(491,1,'2014-06-23 17:28:35','2014-06-23 09:28:35','The Unity Framework\n\nFeatures (Epic) \nRequirements (Stories/What)\nSpecifications (How)\n\n\nA feature is a set of related requirements that allows the user to satisfy a business objective or need. A feature is a group of stories that are related and deliver a package of functionality that end users would generally expect to get all at once.\n\nA requirement is a capability that a product must possess or something a product must do in order to ultimately satisfy a customer need.\n\n<strong>Development Technologies</strong>\nLanguage: Java (server-side) + JavaScript (client-side)\n\n<strong>Application Layer</strong>\n<a href=\"http://respondcms.com\">Respond CMS</a>\n<a href=\"http://getbootstrap.com\">Bootstrap</a>\nSencha Touch (JavaScript-based)\n\n<strong>Unity Layer (Server Side)</strong>\nWeb Services: Node.js or Grizzly\nDatabase: Neo4j using the Tinkerpops API\n\n<strong>Databases</strong>\nPosrgreSQL\nApache Cassandra\n\n<strong>Database Frameworks</strong>\n<a href=\"http://thinkaurelius.github.io/titan/\">Aurelius Titan</a>\n<a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/kairosdb/\">Kairosdb</a>\n\nWorkflow Engine\nYAWL http://www.yawlfoundation.org\nhttp://woped.dhbw-karlsruhe.de/woped/\n\nConfig tools\nGraph Visualisation: Keylines','Unity','','inherit','closed','open','','436-revision-v1','','','2014-06-23 17:28:35','2014-06-23 09:28:35','',436,'http://www.smartestplace.net/436-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(492,1,'2014-07-14 00:33:09','2014-07-13 16:33:09','Here are some of my favourite programming references:\n\n<ul>JavaScript</ul>\nLearn on: <a href=\"http://jsfiddle.net/\">http://jsfiddle.net/</a>\nLearn about js closures. The big problem is that the Java engine is separate from the DOM engine (which is the representation of the webpage), so when references get broken things can be left hanging and you get memory leaks.\n\n<ul>Agile</ul>\n<a href=\"http://www.extremeprogramming.org\">Extreme Programming</a>\n\n\nDouglas Crockford’s web site:\nhttp://crockford.com/\nHis book is: http://www.amazon.com/JavaScript-Good-Parts-Douglas-Crockford/dp/0596517742\nAlso see YouTube - interesting part is MONADS.\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2ifWcnQs6M\nECMA Script http://www.ecmascript.org/\n\nMay be better learning jquery (a library) or angularjs (google jsframework). Sencha is based on a kind of scaffolding. Each page item is an object.\n\nTime Series Databases\nGraphite http://graphite.wikidot.com\nRRDTool http://oss.oetiker.ch/rrdtool/\nhttp://opentsdb.net\n\nGraph Databases\nNeo4j\nTime aware Graphs http://www.slideshare.net/datablend/fluxgraph-a-timemachine-for-your-graphs\nNoe4j visualisation blog http://maxdemarzi.com/2012/01/11/graph-visualization-and-neo4j/\n\nRead Gartner Report\nThe Competitive Dynamics of the Consumer Web: Five Graphs Deliver a Sustainable Advantage','Programming','','inherit','closed','open','','384-revision-v1','','','2014-07-14 00:33:09','2014-07-13 16:33:09','',384,'http://www.smartestplace.net/384-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(493,1,'2014-07-14 00:34:13','2014-07-13 16:34:13','The Unity Framework\n\nFeatures (Epic) \nRequirements (Stories/What)\nSpecifications (How)\n\n\nA feature is a set of related requirements that allows the user to satisfy a business objective or need. A feature is a group of stories that are related and deliver a package of functionality that end users would generally expect to get all at once.\n\nA requirement is a capability that a product must possess or something a product must do in order to ultimately satisfy a customer need.\n\n<strong>Development Technologies</strong>\nLanguage: Java (server-side) + JavaScript (client-side)\n\n<strong>Application Layer</strong>\n<a href=\"http://respondcms.com\">Respond CMS</a>\n<a href=\"http://getbootstrap.com\">Bootstrap</a>\nSencha Touch (JavaScript-based)\n\n<strong>Unity Layer (Server Side)</strong>\nWeb Services: Node.js or Grizzly\nDatabase: Neo4j using the Tinkerpops API\n\n<strong>Databases</strong>\nPosrgreSQL\nApache Cassandra\n\n<strong>Database Frameworks</strong>\n<a href=\"http://thinkaurelius.github.io/titan/\">Aurelius Titan</a>\n<a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/kairosdb/\">Kairosdb</a>\n\nWorkflow Engine\n<a href=\"http://workflowpatterns.com\">Workflow Patterns</a>\nYAWL http://www.yawlfoundation.org\nhttp://woped.dhbw-karlsruhe.de/woped/\n\nConfig tools\nGraph Visualisation: Keylines','Unity','','inherit','closed','open','','436-revision-v1','','','2014-07-14 00:34:13','2014-07-13 16:34:13','',436,'http://www.smartestplace.net/436-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(496,1,'2014-07-18 02:17:39','2014-07-17 18:17:39','The Unity Framework\n\nFeatures (Epic) \nRequirements (Stories/What)\nSpecifications (How)\n\n\nA feature is a set of related requirements that allows the user to satisfy a business objective or need. A feature is a group of stories that are related and deliver a package of functionality that end users would generally expect to get all at once.