<http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/25/policy-reversal-turnbull-now-thoroughly-open-fttp/> "Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull appears to have drastically modified the Coalition’s policy stance on the National Broadband Network just weeks after the Federal Election, declaring the Coalition was not wedded to its fibre to the node model and was “thoroughly open-minded” about the technology to be used in the network."
A petition on change.org attracted more than a quarter of a million signatures (if memory serves) before it closed. The very existence of the petition got Malcolm's nose out of joint <http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/12/back-turnbull-tells-fttp-petitioners-youve-democracy/>. Now, they've raised more than $50,000 to continue the fight <http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/get-malcolm-turnbull-to-listen-to-australia-about-the-nbn>. Is the "project" model appropriate for infrastructure? Would a "directions" model be more appropriate? (for example: from where we are, our direction is fibre wherever there's currently copper) Should a vital natural monopoly (such as the only physical telecommunications infrastructure entering most premises) be publicly owned? Is private ownership worth the risks? Meanwhile, back in the real world, after more than a week with no service (they "fixed" it twice, but it worked for less than an hour each time), my land line is now back on pair gain. Despite all the effort a decade ago <http://david.boxall.id.au/Phone1.html>, we're going backward. At least it's working. Just as well my Internet access is via satellite. -- David Boxall | Any given program, | when running correctly, http://david.boxall.id.au | is obsolete. | --Arthur C. Clarke _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
