I obviously meant no *NBN* NTU. A course there will always be *a* NTU.
That will be "the" NTU in his proposal, not "the" NTU in the NBN's plan.
He says that most RSPs would supply a GPON router anyway. If I were an RSP, I would that too. If there's a problem, just take the fibre from the NBN NTU and plug it in in the RSP's GPON router. That way you can rule out the (local)NBN stuff as a cause.
See my responses to Rod Speed. Simon Hackett says that most RSPs will supply GPON routers anyway. So NBNCo delivers less (and saves money) and the RSP supllies what they would supply anyway, so no cost going from NBNCo tp the RSP.
Huh!? Don't you think that supplying and installing *millions* of (NBN) NTUs and battery backup systems is just a tad more expensive than supplying and installing none!?
Your RSP supplies you with an *Internet connection*, *you* determine how and for what you use that Internet connection. A service provider can provide services to you over your Internet connection, i.e. like TV, VOIP, music, security, .
The providers of such (stock broker) would do exactly the same as they do now: If a consumer-grade Internet connection isn't sufficient, they will either demand or supply a business-grade one.
Listen/read again (to) Simon Hackett's presentation. One of his important points is that he takes the urban legend "magic" (non-)argument out of the NBN: The NBN is nothing special, it's a network, just a fast(er) one.
The RSPs currently don't offer that *because of* the NBN's *current* implementation. If Simon Hackett's proposal is implemented, then - in the vast majority of cases - the RSPs GPON modem will be used instead of the NBN's NTU.
Believe it or not, but VOIP is not a new technology. For example I use my "existing telephones" (with my original phone number(s)) which are directly plugged into my SPs modem. I 'happen' to use more services than just telephony, but if I wanted, I could have just telephony and nothing more. Again: The NBN/fibre isn't magic, it's just *a* network.
In this case there's no question of (not) argeeing. I'm just pointing out what *Hackett**says*. Whether you or/and I agree with his
*arguments* is another matter, but disagreeing about what he *says*/
*presents* is IMO quite silly.
Yes, it *is* a lock in. As long as the technology and code isn't available to all (i.e. 'open'), it's a lock in. There currently is only one *possible* supplier -> lock in.
I have said repeatedly now that we should be providing a decent broadband service for those who can't currently have one if they want one, and that how that is best done varys with where they are.
I have never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
I have a friend in Romania. They have decent cable internet there as well. Yes, I think VDSL has been overlooked here for whatever the reason. IMO, Fibre NBN is a gamble and a good one. But we should've debated and researched it lot more before going ahead with the current FTTP version of the NBN. I think it was implemented bit too soon without enough consultation and research. Similar thing happened with the Home Insulation Scheme as well
That's pretty vague, isn't it?!! Seriously lacks any technical details. How can the outback towns get at least 20Mbps?!! Is is possible the current satellite interenet technology to provide a minimum satisfactory speed?! What about the towns(either regional outback ones or not so regional) that need 50Mbps speed(at least)?! You need to give some tech details, otherwise they are just sweet words that may turn bitter.
Yes, you said something remotely resemble that. I quote you here,
"I just don?t see any reason to be spending anything like $50B NOW when most of us have a very viable broadband service if we want it."
"It makes a lot more sense to be delivering a decent broadband service to those who can't currently have one using whatever makes the most sense with those who can't currently have a decent broadband service."
And you provide us very little detail how you gonna do that! I'm dying here to hear more details of your broadband plan for the nation. 'Whatever' isn't good enough. Pollies like to hear details regardless of whether they can understand it or not.
ADSL2+ will do them fine and most of them have that right now.
The problem isnt the towns, its those well out of the towns.
Yes.
None of them need anything like that.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp that MOST OF US is nothing even remotely resembling anything like ALL OF US.
Even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp that THOSE WHO CAN'T CURRENTLY HAVE ONE is nothing even remotely resembling anything like ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY.
Because anyone with even half a clue who has been following the debate about the NBN knows that that is by using whatever of ADSL2+. wireless the way the NBN is doing it right now, and satellite and FTTP are the way to do that.
Then just die quietly.
You get no say what so ever on what is or is not good enough.
No one with even half a clue actually gives a flying red f*ck what those stupid clowns might or might not like to hear.
We don't. Most of us do much more than usenet and wikepedia, etc surfing. We download and upload a fair bit. Bandwidth demand due to audio-video material is growing rapidly.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.