\n\nA requirement is a capability that a product must possess or something a product must do in order to ultimately satisfy a customer need.\n\n<strong>Development Technologies</strong>\nLanguage: Java (server-side) + JavaScript (client-side)\n\n<strong>Application Layer</strong>\n<a href=\"http://respondcms.com\">Respond CMS</a>\n<a href=\"http://getbootstrap.com\">Bootstrap</a>\nSencha Touch (JavaScript-based)\n\n<strong>Unity Layer (Server Side)</strong>\nWeb Services: Node.js or Grizzly\nDatabase: Neo4j using the Tinkerpops API\n\n<strong>Databases</strong>\nPosrgreSQL\nApache Cassandra\n\n<strong>Database Frameworks</strong>\n<a href=\"http://thinkaurelius.github.io/titan/\">Aurelius Titan</a>\n<a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/kairosdb/\">Kairosdb TBC</a>\n\nWorkflow Engine\n<a href=\"http://workflowpatterns.com\">Workflow Patterns</a>\nYAWL http://www.yawlfoundation.org\nhttp://woped.dhbw-karlsruhe.de/woped/\n\nOther Tools\n<a href=\"https://github.com/starschema/slm4j\">Starschema Licence Manager</a>\n\nConfig tools\nGraph Visualisation: Keylines','Unity','','inherit','closed','open','','436-revision-v1','','','2014-07-18 02:17:39','2014-07-17 18:17:39','',436,'http://www.smartestplace.net/436-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(497,1,'2014-07-19 07:30:16','2014-07-18 23:30:16','The Unity Framework\n\nFeatures (Epic) \nRequirements (Stories/What)\nSpecifications (How)\n\n\nA feature is a set of related requirements that allows the user to satisfy a business objective or need. A feature is a group of stories that are related and deliver a package of functionality that end users would generally expect to get all at once.\n\nA requirement is a capability that a product must possess or something a product must do in order to ultimately satisfy a customer need.\n\n<strong>Development Technologies</strong>\nLanguage: Java (server-side) + JavaScript (client-side)\n\n<strong>Application Layer</strong>\n<a href=\"http://respondcms.com\">Respond CMS</a>\n<a href=\"http://getbootstrap.com\">Bootstrap</a>\nSencha Touch (JavaScript-based)\n\n<strong>Unity Layer (Server Side)</strong>\nWeb Services: Node.js or Grizzly\nDatabase: Neo4j using the Tinkerpops API\n\n<strong>Databases</strong>\nPosrgreSQL\nApache Cassandra\n\n<strong>Database Frameworks</strong>\n<a href=\"http://thinkaurelius.github.io/titan/\">Aurelius Titan</a>\n<a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/kairosdb/\">Kairosdb TBC</a>\n\nWorkflow Engine\n<a href=\"http://workflowpatterns.com\">Workflow Patterns</a>\nYAWL http://www.yawlfoundation.org\nhttp://woped.dhbw-karlsruhe.de/woped/\n\nOther Tools\n<a href=\"https://github.com/starschema/slm4j\">Starschema Licence Manager</a>\n<a href=\"http://jmonkeyengine.org\">JMonkey 3D Engine</a>\n\nConfig tools\nGraph Visualisation: Keylines','Unity','','inherit','closed','open','','436-revision-v1','','','2014-07-19 07:30:16','2014-07-18 23:30:16','',436,'http://www.smartestplace.net/436-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(498,1,'2014-07-19 07:34:47','2014-07-18 23:34:47','Here is a list of my favourite development tools. :\n\n<strong>Version Control</strong>\n<a href=\"http://git-scm.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Git (Distributed)</a>\n\n<strong>Continuous Integration Management</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.jetbrains.com/teamcity/\" target=\"_blank\">TeamCity</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.sonarqube.org\">Sonar Code Quality</a>\n\n<strong>Development IDE</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.jetbrains.com/IDEA/\" target=\"_blank\">IntelliJ IDEA</a> (Java)\n\n<strong>Configuration Management</strong>\n<a href=\"https://puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-enterprise/\" target=\"_blank\">Puppet</a>\n\n<strong>Build Tools & Package Management</strong>\n<a href=\"http://maven.apache.