5 ms·

... tear up Australia's copper network and replace it with fibre. To every home in the country. In US terms that's approximately like a $630 billion project. T

by hartror 16y ago

... tear up Australia's copper network and replace it with fibre. To every home in the country. In US terms that's approximately like a $630 billion project. This deserves front billing. It will make us the envy of the western world when it comes to IT infrastructure and will hopefully drive a lot of innovation. We are doing this at a time when the rest of the world bar China (and thanks to China) is dealing with a crippling budget problem. It isn't controversial so it doesn't hit the front page of (and I don't say this to be inflammatory) American centric sites/blogs/media. There are many sexy IT stories that appear in local media all the time, but don't get covered simply because of where the mainstream blogs focus themselves. I have read similar complaints from non-silicon valley types.

jacques_chester 16y ago
> It isn't controversial so it doesn't hit the front page of (and I don't say this to be inflammatory) American centric sites/blogs/media It is highly controversial. I run a blog network including the "Terrible Trio" of Ozblog politics -- http://catallaxyfiles.com/ http://catallaxyfiles.com/, http://clubtroppo.com.au/ http://clubtroppo.com.au/ and http://larvatusprodeo.net/ http://larvatusprodeo.net/ -- and they spend a lot of time arguing the pros and cons. The posters on Larvatus Prodeo are generally bullish on the NBN, the posters on Catallaxy Files are quite anti-NBN. While I personally don't think that there can be any sensible technical argument made about the supremacy of FTTH for performance, the technical argument is not the key issue. It's about the cost-benefit tradeoffs, which aren't being seriously explored. Remember, this is the single largest infrastructure project in Australian history -- bigger in adjusted dollars than the Snowy Mountains Scheme -- it deserves some serious scrutiny on principle.
- robryan 16y ago
  Yeah the real question is if this will deliver enough benefit to justify the costs, it's mostly sold to the public as improving medical services and businesses in rural areas. To look at it from the point of view of Melbourne though, if willing to pay for it we can already get 100mpbs net, something I'm sure will be available to everyone who can get cable currently before the NBN is done. It's worrying that they are avoiding releasing any type of business plan or cost benefit analysis. Also it was strange that the plan was out for a long time before they mentioned anything about the fact that the network would be able to deliver far more than 100mbps over time to the home. Makes me think many in the government didn't really understand what they are actually rolling out.
- hartror 16y ago
  I mean controversial on the world stage. And I would be happy with it being debated, pity the opposition is too busy trying to scuttle the government to actually provide a cohesive argument and analysis.
  - jacques_chester 16y ago
    > I mean controversial on the world stage. Why would it be controversial on the world stage? It largely only affects us, it's too small an amount to place our government bonds under serious pressure and Australia's economy is only 1/50th of the world economy. While it is very important for Australians to debate the issue, I don't see why anyone else would need to care. To be honest, arguments about port development in the Pilbara region are far more important to the world economy than FTTH.
    - hartror 16y ago
      Gah! > It isn't controversial so it doesn't hit the front page of American centric sites/blogs/media. This is the context in which I said it was not controversial to which you said it was. I never said it WAS controversial on the world stage, in fact that was my original point.
      - jacques_chester 16y ago
        Sorry, I misread your post.
brc 16y ago
The main people getting excited about FTTH are the contractors and IT companies. The taxpayers aren't getting so excited about it. You can't argue that every home with fiber isn't a beautiful idea. But then every highway should be 4 lanes, every school airconditioned and every hospital should have more beds than patients to fill them. It's not a technological argument - it's an argument on (a) whether the cash spent is worth it and (b) should we be paying a private company (Telstra) to remove infrastructure to replace with a public monopoly. Or should we just organically grow the network and expand with fibre in new areas and spend the money where it is needed. I for one are scared about the abuse and waste that will happen with a public project of this size and the one-size-fits-all mentality that goes with it. The monopoly will be protected by law to make it pay, and that's a bad thing for all involved. It matters not that it is a wholesale network, the pricing power (and power to keep the monopoly) will remain with a government official. The Coalition policy was flawed in parts but I liked their approach a lot better.
- andrewstuart 16y ago
  The coalition's broadband policy? Tell me how to run home Internet TV in the lounge, computer gaming in the bedroom, web browsing elsewhere in the house, all over a wireless broadband connection shared with every other house in range of the local telephone tower. The idea that wireless has what it takes for the next 20 years of broadband innovation for every home in Australia is silly. I am genuinely excited about the idea 1 one gigabit broadband to the home over fibre. The applications of this sort of power arent yet dreamed of, and the person who does the dreaming and executing stands to do very well for themselves. What sort of person is it that reads Hacker News but is not excited by 1 gigabit fibre to the home?
  - brc 16y ago
    >What sort of person is it that reads Hacker News but is not excited by 1 gigabit fibre to the home? One who believes in free markets, low taxes and private enterprise. One who believes that technological solutions arise to real needs, not imagined ones. One who pays taxes and hopes that one day they'll get spent wisely. One who believes that genuine wireless apps are more important to the future than home based services. One who is sick of government waste and spending, deficits and rorts. You haven't read the coalition broadband policy, but that's not surprising, virtually nobody did. Not all services were to be delivered by wireless. Wireless was to be used in areas where running other types of network. You can already get fast speeds in capital cities, but the takeup is low because of cost and most people have no reason for it. You fall into the trap of arguing that the benefits of fast broadband can't yet be known, but argue that wireless internet cannot possibly innovate beyond the current state of technology. This is having it both ways, and I see a lot of these types of arguments around. I don't blame you for getting excited. Just realise you are seeking your own personal enrichment at the expense of others. I've got a lot of pet projects I wish the government would subsidise, but none of those are going to happen because I haven't got any lobbyists on my side.

