- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
You completely missed the point. Telstra is being paid to decommission copper, yes. But they actually have to do something to get that $1500 and maintain the rest of the CAN in the process. Under the Libs proposal, Telstra get's paid the same amount to walk away from the cooper en mass once a fibre node is connected, fantastic! That's what Turnbull appears to be saying.
Ok, let's dissect this little piece of polly babble. Yes, Telstra is being paid to decommission each premises end point connection, copper out, fibre in and $1500 thanks. Now if you say to Telstra "give us your copper" when we connect fibre to a street node and we will pay you $1500 for each copper connection to that node that is "connected to the NBN" (and all will be), Telstra will laugh all the way to the bank (seriously looking at TLS shares again). Thanks for the quote, this has to be one of the most poorly considered and phrased statements I have seen from Turnbull to date.
Malcolm's Turnbull's analogy.
"MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, you - provision for demand where it is today and in the foreseeable future. You don't - taking the approach of building - investing in infrastructure on the basis that you think It'll be needed in 20 years time, which is what Stephen Conroy is fond of saving, that could be said only by someone who doesn't care about taxpayers' money. You invest in infrastructure to cater for the demand today and in the foreseeable future and build into your plans the flexibility to expand further, if and when or as demand increases and that way, of course you take advantage of the latest developments in technology as you go."
This seems illogical to me, since when do we build infrastructure based on current demand?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, you - provision for demand where it is today and in the foreseeable future.
This seems illogical to me, since when do we build infrastructure based on current demand? The West Gate Bridge didn't need 4 lanes back in the 70s but it certainly does now. The NBN is either build it once and build it right or don't build it at all.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, you - provision for demand where it is today and in the foreseeable future.
"What [the Coalition] is trying to say is 'what we do now on the internet is what we will do in the next 30 years'. What stupid nonsense! What we were doing 30 years ago modems could handle," Mr Huston said.
"I would side with the view that this [policy] is indeed a lemon."
the Coalition's policy would harm the economy and would not future-proof the country's internet infrastructure.
''They're going to be putting Australia behind the rest of the world,'' Dr Gregory said of the Coalition's plan.
At this growth rate, how long before demand exceeds the ability of the Coalition's obsolete FTTN? Not very long. As always, the "foreseeable future" for the Coalition only gets them to the next election.
Seems your slant on this is based on political bias
My slant on this is based on personal observation, I wouldn't trust Gillard or Conroy with anything let alone a project of this size so unless you think the Greens could handle it it's up to the Libs.....As Always.
You can see why they leaked it to their mates at News Ltd a few days ago. They wouldn't want comments like these showing up on the day they released their policy:
Geoff Huston, chief scientist of regional internet registry Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre and a former Telstra employee, said:
Sharing Mr Huston's concerns, senior lecturer at RMIT University's school of electrical and computer engineering, Mark Gregory, said
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...there-first-20130409-2hjiw.html#ixzz2Q0uLo7nk
I would LOVE
But that isn't what they are doing. Of course it's faster and cheaper to build a tent instead of a house. Doesn't mean it's sensible.
I would LOVE them to say "We think Labor are managing this project badly. We will take over and build it more efficiently".
But that isn't what they are doing. Of course it's faster and cheaper to build a tent instead of a house. Doesn't mean it's sensible.
He must have done something right.Chairman Malcolm of the People's Democratic Republic of Australia. (Revolution now, broadband later).
Wow dud policy libs.
Except, you, me and every other rational person knows that this issue will not be the one that decides, or even heavily influences the election result.Personaly I am of the belief, most people don't care wether it's 50mb/s or 100mb/s. I may be wrong, the election will say.
On that basis, why wasn't it made 6, 8 or 10 lanes?
By your logic, evenyually you will need them.
Applying the same reasoning, why wasn't the road over the Nullabor made 4 lanes.
Eventually you will need it.
For every piece of infrastructure you build, some other infrastructure doesn't get built, or is defered.
That is unless you just, spend, spend, spend.
Then you get to a position where nothing gets built.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?