On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> > wrote: > > ** > > Um, since when am I a “FTTP nutjob”?**** > > **** > > Your antipathy to the current NBN is well known. **** > > ** ** > > I have an antipathy for piling up money and setting it on fire.**** > > ** ** > > I think that’s called a “straw man” argument – no one’s advocating the > mass burning of money. All you’re doing here is drawing a debateable > equivalence. > Current batting avg: 0.5% of the outcome for 12%. > Sorry no. If you can deliver something of benefit today for good value, > then you should do it. If you have existing infrastructure that is > servicing millions of people with 100mbps then you shouldn't pull it out > and replace it - that's dogma. **** > > ** ** > > So, you’re basically advocating keeping this 100mbps kit, even if it > doesn’t meet future requirements, or isn’t fit for purpose? > Nope. I am advocating leaving existing perfectly operational 100mbps services in place rather than replacing them with equivalent speed services with precisely zero difference to the end punter. Moreover, HFC has plenty of juice in it yet and can go well past 100mbps. Any high density resi unit block built in the last half decade or more will have copper in it that can push at least 1gbps to the MDF. > **** > > Surely any decision on what to do should start with requirements, and work > from there. Not start with the solution and work backwards. > If you have the fiduciary duty of spending a metric pantload of someone else's money, then you should start with some sort of business case or cost benefit analysis. David
