4 ms·

Yeah this is spot on. Other comments are blaming the Liberals, but the reality is if you are an effective leader trying to create a huge infrastructure project

by Gatsky 9y ago

Yeah this is spot on. Other comments are blaming the Liberals, but the reality is if you are an effective leader trying to create a huge infrastructure project that you care deeply about, you need to come up with a solution that will last through a change in government, with aligned economic and political contingencies. If you are just governing for fun then you do what Rudd did. It always lets you blame the next government though, as he is doing now.

raides 9y ago
To the Aussie's credit the infrastructure and the regulations instilled on businesses there have always been Federally imposed. Since the mid-90s the government has imposed many regulations for control that has impeded much of the free market progress for network infrastructure. Those regulations coupled with needed external transit installations have not helped. For a long period of time the government would pick and choose companies based on their ideals rather than their talent. This has hindered progress from both sides of the fence by liberal and conservative administrations. I ran a semi successful ISP and consulting company for a decade in the US and I have always enjoyed the tiering system we setup vs other country Infrastructures. It wasn't until recently when the FCC gained control that states started to use the new regulation power to hinder progress. I am still on the fence about the whole thing because the exploitation has not been bad in my area but the horror stores I have heard in other states make me sad. Hopefully it will get back to normal.
- ggm 9y ago
  I'm not personally sold on the baby bell model of regional monopoly. I think the whole FIOS debacle, and what happened when google started offering citywide fibre says a lot about how US telco industry operates. Lobby your way to the people who make rules and then get rules passed to shut down anything which freaks your own monopoly of indifference.
  - Trav5 9y ago
    I am curious and not sure what to search for. What are you referring to? Link?
    - Trav5 9y ago
      What was the "whole FIOS debacle, and what happened when google started offering citywide Fibre"? Why the down votes? This sounds interesting, but I am not sure what to search for to learn more.
      - ggm 9y ago
        I do not live in the USA. What I am told by my colleagues who do, is that the post bell regional breakup created monopolies by location in order to prevent national dominance but give each region a reliable income in a time of voice call logistics. Fast forward to the emergence of fiber as a viable technology: either you live in a location serviced by a telco who is willing to re-engineer to fiber or you don't. Verizon exemplifies the quandary, it's a huge cost, they have to carve out special data models for cable companies to stop them refusing to drop coax, it's impossible to charge sanely, their shares tank. I am sure there are happy customers but there is no clear equality of service. It's a patchwork minefield.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
masklinn 9y ago
> Other comments are blaming the Liberals Perfectly rightfully. > if you are an effective leader trying to create a huge infrastructure project that you care deeply about, you need to come up with a solution that will last through a change in government, with aligned economic and political contingencies. On the other hand, the opposition can either try to work with or lie your ass off and sabotage everything, the latter being exactly what the liberals did with the NBN.
dalbasal 9y ago
It's all "damned if you do" or don't regardless. It's no secret that our political systems have problems, with this sort of thing. Factionalism, corporate interests and other monority special interest, continuity. Sometimes policies have a chance of being coherent, usually through a small group of "authors" that have a clear idea of what they want to do. This is generally when a governing party gives free reign to some internal group. The other option is bipartisan commitees & a "wide consulatation approach". This is how the vast majority of australian laws get made. There's an alarm-like flashing oof lights (red or green) in parliament when an attempt is made to do things otherwise (a split). Anyways, the standard process means compromise. Specifically, comromise between all "relevant" participants. The two big parties, obviously. Several interested factions within those parties, and various corporate interests usually represented by specific industry chambers of commerce or similar. Everyone needs to get something. Coherence and compromise just don't go together, not when it comes to policy/legislation. Look at the americans. They've been fiddling with health policy for a decade. As far as I can tell, the more attention the issue gets, the worse it gets. Anyway, apart from being "pro-internet" labour never really had a solid agenda. The parliamentary end of this sausage factory was basically "the internet is important!!" vs "why spend 100bn on streaming cat vids!?). The hyenas and crows did the rest.

by Gatsky 9y ago

raides 9y ago

To the Aussie's credit the infrastructure and the regulations instilled on businesses there have always been Federally imposed. Since the mid-90s the government has imposed many regulations for control that has impeded much of the free market progress for network infrastructure. Those regulations coupled with needed external transit installations have not helped. For a long period of time the government would pick and choose companies based on their ideals rather than their talent. This has hindered progress from both sides of the fence by liberal and conservative administrations. I ran a semi successful ISP and consulting company for a decade in the US and I have always enjoyed the tiering system we setup vs other country Infrastructures. It wasn't until recently when the FCC gained control that states started to use the new regulation power to hinder progress. I am still on the fence about the whole thing because the exploitation has not been bad in my area but the horror stores I have heard in other states make me sad. Hopefully it will get back to normal.

ggm 9y ago
I'm not personally sold on the baby bell model of regional monopoly. I think the whole FIOS debacle, and what happened when google started offering citywide fibre says a lot about how US telco industry operates. Lobby your way to the people who make rules and then get rules passed to shut down anything which freaks your own monopoly of indifference.
- Trav5 9y ago
  I am curious and not sure what to search for. What are you referring to? Link?
  - Trav5 9y ago
    What was the "whole FIOS debacle, and what happened when google started offering citywide Fibre"? Why the down votes? This sounds interesting, but I am not sure what to search for to learn more.
    - ggm 9y ago
      I do not live in the USA. What I am told by my colleagues who do, is that the post bell regional breakup created monopolies by location in order to prevent national dominance but give each region a reliable income in a time of voice call logistics. Fast forward to the emergence of fiber as a viable technology: either you live in a location serviced by a telco who is willing to re-engineer to fiber or you don't. Verizon exemplifies the quandary, it's a huge cost, they have to carve out special data models for cable companies to stop them refusing to drop coax, it's impossible to charge sanely, their shares tank. I am sure there are happy customers but there is no clear equality of service. It's a patchwork minefield.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

masklinn 9y ago

> Other comments are blaming the Liberals Perfectly rightfully. > if you are an effective leader trying to create a huge infrastructure project that you care deeply about, you need to come up with a solution that will last through a change in government, with aligned economic and political contingencies. On the other hand, the opposition can either try to work with or lie your ass off and sabotage everything, the latter being exactly what the liberals did with the NBN.

dalbasal 9y ago

It's all "damned if you do" or don't regardless. It's no secret that our political systems have problems, with this sort of thing. Factionalism, corporate interests and other monority special interest, continuity. Sometimes policies have a chance of being coherent, usually through a small group of "authors" that have a clear idea of what they want to do. This is generally when a governing party gives free reign to some internal group. The other option is bipartisan commitees & a "wide consulatation approach". This is how the vast majority of australian laws get made. There's an alarm-like flashing oof lights (red or green) in parliament when an attempt is made to do things otherwise (a split). Anyways, the standard process means compromise. Specifically, comromise between all "relevant" participants. The two big parties, obviously. Several interested factions within those parties, and various corporate interests usually represented by specific industry chambers of commerce or similar. Everyone needs to get something. Coherence and compromise just don't go together, not when it comes to policy/legislation. Look at the americans. They've been fiddling with health policy for a decade. As far as I can tell, the more attention the issue gets, the worse it gets. Anyway, apart from being "pro-internet" labour never really had a solid agenda. The parliamentary end of this sausage factory was basically "the internet is important!!" vs "why spend 100bn on streaming cat vids!?). The hyenas and crows did the rest.