> Let's not kid ourselves. The Australian market is tiny.
I don't know if you're being willfully ignorant in your responses, but I can add to my comment: "...for a whole country completely changes the tech startup landscape for that country".
> There's also the possibility that Malcolm Turnbull, a former barrister, investment banker and venture investor
In this context appeal-to-authority isn't particularly interesting. The pundits are all credentialed in this debate, and the tech sector overwhelmingly prefers the current NBN plan to the Coalition's.
> It's pretty easy to demonstrate that paying someone to dig up every street in the country is more expensive than deciding not to dig up every street in the country.
The fact you're quoting a response of mine and responding with a completely different issue is classic trollish behaviour. However as it's an absurd statement that looks superficially like common sense, I'll respond. Would Australia have saved money by not building an electricity and telephone network?
> Japan and South Korea have shown that it's really not that big a deal. Really nice, and enables some new businesses. But you have to trade it off against alternative uses of the funds. The same money could build about 20 new hospitals, a new Sydney airport and a clutch of cross-city tunnels. It's possible these might have been more valuable in the long run.
Reducing a national FTTH network to 'really nice, and enables some new business' and proposing a back-of-the-napkin alternate spend of new hospitals, new airport, new cross-city tunnels (!) which 'possibly' might be more valuable is not an analysis that's worth refuting.
I think you're more interested in pushing a political agenda than having a tech + economics discussion, so best to park this!
I am having a tech & economics discussion. My sarcasm is a learned response from dealing with an unending parade of interlocutors who assume that the NBN is an unalloyed good. The main problem is conflating the technical characteristics of FTTP/FTTN with the total net benefit. They are not the same and should not be treated as the same.
Nothing in life is that simple. Nothing. There are always alternatives and it always pays to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.
Whenever I try to argue this case I am accused of all sorts of things. Trolling, being a stooge, a shill for tin-can-and-string manufacturers.
What I believe is that it's not enough just to want to build the right thing. You have to build it the right way and for the right reasons. 1/3 is not enough in matters of the public treasury and I consider that both major parties suck in this respect.
I don't know if you're being willfully ignorant in your responses, but I can add to my comment: "...for a whole country completely changes the tech startup landscape for that country".
> There's also the possibility that Malcolm Turnbull, a former barrister, investment banker and venture investor
In this context appeal-to-authority isn't particularly interesting. The pundits are all credentialed in this debate, and the tech sector overwhelmingly prefers the current NBN plan to the Coalition's.
> It's pretty easy to demonstrate that paying someone to dig up every street in the country is more expensive than deciding not to dig up every street in the country.
The fact you're quoting a response of mine and responding with a completely different issue is classic trollish behaviour. However as it's an absurd statement that looks superficially like common sense, I'll respond. Would Australia have saved money by not building an electricity and telephone network?
> Japan and South Korea have shown that it's really not that big a deal. Really nice, and enables some new businesses. But you have to trade it off against alternative uses of the funds. The same money could build about 20 new hospitals, a new Sydney airport and a clutch of cross-city tunnels. It's possible these might have been more valuable in the long run.
Reducing a national FTTH network to 'really nice, and enables some new business' and proposing a back-of-the-napkin alternate spend of new hospitals, new airport, new cross-city tunnels (!) which 'possibly' might be more valuable is not an analysis that's worth refuting.
I think you're more interested in pushing a political agenda than having a tech + economics discussion, so best to park this!