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Maven</a>\n\n<strong>Profiling</strong>\n<a href=\"https://visualvm.java.net/download.html\" target=\"_blank\">VisualVM</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.yourkit.com/overview/index.jsp\" target=\"_blank\">YourKit</a>\n\n<strong>Production Monitoring</strong>\n(which version deployed to which environment). \nFor example, Nagios, OpenNMS and HP Open View.\n\n<strong>Logging</strong>\n<a href=\"http://logback.qos.ch\" target=\"_blank\">Logback</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.slf4j.org\" target=\"_blank\">SLF4j (logging abstraction)</a>\n\n<strong>Testing Tools</strong>\n<em>Low Level Tools (Code Level)</em>\n<a href=\"http://www.junit.org/\" target=\"_blank\">JUnit</a>\n\n<em>Mid Level Tools (Functional/Component level)</em>\n<a href=\"http://www.soapui.org/\" target=\"_blank\">SoapUI</a> (Functional Testing: Create mock data services)\n\n<em>High Level Tools</em>\n<a href=\"http://www.seleniumhq.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Selenium</a>\n<a href=\"http://fitnesse.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Fitnesse</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.rallydev.com/test-management\" target=\"_blank\">Rally</a> (Agile)\n\n<strong>Web Service Testing</strong>\n<a href=\"http://findbugs.sourceforge.net\" target=\"_blank\">Siege</a> (Load testing - Linux) \n\n<strong>Code Tools</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.joedog.org/siege-home/\" target=\"_blank\">FindBugs</a> (Code Analysis)\n<a href=\"http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack\" target=\"_blank\">Agent Ransack</a> (Multiple File Search)\n\n<strong>Document Databases</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.mongodb.org/\" target=\"_blank\">MongoDB</a>\n\n<strong>Graph Databases</strong>\n<a href=\"http://neo4j.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Neo4j</a>\n<a href=\"http://keylines.com\" target=\"_blank\">Keylines (Web graph visualisation)</a>\n<a href=\"http://thejit.org\" target=\"_blank\">JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit (Web graph visualisation)</a>\n<a href=\"https://gephi.org/\">Gephi</a>\n\n<strong>Mobile Development</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.playframework.com\" target=\"_blank\">Play Framework</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.sencha.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Sencha Touch (JavaScript)</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.gwtproject.org/\" target=\"_blank\">GWT (Java)</a>\n<a href=\"https://vaadin.com/home\" target=\"_blank\">Vaadin (Java)</a>\n\n<strong>Graphics</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.getpaint.net/\" target=\"_blank\">Paint.NET</a> (Bitmap Editor)\n<a href=\"http://www.inkscape.org/en/\" target=\"_blank\">Inkscape</a> (Vectors Editor)\n<a href=\"http://www.colorschemer.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Color Schemer</a>\nPixel Ruler\n\n<strong>REST and OData frameworks</strong>\n<a href=\"http://restlet.org\" target=\"_blank\">Restlet</a>\n<a href=\"https://jersey.java.net\" target=\"_blank\">Jersey</a>\n<a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/odata4j/\" target=\"_blank\">OData4j</a>\n\n<strong>Authentication</strong>\n<a href=\"http://oauth.net/\" target=\"_blank\">OAuth</a>\n\n<strong>Useful Tools</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.teamviewer.com/en/index.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">TeamViewer</a> Online Meetings\n<a href=\"http://notepad-plus-plus.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Notepad++</a> with XML and JSON extensions\n<a href=\"http://www.scootersoftware.com/index.php\" target=\"_blank\">Beyond Compare</a> (Code & Config Comparison)\n<a href=\"http://www.xmlvalidation.com/\" target=\"_blank\">XML Validation Tool</a>\n<a href=\"http://getglimpse.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Glimpse</a> (Diagnostics platform for web apps)\n<a href=\"http://www.trilead.com/Download/\" target=\"_blank\">VMX</a> (Virtual Server Management)\n<a href=\"http://wixtoolset.org/\" target=\"_blank\">WIX</a> (Windows installation package builder)\n<a href=\"http://fiddler2.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Fiddler</a> (HTTP debugging proxy)\n\n<strong>UI Software</strong>\n<a href=\"http://balsamiq.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Balsamiq</a> (Wireframing Software)\n<a href=\"http://www.crazyegg.com/#.