by hartror 16y ago

jacques_chester 16y ago

> It isn't controversial so it doesn't hit the front page of (and I don't say this to be inflammatory) American centric sites/blogs/media It is highly controversial. I run a blog network including the "Terrible Trio" of Ozblog politics -- http://catallaxyfiles.com/ http://catallaxyfiles.com/, http://clubtroppo.com.au/ http://clubtroppo.com.au/ and http://larvatusprodeo.net/ http://larvatusprodeo.net/ -- and they spend a lot of time arguing the pros and cons. The posters on Larvatus Prodeo are generally bullish on the NBN, the posters on Catallaxy Files are quite anti-NBN. While I personally don't think that there can be any sensible technical argument made about the supremacy of FTTH for performance, the technical argument is not the key issue. It's about the cost-benefit tradeoffs, which aren't being seriously explored. Remember, this is the single largest infrastructure project in Australian history -- bigger in adjusted dollars than the Snowy Mountains Scheme -- it deserves some serious scrutiny on principle.

robryan 16y ago
Yeah the real question is if this will deliver enough benefit to justify the costs, it's mostly sold to the public as improving medical services and businesses in rural areas. To look at it from the point of view of Melbourne though, if willing to pay for it we can already get 100mpbs net, something I'm sure will be available to everyone who can get cable currently before the NBN is done. It's worrying that they are avoiding releasing any type of business plan or cost benefit analysis. Also it was strange that the plan was out for a long time before they mentioned anything about the fact that the network would be able to deliver far more than 100mbps over time to the home. Makes me think many in the government didn't really understand what they are actually rolling out.
hartror 16y ago
I mean controversial on the world stage. And I would be happy with it being debated, pity the opposition is too busy trying to scuttle the government to actually provide a cohesive argument and analysis.
- jacques_chester 16y ago
  > I mean controversial on the world stage. Why would it be controversial on the world stage? It largely only affects us, it's too small an amount to place our government bonds under serious pressure and Australia's economy is only 1/50th of the world economy. While it is very important for Australians to debate the issue, I don't see why anyone else would need to care. To be honest, arguments about port development in the Pilbara region are far more important to the world economy than FTTH.
  - hartror 16y ago
    Gah! > It isn't controversial so it doesn't hit the front page of American centric sites/blogs/media. This is the context in which I said it was not controversial to which you said it was. I never said it WAS controversial on the world stage, in fact that was my original point.
    - jacques_chester 16y ago
      Sorry, I misread your post.

brc 16y ago

The main people getting excited about FTTH are the contractors and IT companies. The taxpayers aren't getting so excited about it. You can't argue that every home with fiber isn't a beautiful idea. But then every highway should be 4 lanes, every school airconditioned and every hospital should have more beds than patients to fill them. It's not a technological argument - it's an argument on (a) whether the cash spent is worth it and (b) should we be paying a private company (Telstra) to remove infrastructure to replace with a public monopoly. Or should we just organically grow the network and expand with fibre in new areas and spend the money where it is needed. I for one are scared about the abuse and waste that will happen with a public project of this size and the one-size-fits-all mentality that goes with it. The monopoly will be protected by law to make it pay, and that's a bad thing for all involved. It matters not that it is a wholesale network, the pricing power (and power to keep the monopoly) will remain with a government official. The Coalition policy was flawed in parts but I liked their approach a lot better.

andrewstuart 16y ago
The coalition's broadband policy? Tell me how to run home Internet TV in the lounge, computer gaming in the bedroom, web browsing elsewhere in the house, all over a wireless broadband connection shared with every other house in range of the local telephone tower. The idea that wireless has what it takes for the next 20 years of broadband innovation for every home in Australia is silly. I am genuinely excited about the idea 1 one gigabit broadband to the home over fibre. The applications of this sort of power arent yet dreamed of, and the person who does the dreaming and executing stands to do very well for themselves. What sort of person is it that reads Hacker News but is not excited by 1 gigabit fibre to the home?
- brc 16y ago
  >What sort of person is it that reads Hacker News but is not excited by 1 gigabit fibre to the home? One who believes in free markets, low taxes and private enterprise. One who believes that technological solutions arise to real needs, not imagined ones. One who pays taxes and hopes that one day they'll get spent wisely. One who believes that genuine wireless apps are more important to the future than home based services. One who is sick of government waste and spending, deficits and rorts. You haven't read the coalition broadband policy, but that's not surprising, virtually nobody did. Not all services were to be delivered by wireless. Wireless was to be used in areas where running other types of network. You can already get fast speeds in capital cities, but the takeup is low because of cost and most people have no reason for it. You fall into the trap of arguing that the benefits of fast broadband can't yet be known, but argue that wireless internet cannot possibly innovate beyond the current state of technology. This is having it both ways, and I see a lot of these types of arguments around. I don't blame you for getting excited. Just realise you are seeking your own personal enrichment at the expense of others. I've got a lot of pet projects I wish the government would subsidise, but none of those are going to happen because I haven't got any lobbyists on my side.