* Posts by The Researcher

1 publicly visible post • joined 21 Jun 2013

It's time to suck the marrow from the NBN debate

The Researcher

Re: Careful


Increasing down load/upload speed = fine, but at what cost?

No problem with providing areas with snail mail faster than the internet u/d a major upgrade in facilities - but - again should there not be some incentive required at least? So create capacity to the node and if someone wants super fast speeds then they pay for last line connection.

Argument that businesses will move to the country if they get super fast internet is a major fallacy. Certainly at the margin some people will move but hardly any families with school age or approaching school age children do. Often that group are the ones who cite on 'exit' surveys done by various State Govs over the years - that the better education facilities (larger & more diverse schools) are a key reason for leaving the regions.

For a business to employ new staff with relevant experience - finding them in a population base of 1-4 million (major capital city) can even be difficult. Finding them in a 3,000 person major country service centre town is impossible. In Australia people virtually never move for a job (less than 0.4%) vs in the low 20%s in the US for example. Perhaps stamp duty has something to do with it, or the fear of moving and the company failing - whatever - people in Aust rarely ever will move interstate (if single) and virtually never when married/defacto with/without children

Quite often, especially recently, reasons proposed are for 'tele-medicine', and HD TV etc.

Now here's the great con job - why should the tax payer subsidize pay TV companies or IP tv?

Doesn't Google make enough as it is?

Sure there are some future uses that have not been invented yet - but that's a bit like saying every household should have a I7 Intel PC/Laptop with 64GB Ram, 1TB flash NOW to cope with the future.

The future may also see new delivery mechanisms developed (or compression routines) that make the current NBN structure obsolete.

Given current (and past 15 years virtually since the beginning of wide spread adoption) bandwidth volume hogging has been videos and predominantly those of a pornographic nature. Yes youtube has altered the balance slightly but porn is still the internet volume king - amateur porn a growing social issue.

The claim that every house needs to be connected to super fast internet rings hollow when that choice was widely available (over 78% of population at last figure I saw a couple of years back) for a small cost.

Perhaps that is why no analytical business case was ever released. That's the trouble with numbers (factually based ones that is) they can be a very inconvenient truth - so let's not show them.