\" target=\"_blank\">Crazy Egg</a> (Eye Tracking Software)\n\n<strong>Charting libraries</strong>\nD3\ngRaphaël\nHighcharts\nAngularJS\nTelerik Kendo UI\naCharts\nCubism.js\nDojo GFX\ndygraphs\nFlot\nFlotr\nFlotr2\nGoogle Chart Tools\nEnvision.js\nJavascript InfoVis Toolkit\njqPlot\njQuery Sparklines\njQuery Visualize\nmilkchart\nRGraph\nRickshaw\nTimeplot\nGraphUp','Development Tools','','inherit','closed','open','','282-revision-v1','','','2014-07-19 07:34:47','2014-07-18 23:34:47','',282,'http://www.smartestplace.net/282-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(499,1,'2014-07-26 18:16:32','2014-07-26 10:16:32','Here is a list of my favourite development tools. :\n\n<strong>Version Control</strong>\n<a href=\"http://git-scm.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Git (Distributed)</a>\n\n<strong>Continuous Integration Management</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.jetbrains.com/teamcity/\" target=\"_blank\">TeamCity</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.sonarqube.org\">Sonar Code Quality</a>\n\n<strong>Development IDE</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.jetbrains.com/IDEA/\" target=\"_blank\">IntelliJ IDEA</a> (Java)\n\n<strong>Configuration Management</strong>\n<a href=\"https://puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-enterprise/\" target=\"_blank\">Puppet</a>\n\n<strong>Build Tools & Package Management</strong>\n<a href=\"http://maven.apache.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Maven</a>\n\n<strong>Profiling</strong>\n<a href=\"https://visualvm.java.net/download.html\" target=\"_blank\">VisualVM</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.yourkit.com/overview/index.jsp\" target=\"_blank\">YourKit</a>\n\n<strong>Production Monitoring</strong>\n(which version deployed to which environment). \nFor example, Nagios, OpenNMS and HP Open View.\n\n<strong>Logging</strong>\n<a href=\"http://logback.qos.ch\" target=\"_blank\">Logback</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.slf4j.org\" target=\"_blank\">SLF4j (logging abstraction)</a>\n\n<strong>Testing Tools</strong>\n<em>Low Level Tools (Code Level)</em>\n<a href=\"http://www.junit.org/\" target=\"_blank\">JUnit</a>\n\n<em>Mid Level Tools (Functional/Component level)</em>\n<a href=\"http://www.soapui.org/\" target=\"_blank\">SoapUI</a> (Functional Testing: Create mock data services)\n\n<em>High Level Tools</em>\n<a href=\"http://www.seleniumhq.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Selenium</a>\n<a href=\"http://fitnesse.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Fitnesse</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.rallydev.com/test-management\" target=\"_blank\">Rally</a> (Agile)\n\n<strong>Web Service Testing</strong>\n<a href=\"http://findbugs.sourceforge.net\" target=\"_blank\">Siege</a> (Load testing - Linux) \n\n<strong>Code Tools</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.joedog.org/siege-home/\" target=\"_blank\">FindBugs</a> (Code Analysis)\n<a href=\"http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack\" target=\"_blank\">Agent Ransack</a> (Multiple File Search)\n\n<strong>Document Databases</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.mongodb.org/\" target=\"_blank\">MongoDB</a>\n\n<strong>Graph Databases</strong>\n<a href=\"http://neo4j.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Neo4j</a>\n<a href=\"http://keylines.com\" target=\"_blank\">Keylines (Web graph visualisation)</a>\n<a href=\"http://thejit.org\" target=\"_blank\">JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit (Web graph visualisation)</a>\n<a href=\"https://gephi.org/\">Gephi</a>\n\n<strong>Mobile Development</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.playframework.com\" target=\"_blank\">Play Framework</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.sencha.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Sencha Touch (JavaScript)</a>\n<a href=\"http://www.gwtproject.org/\" target=\"_blank\">GWT (Java)</a>\n<a href=\"https://vaadin.com/home\" target=\"_blank\">Vaadin (Java)</a>\n\n<strong>Graphics</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.getpaint.net/\" target=\"_blank\">Paint.NET</a> (Bitmap Editor)\n<a href=\"http://www.inkscape.org/en/\" target=\"_blank\">Inkscape</a> (Vectors Editor)\n<a href=\"http://www.colorschemer.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Color Schemer</a>\nPixel Ruler\n\n<strong>REST and OData frameworks</strong>\n<a href=\"http://restlet.org\" target=\"_blank\">Restlet</a>\n<a href=\"https://jersey.java.net\" target=\"_blank\">Jersey</a>\n<a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/odata4j/\" target=\"_blank\">OData4j</a>\n\n<strong>Authentication</strong>\n<a href=\"http://oauth.net/\" target=\"_blank\">OAuth</a>\n\n<strong>Useful Tools</strong>\n<a href=\"http://www.teamviewer.com/en/index.