[LINK] tRe: NBN white-elephant-to-be ...

Antony Barry tony at tony-barry.emu.id.au
Thu Aug 26 14:22:35 AEST 2010

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Janet Hawtin <lucychili at gmail.com>
> Date: 26 August 2010 2:04:44 PM AEST
> To: marghanita at ramin.com.au
> Cc: mike at bystander.net, Link list <link at anu.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [LINK] tRe: NBN white-elephant-to-be ...
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Marghanita da Cruz
> <marghanita at ramin.com.au> wrote:
>> Mandating fibre will severely limit coverage.
> Wireless is adaptable, but noisy, ie there is limited scope to keep the traffic
> of volumes of users distinct and fast, this limits expansion.
> We were able to do comprehensive accessible rail, power and telephone
> at some point.
> It makes me sad to hear people talking as if delivery of
> infrastructure to rural communities is a bridge too far.
> They pay taxes but the hospitals have been closed, rail torn up or
> unused, sod all access to infrastructure generally.
> if we want to stop desertifying prime farmland by paving it with courtyard homes
> we need to have fast rail, bandwidth, reliable access to water,
> accessible health and education including tertiary education
> good regional cultural facilities and opportunities. if you want GP's
> and other specialist service providers to support
> rural communities you have to think about the kinds of infrastructure
> that a GP might think about for their family.
> why would they go somewhere which would put their own family at a disadvantage.
> Reduce the disadvantage and you reduce the pressure on prime
> agricultural land because people
> can find other locations with other kinds of prime/credible
> value/opportunity outside the cities.
> We should include coherent copyright, liability, and other community
> shaping legal infrastructure as
> part of the framework we are making for the country we want to be.
> We are also adopting insurance models which cut away at social capacity.
> The public liability and professional indemnity models of insurance
> feed good income to insurance companies but
> are a very poor option for most purposes because they raise barriers
> to entry in very fundamental ways.
> If a small community has a CWA or other community meeting space or
> group they now need
> to fund an insurance company in order to be inclusive and welcome the
> public to their event.
> This might not matter in a large community but these costs are
> counterproductive in small communities,
> and are an obstacle for many fledgling community ventures.
> Midwives and homebirth are another prime example. Midwives now need to
> operate through a hospital to be covered by the new
> insurance required. It is illegal ($30 000 fine) for them to offer
> support to a woman in their community without that hospital guarantor.
> This is while we have closed many regional hopitals and have reduced
> beds in hospitals.
> This also means that if a pregnant woman is in distress in public we
> have made it illegal for people with skills to come to their aid.
> New Zealand has been more responsible about its approach to this
> situation and is supportive of both hospital and community practice.
> I think Australia has pushed the costs to the community and focused on
> short term profit models for provision of
> of infrastructure and liability instead of looking at them as systems
> which have a multiplier effect on the communities they service.
> Infrastructure is broken in most rural areas. It is likely to cost a
> bit to fix it.
> Australia has managed to develop infrastructure before.
> We need to get stuck into it again, properly. imho.
> Janet

Phone: 02 6241 7659, Mobile:04 3365 2400, Skype: antonybbarry
Email: tony at Tony-Barry.emu.id.au, antonybbarry at gmail.com

More information about the Link mailing list