Sure. But how do those turn out (compared to starting from requirements) - especially the really complex ones?
Cheers Ken From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013 1:09 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] NBN revisited To be fair a lot of teams/companies do often run their projects from the "solution" first approach.... Awkward moment. --- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.riagenic.com On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of David Connors Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013 12:54 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: [OT] NBN revisited Your antipathy to the current NBN is well known. I have an antipathy for piling up money and setting it on fire. I think that's called a "straw man" argument - no one's advocating the mass burning of money. All you're doing here is drawing a debateable equivalence. Current batting avg: 0.5% of the outcome for 12%. And? What's the context? Is the better or worse than expected? Without any such information, the above is a meaningless number. You should know that, so stop being disingenuous. So, you're basically advocating keeping this 100mbps kit, even if it doesn't meet future requirements, or isn't fit for purpose? Nope. I am advocating leaving existing perfectly operational 100mbps services in place rather than replacing them with equivalent speed services with precisely zero difference to the end punter. Moreover, HFC has plenty of juice in it yet and can go well past 100mbps. Any high density resi unit block built in the last half decade or more will have copper in it that can push at least 1gbps to the MDF. Well, mine (residential unit) doesn't. As I said before "sweeping generalisation are all wrong". But let's just assume mine's an outlier. You seem to be starting from the solution again. Is that how you run all your projects? Cheers Ken