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">TeamViewer</a> Online Meetings\n<a href=\"http://notepad-plus-plus.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Notepad++</a> with XML and JSON extensions\n<a href=\"http://www.scootersoftware.com/index.php\" target=\"_blank\">Beyond Compare</a> (Code & Config Comparison)\n<a href=\"http://www.xmlvalidation.com/\" target=\"_blank\">XML Validation Tool</a>\n<a href=\"http://getglimpse.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Glimpse</a> (Diagnostics platform for web apps)\n<a href=\"http://www.trilead.com/Download/\" target=\"_blank\">VMX</a> (Virtual Server Management)\n<a href=\"http://wixtoolset.org/\" target=\"_blank\">WIX</a> (Windows installation package builder)\n<a href=\"http://fiddler2.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Fiddler</a> (HTTP debugging proxy)\n\n<strong>UI Software</strong>\n<a href=\"http://balsamiq.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Balsamiq</a> (Wireframing Software)\n<a href=\"http://www.crazyegg.com/#.\" target=\"_blank\">Crazy Egg</a> (Eye Tracking Software)\n\n<strong>Charting libraries</strong>\nD3\ngRaphaël\nHighcharts\nAngularJS\nTelerik Kendo UI\naCharts\nCubism.js\nDojo GFX\ndygraphs\nFlot\nFlotr\nFlotr2\nGoogle Chart Tools\nEnvision.js\nJavascript InfoVis Toolkit\njqPlot\njQuery Sparklines\njQuery Visualize\nmilkchart\nRGraph\nRickshaw\nTimeplot\nGraphUp\n\nBusiness Tools\n\nIntranet <a href=\"http://wordpress.org/plugins/simple-intranet-directory/\">Wordpress Simple Intranet Directory </a>\nAccounting <a href=\"https://www.xero.com/au/\">Xero</a>\nProject Management <a href=\"https://basecamp.com\">Basecamp</a>','Development Tools','','inherit','closed','open','','282-revision-v1','','','2014-07-26 18:16:32','2014-07-26 10:16:32','',282,'http://www.smartestplace.net/282-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(500,1,'2014-07-28 05:29:41','2014-07-27 21:29:41','<a href=\"https://picons.me/#ultimate\">icons</a>\n\n<p><em style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Blogs</em> <br/><a href=\"http://littlebigdetails.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Little Big Details</a><br/><a href=\"http://www.inspireux.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Inspire UX</a></p>\n<p><em style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Websites</em> <br/><a href=\"http://www.cooper.com/journal/2012/08/the-best-interface-is-no-interface.html\" target=\"_blank\">The best interface is no interface</a><br/><a href=\"http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/tag/science/\" target=\"_blank\">Information is Beautiful</a><br/><a href=\"http://zenexmachina.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/usability-testing-in-scrum-environments-presentation-at-scrum-australia-2013/\" target=\"_blank\">Usability testing in Scrum environments</a><br/><a href=\"http://37signals.com/svn/\" target=\"_blank\">37signals Blog</a><br/><span style=\"font-size: 11pt; font-family: &quot;calibri&quot;, &quot;sans-serif&quot;\"><a href=\"http://tympanus.net/codrops/category/articles/\"><font color=\"#0000ff\">http://tympanus.net/codrops/category/articles/</font></a></span></p>\n<p><em style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Recommended Books<br/></em><span style=\"font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot;, &quot;serif&quot;\"><a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Display-Quantitative-Information/dp/0961392142/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370403501&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=edward+tufte\">Edward Tufte - The Visual Display of Quantitative Information</a><span class=\"ms-rteStyle-Normal\">&#160;(Ask Steve if you wish to read)</span></span><br/><span style=\"font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot;, &quot;serif&quot;\"><a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/Envisioning-Information-Edward-R-Tufte/dp/0961392118/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370403501&amp;sr=1-2&amp;keywords=edward+tufte\">Edward Tufte - Envisioning Information</a><font color=\"#676767\"> <span class=\"ms-rteStyle-Normal\">(Ask Steve if you wish to read)</span></font><br/></span><span