Connors
Sent: Thursday, 14 November 2013 8:27 AM
To: ozDotNet
Subject: Re: NBN Petition
On 13 November 2013 15:24, Ken Schaefer
<k...@adopenstatic.com<mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com>> wrote:
Half of what you’re talking about (aka the charges) are a simple financial
construct that can be changed at any time.
[ ... ]
You guys are arguing about little short-term implementation details in an
infrastructure project that’s supposed to last 50+ years. Sure things could
potentially be improved. But that’s not seeing the forest for the trees.
That's a lot of handwaving justify something that every person in the ISP
industry today thinks is a bad idea. You're applying wishful thinking about
some time down the future that they'll drop fees based on some 'vibe' or
whatever about some future election. It is a big call to brush off the
documented business plan and industry opinion in front of you today as a
short-term implementation detail.
If we argued like this about the copper network, it would never, ever have been
built. The enormous benefits that widespread internet access has provided to
society would never, ever have been factored into the “business case” for the
copper network – because the internet didn’t even exist at the time. So, we
should not have bothered building that network? That would have been a stupid
decision.
Your reasoning is arse about and argument from analogy anyway. The phone
network was built in response to a clear need and justified its own existence
in the day (i.e. phone call vs 2 days on steam train or weeks at sea in a
steamer or sending telegrams about the war, getting help after a
bushfire/disaster, etc are all clear drivers that justified it). Phones in the
1800s doesn't inform us about artificial charges that limit Internet use today.
You and Tony are the first people I have met who think that CVC is a good idea
or somehow normal or okay compared with what we have today. It is a monumental
step backward and something that every industry figure and company calls out as
such ... and with that, I don't think I have anything else I can add to this
thread.
David.
