Re: Chicken & Egg Problem
In the article "Adelaide as a smart city" (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-19/adelaide-smart-city-privacy-concern/7259596), from which I quote:
> He said one area where integrated technology might improves lives was for an ageing population where people wanted to stay in their own homes for as long as possible.
> "Elderly people would be able to interact not only with the outside world with minimum support and supervision," he said of sensors and other technology that could be deployed.
For the interaction to work you need 100Mbps plus, but an elderly person on the pension is unlikely to have chosen a 100Mbps connection because of the extra cost. The impact of this is that they see the options demoed in house the video call quality is poor and so they don't use the system. If they had 100Mbps then they can self limit their video calls in the same way they self limit their electricity usage.
> if people require to drive at that speed no need to pay for costly upgrades as everyone has a choice if they want to drive at that speed or not.
Currently a small number 16% and falling are demanding a government service but don't care if others can afford that same service. My position is the fast speeds should be available to everyone and if not then people should be expected to pay for their fast internet. The cost of internet services (like other utilities) should be primarily based on usage, not connection fees.
> Skymesh is offering a 100/100 on FTTP which is really a 250/100 connection. Can HFC or FTTN do 25/25.
Except it isn't being sold as faster than 100Mbps.
> So what you say s to adopt the current ADSL priceing where people getting 1Mbps paying the same as people getting 15Mbps.
Your focus is on speed, whereas it should be on data. Both people are paying to access the same amount of data.