style=\"font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot;, &quot;serif&quot;\"><a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Evidence-Edward-R-Tufte/dp/0961392177/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370403501&amp;sr=1-4&amp;keywords=edward+tufte\">Edward Tufte - Beautiful Evidence</a><span class=\"ms-rteStyle-Normal\"><font color=\"#676767\"><span class=\"ms-rteStyle-Normal\"><font color=\"#676767\">&#160;<span class=\"ms-rteStyle-Normal\"><font color=\"#676767\">(Ask Steve if you wish to read)</font></span></font></span></font></span></span><span style=\"font-family: &quot;times new roman&quot;, &quot;serif&quot;\"><br/><a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Me-Think-Usability/dp/0321344758/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1370403655&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=krug+don%27t+make+me+think\"><font color=\"#006ab2\">Steve Krug - Don&#39;t Make Me Think</font></a></span><span class=\"ms-rteStyle-Normal\"><font color=\"#676767\">&#160;<span class=\"ms-rteStyle-Normal\"><font color=\"#676767\">(Ask Steve if you wish to read)</font></span></font></span></p>\n<p><em style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Software</em><br/><a href=\"http://www.balsamiq.com/\" target=\"_blank\"><font color=\"#006ab2\">Balsamiq - Wireframing Software</font></a><br/><a href=\"http://www.crazyegg.com/\" target=\"_blank\"><font color=\"#006ab2\">Crazy Egg Confetti - Eye Tracking Software</font></a><br/><a href=\"http://www.colorschemer.com/\">Color Schemer</a></p>','User Experience','','inherit','closed','open','','378-revision-v1','','','2014-07-28 05:29:41','2014-07-27 21:29:41','',378,'http://www.smartestplace.net/378-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(502,1,'2014-07-29 06:09:55','2014-07-28 22:09:55','The Unity Framework\r\n\r\nFeatures (Epic) \r\nRequirements (Stories/What)\r\nSpecifications (How)\r\n\r\n\r\nA feature is a set of related requirements that allows the user to satisfy a business objective or need. A feature is a group of stories that are related and deliver a package of functionality that end users would generally expect to get all at once.\r\n\r\nA requirement is a capability that a product must possess or something a product must do in order to ultimately satisfy a customer need.\r\n\r\n<strong>Development Technologies</strong>\r\nLanguage: Java (server-side) + JavaScript (client-side)\r\n\r\n<strong>Application Layer</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://respondcms.com\">Respond CMS</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://getbootstrap.com\">Bootstrap</a>\r\nSencha Touch (JavaScript-based)\r\n\r\n<strong>Unity Layer (Server Side)</strong>\r\nWeb Services: Node.js or Grizzly\r\nDatabase: Neo4j using the Tinkerpops API\r\n\r\n<strong>Databases</strong>\r\nPosrgreSQL\r\nApache Cassandra\r\n\r\n<strong>Database Frameworks</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://thinkaurelius.github.io/titan/\">Aurelius Titan</a>\r\n<a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/kairosdb/\">Kairosdb TBC</a>\r\n\r\nWorkflow Engine\r\n<a href=\"http://workflowpatterns.com\">Workflow Patterns</a>\r\nYAWL http://www.yawlfoundation.org\r\nhttp://woped.dhbw-karlsruhe.de/woped/\r\n\r\nOther Tools\r\n<a href=\"https://github.com/starschema/slm4j\">Starschema Licence Manager</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://jmonkeyengine.org\">JMonkey 3D Engine</a>\r\n\r\nConfig tools\r\nGraph Visualisation: Keylines\r\n\r\nTime Series\r\n<a href=\"http://www.statsoft.com/Textbook/Time-Series-Analysis\" title=\"How To Identify Patterns in Time Series Data: Time Series Analysis\"></a>','Unity','','inherit','closed','open','','436-revision-v1','','','2014-07-29 06:09:55','2014-07-28 22:09:55','',436,'http://www.smartestplace.net/436-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(503,1,'2014-07-29 06:18:03','2014-07-28 22:18:03','The Unity Framework\r\n\r\nFeatures (Epic) \r\nRequirements (Stories/What)\r\nSpecifications (How)\r\n\r\n\r\nA feature is a set of related requirements that allows the user to satisfy a business objective or need. A feature is a group of stories that are related and deliver a package of functionality that end users would generally expect to get all at once.\r\n\r\nA requirement is a capability that a product must possess or something a product must do in order to ultimately satisfy a customer need.