[LINK] NBN just OPEL rebirthed (was Re: Ubuntu)

[Richard Chirgwin]

David Boxall wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 at 01:22:38 GMT stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> Nicola Berkovic | March 12, 2009 
>> Article from:  The Australian 
>>
>> TELSTRA'S move to turbo-charge its city broadband network will make it 
>> impossible for the nation to have a single information superhighway, a 
>> key Rudd Government adviser said yesterday.
> So the national incumbent plans to cherry-pick the most lucrative 
> markets and play the spoiler in the rest? Surprise, surprise!
> 
> The remedy remains, as always, structural separation.  There are good 
> reasons why that idea won't die.
> 
> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 at 02:12:54 GMT stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
>> Minchin would bring back OPEL
>> Suzanne Tindal, ZDNet.com.au
>> 9th March 2009 11:36 AM
>>
>> If the Coalition were back in power today it would bring back the $950 
>> million rural broadband network plans which Communications Minister 
>> Stephen Conroy cancelled, Shadow Minister Nick Minchin said in a video 
>> interview with ZDNet.com.au last week.
> ...
>> Public money should go to under-served areas, not to areas where the 
>> market should be able to deliver those services, Minchin said, which was 
>> why a plan targeting rural areas was ideal.
> And if the incumbent plays a spoiling game: tax what they do in 
> lucrative markets to cross-subsidise the others.  I know, I know, that 
> comment will bring down on me the wrath of Market Fundamentalists.  When 
> market fundamentals have been serving us so well ...
> 
> Thing is: there isn't a solution to our communications needs.  Wireless 
> would cover parts beyond DSL range, but that won't be adequate for 
> long.  FTTN would provide most of the population with speeds that seem 
> blisteringly fast to those of us on dialup, but that will pass.  
> Eventually (probably far sooner than any of us thinks) FTTH will be seen 
> as the basic necessity.  Where to from there?

Playing the contrarian ... all right, playing the contrarian *again*!

If you look at what's being developed on copper, it's feasible that
copper for the last hundred yards will be adequate for ages. Eg:
http://www.assia-inc.com/ which is where Dr John Papandriopoulos ended
up ...

In which case, oddly enough, I would argue that to-the-node is not the
bad idea it's made out to be.

As to what brings about the next round of obsolescence: quantum
communications, at which point you really *do* need ubiquitous fibre...

RC

> 
> The pace of change is such that the question seems to be: what can we 
> afford to do now, knowing that we'll probably have to replace it all 
> within a decade?  To that I'd add: how can we do it fast enough that 
> it's in place before it's obsolete?
>