You ripper,
http://www.crn.com.au/News/100466,government-announces-nbn-plans.aspx
This is exactly how fiber should be - a shared wholesale resource just like water to ensure retail channels can deliver value add in content and services;
- Not 'outspending on infrastructure' disadvantaging the carrier
or
- Securing 'private monopolies' that disadvantage the customer.
Lets hope this smashes the existing theory about how networks should be built.
Cheers,
Dean
P.S. another few articles;
http://telecommagazine.com/newsglobe/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_5104
http://blogs.smh.com.au/gadgetsonthego/archives/2009/04/rudd_scraps_nbn_tender_announc.html
Thanks for pointing me to this. Don’t you have some concern that this theory is going against the general practice of private industry doing the building? Don’t get me wrong, I’m innately attracted to a layered approach, but it seems that when the dollars are in private industry’s hands, even if half of it has been given by the gov’t, they generally do a better job of spending it making sure they earn the best possible return.
ReplyDeleteDespite the RBOCs and MSO’s emphasis on applications (which is what the customer experiences), the reality is that it’s possible only because of the network, and whoever has the plant in place has the lowest total cost in serving the customer. At least, that’s my personal experience as the employee of an RLEC.
Regards,
Frank
Trusting the government to build this kind of technology means:
ReplyDelete1) Tons of poor design compromises for political gain (e.g. Labor areas will get better/earlier service)
2) Tons of poor technical compromises for political gain (e.g. contracts given on the basis of political gain)
3) "Conroy's Filter" will be built-in - making it a fast pipe to download government authorised content, but not much else.... Read More
It's basically Telstra Mk II... a slow, cumbersome and overpriced bureaucracy.
Alastair
lol unlike Telstra MK1 - sorry you cant have our copy at prices cheape rthan we sell retail as we dont want the competition.
ReplyDeleteI cant see how this can be a bad thing, do some research on Transact in the ACT.
My understanding of this split wholesale shared infrastructure model is this has been a huge success.... Read More
Cheers,
Dean
Great forumla:
ReplyDelete1) Build Telco-1 at taxpayer expense (Telstra)
2) Sell Telco-1 again to taxpayer (T1 / T2 / T3)
3) Build Telco-2 that destroys the value of Telco-1
I'm not against progress, but I certainly wont be buying shares in this thing.
Alastair
yeh i did see the irony of that - and telstra have been betting the government wouldn't do it....too bad they lost the 'chicken staring contest'.
ReplyDeleteI think Telstra grew too big for their britches and needed to be taught a lesson that what is good for the country 'cheap high speed bandwith', is good for telstra.
and whilst they were within their rights to earn a return on investment - holding the country to ransom isn't ok.... Read More
personally i'm sorry we need to spend $5b to replicate their network...... but serves them right.
Cheers,
Dean
Maybe spending a week in Russia has tainted me a bit, but I can't help but wonder if this is how Conroy gets his filter built into the core networking fabric. I guess there is always the secure VPN tunnel out of Controystan as an option.
ReplyDeleteAlastair
Dont get me wrong I'm very against this stupid filter system.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm also very aware as per this post
When Boys Play With Toys...... that government filters never work... so even if they did spend a lot of money doing this - it would have been for nothing and using a credit card and $20 a month i can get out on a very fast Eu proxy.
Cheers,
Dean
You wrote me privately that:
ReplyDelete>No in my experience ‘old inefficient government’ is an old outdated concept.
>A government can deliver at the lowest cost because of no need to derive ‘monopoly profits’.
No, gov't will almost always be less efficient than private enterprise. The two have different goals. The first is to serve the public, the second is to make a profit. When government's goal is to serve the public, all people, it will cost more. It's inevitable. They'll make choices that serve the people, not the bottom line. Not that that is always bad, I'm just talking dollars and cents.
In your second point, you're juxtaposing a multiple network model against a government owned model. But that's not a full or complete comparison. What about a subsidized private network model against a government owned model? I would argue that while the subsidized private network model does results in apparent favorites, it will be cheaper than the government operating it.
Frank
Sorry Frank, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteI think the Transact model in Canberra has shown us the best way to move forward and I think that eliminating non comeptitive functions like running parallel fibre to each home is inefficient.
Ford and Chrysler dont build multiple competing roads to each house do they?
Cheers,
Dean