\r\n\r\n<strong>Development Technologies</strong>\r\nLanguage: Java (server-side) + JavaScript (client-side)\r\n\r\n<strong>Application Layer</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://respondcms.com\">Respond CMS</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://getbootstrap.com\">Bootstrap</a>\r\nSencha Touch (JavaScript-based)\r\n\r\n<strong>Unity Layer (Server Side)</strong>\r\nWeb Services: Node.js or Grizzly\r\nDatabase: Neo4j using the Tinkerpops API\r\n\r\n<strong>Databases</strong>\r\nPosrgreSQL\r\nApache Cassandra\r\n\r\n<strong>Database Frameworks</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://thinkaurelius.github.io/titan/\">Aurelius Titan</a>\r\n<a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/kairosdb/\">Kairosdb TBC</a>\r\n\r\nWorkflow Engine\r\n<a href=\"http://workflowpatterns.com\">Workflow Patterns</a>\r\nYAWL http://www.yawlfoundation.org\r\nhttp://woped.dhbw-karlsruhe.de/woped/\r\n\r\nOther Tools\r\n<a href=\"https://github.com/starschema/slm4j\">Starschema Licence Manager</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.flexerasoftware.com/products/entitlement-management/flexnet-licensing/\" title=\"FlexLM\"></a>\r\n<a href=\"https://www.openlm.com/\" title=\"OpenLM\"></a>\r\n<a href=\"http://jmonkeyengine.org\">JMonkey 3D Engine</a>\r\n\r\nConfig tools\r\nGraph Visualisation: Keylines\r\n\r\nTime Series\r\n<a href=\"http://www.statsoft.com/Textbook/Time-Series-Analysis\" title=\"How To Identify Patterns in Time Series Data: Time Series Analysis\"></a>','Unity','','inherit','closed','open','','436-revision-v1','','','2014-07-29 06:18:03','2014-07-28 22:18:03','',436,'http://www.smartestplace.net/436-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(504,1,'2014-07-29 06:24:11','0000-00-00 00:00:00','http://www.oilit.com/\r\n\r\nhttp://www.ogfj.com/index.html\r\n\r\nhttp://www.onepetro.org/\r\n\r\nwww.oilpro.com\r\n\r\nhttp://www.kaggle.com/solutions/energy\r\n\r\nhttp://www.petroweb.net/main/index.htm\r\n\r\nOperational Intelligence: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/35285560\r\n','Oil & Gas Resources','','draft','closed','open','','oil-gas-resources','','','2014-07-29 06:24:11','2014-07-28 22:24:11','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?page_id=504',0,'page','',0),(505,1,'2014-07-29 06:18:49','2014-07-28 22:18:49','http://www.oilit.com/\r\n\r\nhttp://www.ogfj.com/index.html\r\n\r\nhttp://www.onepetro.org/\r\n\r\nwww.oilpro.com\r\n','Oil & Gas Resources','','inherit','closed','open','','504-revision-v1','','','2014-07-29 06:18:49','2014-07-28 22:18:49','',504,'http://www.smartestplace.net/504-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(506,1,'2014-07-29 06:24:11','2014-07-28 22:24:11','http://www.oilit.com/\r\n\r\nhttp://www.ogfj.com/index.html\r\n\r\nhttp://www.onepetro.org/\r\n\r\nwww.oilpro.com\r\n\r\nhttp://www.kaggle.com/solutions/energy\r\n\r\nhttp://www.petroweb.net/main/index.htm\r\n\r\nOperational Intelligence: http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/35285560\r\n','Oil & Gas Resources','','inherit','closed','open','','504-revision-v1','','','2014-07-29 06:24:11','2014-07-28 22:24:11','',504,'http://www.smartestplace.net/504-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(507,1,'2014-07-29 06:26:19','2014-07-28 22:26:19','<blockquote>\"Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct\"</blockquote>\r\n<div style=\"font-size: 20px;\"><em>- <b>Thomas Carlyle</b></em></div>\r\n','Conviction','','publish','closed','open','','conviction','','','2014-08-13 11:08:25','2014-08-13 03:08:25','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?p=507',0,'post','',0),(508,1,'2014-07-29 06:24:50','2014-07-28 22:24:50','‘Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.’ \r\n\r\n– Thomas Carlyle\r\n','Conviction','','inherit','closed','open','','507-revision-v1','','','2014-07-29 06:24:50','2014-07-28 22:24:50','',507,'http://www.smartestplace.net/507-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(509,1,'2014-07-29 06:26:19','2014-07-28 22:26:19','<blockquote>\"Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct\"</blockquote>\r\n<div style=\"font-size: 20px;\"><em>- <b>Thomas Carlyle</b></em></div>\r\n','Conviction','','inherit','closed','open','','507-revision-v1','','','2014-07-29 06:26:19','2014-07-28 22:26:19','',507,'http://www.smartestplace.net/507-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(510,1,'2014-07-30 09:19:39','2014-07-30 01:19:39','Here is a list of my favourite development tools. :\r\n\r\n<strong>Version Control</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://git-scm.