Bad blogger, no biscuit.

Written by David Banham

After battling the broken comment submission on the blog for a while, only to then be told that registrations were down, this is a reply to this post about the NBN

Your parents are probably getting those speeds because that’s the plan they’ve chosen. You admit you have no idea what plan they’re on, nor even what technology their product is using.

Tip, if it was installed 12 months ago, it’s FTTP. The FTTN network is still mired in trials, and they’re delayed.

For a blog advertising a data-driven marketing consultancy, it would be nice if Daniel got some, you know, data.

The point of legislating against overbuilds in metro areas is that profits from the metro network are intended to subsidise the rural networks. This is, in effect, a redistributive tax.

Yes, it would probably be simpler to use the existing income tax system to achieve the same effect. This would also have the effect of ensuring that low income earners in metro areas do not subsidise the internet access of high income earners in rural areas. (I’m not saying this is the default case, but it’s a thing that will happen with the current model.)

That is actually an interesting discussion we can have! Much more interesting to look at both sides of the issue rather than just stating “Free market good! Monopoly bad!”

Yes, there are problems with both models. One of the big issues with FTTP was the rampant pork-barelling that took place and ensured that the first people to get the network were sparsely populated regional centres. There appear to be a lot more problems with the FTTN model, though.

We face very different challenges from New York and South Korea. We need a solution that makes sense in an Australian context given our population density.o

We also need discussion that takes us forward rather than just taking a crowbar to everything in sight.