It seems to be facing the same issues that you describe, with some politicians being unable to stomach publicly owned infrastructure.
1. http://simonhackett.com/2013/07/17/nbn-fibre-on-a-copper-bud...
He has a point when he talks about NBNCo's CPE device offering. But that's not really a big deal. Most of his griping seems like nitpicking. Te point of the NBN is getting fiber in the ground that no one company owns. Once that is done all of his other complaints can be dealt with. We can argue incessently over what kind of CPE device to deploy, and change it, without altering the fact that NBNCo now has the fiber in the ground.
He also has a point about the number of POIs that NBN will require the wholesalers to interface with. But again, this is missing the forest for the trees.
>Frankly, the less of Labor's NBN that gets built the better.
Simon doesn't make that argument. His argument is to do it differently, which is completely different than not do it. In the Q&A he makes suggestions to do some parts of the NBN differently, but it's clear he is generally in favor of it.
The NBN is about getting non-monopolized fiber in the ground. Once that's done everything else about it can be changed to suit his or your desires.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I think by the time Simon gave that particular presentation he'd been saying the same stuff on a regular basis for a good two years, so it started to sound really rehearsed. Have a look at some of his older videos eg. [1] Although, that is, to a major degree, just how Simon sounds when he talks.
I don't think you fully understand the implications of what NBN Co is building.
> Te point of the NBN is getting fiber in the ground that no one company owns.
This is exactly what is not happening. Labor's NBN Co is (was?) building another Telstra-like monopoly. The one company that owns the fibre is NBN Co. which will, like almost every other government asset, be sold at a loss to a private company. And, like Telstra, it will become notorious for dragging its feet when it comes to appropriately pricing the wholesale service.
> He also has a point about the number of POIs that NBN will require the wholesalers to interface with. But again, this is missing the forest for the trees.
While you (I don't mean you personally, I mean 'you' in the general sense of the Australian voter) are focus on 'fibre regardless of costs' then yes, sure, you're correct.
> Simon doesn't make that argument.
You're right, he doesn't. That is my argument. And, like I always said from the very first first announcement of the NBN "well that will take Labor winning the next 6 elections".
> The NBN is about getting non-monopolized fiber in the ground. Once that's done everything else about it can be changed to suit his or your desires.
Change. Yes, just like Telstra. In fact, the scenario with Telstra is better than NBN Co. At least Telstra has been forced to resell ULL (Unbundled Local Loop, ie. vacant copper) to ISPs. NBN Co. is being built from the ground up to not be like that.
WHY!
I'll take Dark fibre to the premises, or no fibre thanks.
The creation of NBN Co. even resulted in the enactment of new legislation that prohibits competing fibre network builds. Hell, NBN Co. is taking TPG to court over TPGs pre-existing fibre network! [2] This is decided not the role NBN Co. could be playing.
(edit: clarity)
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMeYr2_rJmo 2. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/nbn-turns-the-heat-...
It sounds like the NBN that was planned is not the NBN that you guys are getting, and that sucks.
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/travel/blogs/travellers-check/the-true...
[2] http://www.smh.com.au/business/macquaries-sydney-airport-pla...
They essentially found that when you installed a network like this in a neighborhood, the economic growth in that neighborhood almost immediately changed trajectory (upward) relative to similar communities without these networks.
Don't let it die that's a pretty significant step forward.
Regarding Lever 3 and all other Tier 1 providers I suggest they build a database of all ISP's that let their connection saturate and if this keeps happening they cut connections and ban their ass.
All ISP's on the ban list should be forced to pay a large fee to be able to connect back with any Tier 1 providers.
At the end of the day regardless of how big you are you're not an ISP if you don't have access to the Internet.
If Concast and friends want to play the who is more important game i would wager Tier 1 providers are in a better position to win it.
Once the last mile is owned by the government / building / land owner. They should be able to choose what ever ISP they have without being locked into any one of them.
>UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency) is not an Internet service provider. UTOPIA operates on an open access model, which means we own and manage the infrastructure, but lease the lines to private Internet Service Providers, who then deliver services to subscribers. This allows you to choose the provider that best meets your needs.
edit: added press link