[LINK] The NBN, backflips and everything

[David Boxall]

<http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/25/policy-reversal-turnbull-now-thoroughly-open-fttp/>
"Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull appears to have drastically 
modified the Coalition’s policy stance on the National Broadband Network 
just weeks after the Federal Election, declaring the Coalition was not 
wedded to its fibre to the node model and was “thoroughly open-minded” 
about the technology to be used in the network."

A petition on change.org attracted more than a quarter of a million 
signatures (if memory serves) before it closed. The very existence of 
the petition got Malcolm's nose out of joint 
<http://delimiter.com.au/2013/09/12/back-turnbull-tells-fttp-petitioners-youve-democracy/>. 
Now, they've raised more than $50,000 to continue the fight 
<http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/get-malcolm-turnbull-to-listen-to-australia-about-the-nbn>.

Is the "project" model appropriate for infrastructure?
Would a "directions" model be more appropriate? (for example: from where 
we are, our direction is fibre wherever there's currently copper)
Should a vital natural monopoly (such as the only physical 
telecommunications infrastructure entering most premises) be publicly 
owned? Is private ownership worth the risks?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, after more than a week with no 
service (they "fixed" it twice, but it worked for less than an hour each 
time), my land line is now back on pair gain. Despite all the effort a 
decade ago <http://david.boxall.id.au/Phone1.html>, we're going 
backward. At least it's working. Just as well my Internet access is via 
satellite.

-- 
David Boxall                    |  Any given program,
                                |  when running correctly,
http://david.boxall.id.au       |  is obsolete.
                                |       --Arthur C. Clarke