A third? The first isn't fully operational and the second hasn't even
launched! Didn't Turnbull say that the satellites are unnecessary
extravagances?
<http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2016/3/21/technology/does-nbn-need-third-satellite>
"Australia’s efforts to become a leader in the global digital economy
will soon take another giant stride ..." Sounds like propaganda.
"The NBN is a visionary nation building infrastructure project ..." Come
now! It's an effort to repair some of the harm done by alienating
essential natural-monopoly infrastructure from public ownership.
"... there is growing demand from business and industry for improved
broadband in regional and remote Australia." At what point does it
become more cost-effective to build optical fibre infrastructure, with
its century or so service life, than to repeatedly replace
multi-billion-dollar satellites, with their one to two decade service life?
"Australia has been lagging behind other nations when it comes to
building infrastructure and providing future-proof broadband, especially
in regional and remote areas." Was that true before the infrastructure
was privatised? Are satellites future-proof?
--
David Boxall | My figures are just as good
| as any other figures.
http://david.boxall.id.au | I make them up myself, and they
| always give me innocent pleasure.
| --HL Mencken
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
