5 ms·

There is a very significant difference between 93% coverage and 22% coverage with this issue. The value goes well beyond the percentage difference because of ne

by justsee 14y ago

There is a very significant difference between 93% coverage and 22% coverage with this issue. The value goes well beyond the percentage difference because of network effects[1]. Being able to count on near-ubiquitous FTTP and speeds of 100Mb - 1Gb p/s for a whole country completely changes the tech startup landscape. It's hard to estimate how valuable that is to Australia's social, economic, and technological future. The Coalition are expected to romp it in, so it's pretty disappointing that Malcolm Turnbull was convinced or corralled into playing politics on this one instead of just neutralising the issue by committing to FTTP. They happily make baseless blowout claims around the current NBN project, so I don't see why they couldn't have instead made baseless "we'll do the same, but cheaper" claims. Their system design around a broken and aging copper network has few tech industry commentators impressed. I can't see how maintaining the copper network and delaying the inevitable FTTP rollout makes any sense. Being a first-mover in Western society brings a significant number of benefits for Australia's tech environment. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

jacques_chester 14y ago
> Being able to count on near-ubiquitous FTTP and speeds of 100Mb - 1Gb p/s for a whole country completely changes the tech startup landscape. Let's not kid ourselves. The Australian market is tiny. > so it's pretty disappointing that Malcolm Turnbull was convinced or corralled into playing politics on this one instead of just neutralising the issue by committing to FTTP. There's also the possibility that Malcolm Turnbull, a former barrister, investment banker and venture investor in and director of Australia's first major ISP (Ozemail) has his own thoughts about balancing costs and benefits. > They happily make baseless blowout claims around the current NBN project, so I don't see why they couldn't have instead made baseless "we'll do the same, but cheaper" claims. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that paying someone to dig up every street in the country is more expensive than deciding not to dig up every street in the country. > Being a first-mover in Western society brings a significant number of benefits for Australia's tech environment. Japan and South Korea have shown that it's really not that big a deal. Really nice, and enables some new businesses. But you have to trade it off against alternative uses of the funds. The same money could build about 20 new hospitals, a new Sydney airport and a clutch of cross-city tunnels. It's possible these might have been more valuable in the long run. Or maybe not. We don't know because no cost-benefit analysis was ever done.
- hartror 14y ago
  > But you have to trade it off against alternative uses of the funds. It is an investment on borrowed money using our AAA rating, we expect to get a return on the invested funds higher than the interest rate paid. The alternative isn't hospitals or schools, it is not doing it.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    It's possible to borrow for other purposes. Plus there's the little thing where borrowing by governments is simply deferred taxes or deferred budget cuts. We don't know what the rate of return is because no proper CBA has been published. We're merely told that there was one and that the companies paid by NBN -- with instructions we haven't seen -- said it was just swell.
- justsee 14y ago
  > Let's not kid ourselves. The Australian market is tiny. I don't know if you're being willfully ignorant in your responses, but I can add to my comment: "...for a whole country completely changes the tech startup landscape for that country". > There's also the possibility that Malcolm Turnbull, a former barrister, investment banker and venture investor In this context appeal-to-authority isn't particularly interesting. The pundits are all credentialed in this debate, and the tech sector overwhelmingly prefers the current NBN plan to the Coalition's. > It's pretty easy to demonstrate that paying someone to dig up every street in the country is more expensive than deciding not to dig up every street in the country. The fact you're quoting a response of mine and responding with a completely different issue is classic trollish behaviour. However as it's an absurd statement that looks superficially like common sense, I'll respond. Would Australia have saved money by not building an electricity and telephone network? > Japan and South Korea have shown that it's really not that big a deal. Really nice, and enables some new businesses. But you have to trade it off against alternative uses of the funds. The same money could build about 20 new hospitals, a new Sydney airport and a clutch of cross-city tunnels. It's possible these might have been more valuable in the long run. Reducing a national FTTH network to 'really nice, and enables some new business' and proposing a back-of-the-napkin alternate spend of new hospitals, new airport, new cross-city tunnels (!) which 'possibly' might be more valuable is not an analysis that's worth refuting. I think you're more interested in pushing a political agenda than having a tech + economics discussion, so best to park this!

by justsee 14y ago

jacques_chester 14y ago

> Being able to count on near-ubiquitous FTTP and speeds of 100Mb - 1Gb p/s for a whole country completely changes the tech startup landscape. Let's not kid ourselves. The Australian market is tiny. > so it's pretty disappointing that Malcolm Turnbull was convinced or corralled into playing politics on this one instead of just neutralising the issue by committing to FTTP. There's also the possibility that Malcolm Turnbull, a former barrister, investment banker and venture investor in and director of Australia's first major ISP (Ozemail) has his own thoughts about balancing costs and benefits. > They happily make baseless blowout claims around the current NBN project, so I don't see why they couldn't have instead made baseless "we'll do the same, but cheaper" claims. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that paying someone to dig up every street in the country is more expensive than deciding not to dig up every street in the country. > Being a first-mover in Western society brings a significant number of benefits for Australia's tech environment. Japan and South Korea have shown that it's really not that big a deal. Really nice, and enables some new businesses. But you have to trade it off against alternative uses of the funds. The same money could build about 20 new hospitals, a new Sydney airport and a clutch of cross-city tunnels. It's possible these might have been more valuable in the long run. Or maybe not. We don't know because no cost-benefit analysis was ever done.

hartror 14y ago
> But you have to trade it off against alternative uses of the funds. It is an investment on borrowed money using our AAA rating, we expect to get a return on the invested funds higher than the interest rate paid. The alternative isn't hospitals or schools, it is not doing it.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  It's possible to borrow for other purposes. Plus there's the little thing where borrowing by governments is simply deferred taxes or deferred budget cuts. We don't know what the rate of return is because no proper CBA has been published. We're merely told that there was one and that the companies paid by NBN -- with instructions we haven't seen -- said it was just swell.
justsee 14y ago
> Let's not kid ourselves. The Australian market is tiny. I don't know if you're being willfully ignorant in your responses, but I can add to my comment: "...for a whole country completely changes the tech startup landscape for that country". > There's also the possibility that Malcolm Turnbull, a former barrister, investment banker and venture investor In this context appeal-to-authority isn't particularly interesting. The pundits are all credentialed in this debate, and the tech sector overwhelmingly prefers the current NBN plan to the Coalition's. > It's pretty easy to demonstrate that paying someone to dig up every street in the country is more expensive than deciding not to dig up every street in the country. The fact you're quoting a response of mine and responding with a completely different issue is classic trollish behaviour. However as it's an absurd statement that looks superficially like common sense, I'll respond. Would Australia have saved money by not building an electricity and telephone network? > Japan and South Korea have shown that it's really not that big a deal. Really nice, and enables some new businesses. But you have to trade it off against alternative uses of the funds. The same money could build about 20 new hospitals, a new Sydney airport and a clutch of cross-city tunnels. It's possible these might have been more valuable in the long run. Reducing a national FTTH network to 'really nice, and enables some new business' and proposing a back-of-the-napkin alternate spend of new hospitals, new airport, new cross-city tunnels (!) which 'possibly' might be more valuable is not an analysis that's worth refuting. I think you're more interested in pushing a political agenda than having a tech + economics discussion, so best to park this!