On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> wrote:
> *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto: > ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] *On Behalf Of *David Connors > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 4 September 2013 12:54 PM > > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: [OT] NBN revisited > > 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%. **** > > **** > > And? What’s the context? Is the better or worse than expected? Without any > such information, the above is a meaningless number. You should know > that, so stop being disingenuous. > It isn't hard to extrapolate the outcome from the above but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. 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. **** > > ** ** > > Well, mine (residential unit) doesn’t. As I said before “sweeping > generalisation are all wrong”. > I'm surprised - I thought cat5e was an Austel legal requirements for MDUs for a while now. > But let’s just assume mine’s an outlier. You seem to be starting from the > solution again. Is that how you run all your projects? > Absolutely. *rolls eyes* David.
