Well, I don't work for the NBN, but I do live here and follow the politics with interest. So far the 'experiment' is on track. The political parties who support the NBN are the majority by a slim margin (2 or 3 seats) and the project seems to be going forward. Most recently legislation passed that creates the NBN as a corporation among other things.
If you're truly interested: http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/10-11-24_nbn-co-business-case-summary.pdf jy On 01/12/2010, at 12:56 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote: > I've read through the entire thread thus far, and there are several very > interesting points. I'd like to know more about the Australian experiment? > > But there were a couple of disparate comments that seem highly related, so > I'll reply to them jointly here: > > > On 11/30/10 2:59 AM, JC Dill wrote: >> What is happening now between L3 and Comcast also reminds me of the >> dial-tone settlement deals in the 1990s. The big telcos thought they could >> push small telcos out by making it more expensive to place calls (paying a >> fee to the telco that "terminates" the >> call) and less expensive to receive calls (receiving the termination fee). >> They mistakenly thought the startup telcos would go after consumers (who >> typically place more calls than they receive) and they didn't think about >> startup telcos going after ISP >> dial-up services (which receive more calls than they place) and then being >> forced to pay those startups settlement fees for all the calls their >> consumer customers made into the startup telco's ISP customer's modem banks. >> > But I remember what happened next. BellSouth refused to pay their > settlements. > The CLECs sued and went bankrupt. BellSouth had deeper pockets and more > lawyers. > >> We don't have an interstate telephone settlement system or PUC to "decide" >> what the rules will be for settlements between content providers and eyeball >> providers. I believe that in the end it will come down to market forces and >> which group can better >> marshal customer angst to their side when packets don't flow freely between >> these two types of networks. >> > Maybe. But I'm hoping the consumer angst gives us a better FCC. The "market" > hasn't worked before, and isn't working in this case. So, maybe there isn't a > "market" after all.... > > > On 11/30/10 2:47 AM, Kevin Blackham wrote: > > I'm not convinced. Either I'm calculating something wrong, or greed is at > > work. > > Greed. > > Reminder: Comcast drastically raised their rates a few years back, saying to > local cable commissions that they needed to "invest" in digital > infrastructure. > Instead, they took the massive profits and invested in NBC/Universal. > > When a cable "node" is an entire neighborhood of 500+ homes, because Comcast > never bothered to split the nodes down to a reasonable networking size (as > opposed to CATV-sized), then it's a Comcast greed problem.... > > A half year ago or so, talking with a Google manager about a certain fiber > project, we ended up arguing about the size of cable nodes. He seemed to > think everywhere was like Mountain View. I was trying not to embarrass him; > just let it stand at -- as you drive, you don't look overhead at the cable > infrastructure much, do you? (He admitted he doesn't.) > > > On 11/29/10 11:27 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > The issue here is cost of infrastructure. The last mile generally is more > > valuable than the long-distance part. Everyone can build a nationwide > > network for a nominal amount of money. All the carriers can provide > > circuits at the same IXPs where you can public/private peer. The question > > does become, who is in those smaller and mid-markets. Not everyone is > > going to build fiber in Akron, Eugene, nor Madison. It gets even more > > interesting if you look at what happened with Fairpoint in the northeast > > IMHO. Verizon realized they would not make money there and sold it off. > > The promises and costs consumed them and forced bankruptcy. > > > > I'm not saying that will happen to Comcast, but it may cause them to divest > > the unprofitable parts as well, leaving some parts of the country worse-off > > than we would be today. > > > Or in this case, invest in something else more profitable, NBC/Universal; and > then try to leverage their customer base to gouge their CDN competitors. > > I'd like to see Level 3 pull a Disney/ABC or a Murdock/Fox, and publicly > announce that they expect Comcast to share *their* revenue. And be willing to > pull the plug! > > (Admittedly, I thought Disney/ABC and Murdock/Fox are evil, too. That model > was only reasonable as the CATV channels had no advertising. All we have > left now is Turner Classic Movies. A pox on *all* their houses!) > > It's really time for some anti-trust legislation/regulation. The last mile > market has failed. > >
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
