On 13 November 2013 15:24, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> wrote:
> Half of what you’re talking about (aka the charges) are a simple > financial construct that can be changed at any time. > [ ... ] > You guys are arguing about little short-term implementation details in an > infrastructure project that’s supposed to last 50+ years. Sure things could > potentially be improved. But that’s not seeing the forest for the trees. > That's a lot of handwaving justify something that every person in the ISP industry today thinks is a bad idea. You're applying wishful thinking about some time down the future that they'll drop fees based on some 'vibe' or whatever about some future election. It is a big call to brush off the documented business plan and industry opinion in front of you today as a short-term implementation detail. > If we argued like this about the copper network, it would never, ever > have been built. The enormous benefits that widespread internet access has > provided to society would never, ever have been factored into the “business > case” for the copper network – because the internet didn’t even exist at > the time. So, we should not have bothered building that network? That would > have been a stupid decision. > Your reasoning is arse about and argument from analogy anyway. The phone network was built in response to a clear need and justified its own existence in the day (i.e. phone call vs 2 days on steam train or weeks at sea in a steamer or sending telegrams about the war, getting help after a bushfire/disaster, etc are all clear drivers that justified it). Phones in the 1800s doesn't inform us about artificial charges that limit Internet use today. You and Tony are the first people I have met who think that CVC is a good idea or somehow normal or okay compared with what we have today. It is a monumental step backward and something that every industry figure and company calls out as such ... and with that, I don't think I have anything else I can add to this thread. David.