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Git (Distributed)</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Continuous Integration Management</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.jetbrains.com/teamcity/\" target=\"_blank\">TeamCity</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.sonarqube.org\">Sonar Code Quality</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Development IDE</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.jetbrains.com/IDEA/\" target=\"_blank\">IntelliJ IDEA</a> (Java)\r\n\r\n<strong>Configuration Management</strong>\r\n<a href=\"https://puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-enterprise/\" target=\"_blank\">Puppet</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Build Tools & Package Management</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://maven.apache.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Maven</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Profiling</strong>\r\n<a href=\"https://visualvm.java.net/download.html\" target=\"_blank\">VisualVM</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.yourkit.com/overview/index.jsp\" target=\"_blank\">YourKit</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Production Monitoring</strong>\r\n(which version deployed to which environment). \r\nFor example, Nagios, OpenNMS and HP Open View.\r\n\r\n<strong>Logging</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://logback.qos.ch\" target=\"_blank\">Logback</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.slf4j.org\" target=\"_blank\">SLF4j (logging abstraction)</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Testing Tools</strong>\r\n<em>Low Level Tools (Code Level)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.junit.org/\" target=\"_blank\">JUnit</a>\r\n\r\n<em>Mid Level Tools (Functional/Component level)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.soapui.org/\" target=\"_blank\">SoapUI</a> (Functional Testing: Create mock data services)\r\n\r\n<em>High Level Tools</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.seleniumhq.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Selenium</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://fitnesse.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Fitnesse</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.rallydev.com/test-management\" target=\"_blank\">Rally</a> (Agile)\r\n\r\n<strong>Web Service Testing</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://findbugs.sourceforge.net\" target=\"_blank\">Siege</a> (Load testing - Linux) \r\n\r\n<strong>Code Tools</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.joedog.org/siege-home/\" target=\"_blank\">FindBugs</a> (Code Analysis)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.mythicsoft.com/agentransack\" target=\"_blank\">Agent Ransack</a> (Multiple File Search)\r\n\r\n<strong>Document Databases</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.mongodb.org/\" target=\"_blank\">MongoDB</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Graph Databases</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://neo4j.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Neo4j</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://keylines.com\" target=\"_blank\">Keylines (Web graph visualisation)</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://thejit.org\" target=\"_blank\">JavaScript InfoVis Toolkit (Web graph visualisation)</a>\r\n<a href=\"https://gephi.org/\">Gephi</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Mobile Development</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.playframework.com\" target=\"_blank\">Play Framework</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.sencha.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Sencha Touch (JavaScript)</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.gwtproject.org/\" target=\"_blank\">GWT (Java)</a>\r\n<a href=\"https://vaadin.com/home\" target=\"_blank\">Vaadin (Java)</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Graphics</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.getpaint.net/\" target=\"_blank\">Paint.NET</a> (Bitmap Editor)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.inkscape.org/en/\" target=\"_blank\">Inkscape</a> (Vectors Editor)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.colorschemer.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Color Schemer</a>\r\nPixel Ruler\r\n\r\n<strong>REST and OData frameworks</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://restlet.org\" target=\"_blank\">Restlet</a>\r\n<a href=\"https://jersey.java.net\" target=\"_blank\">Jersey</a>\r\n<a href=\"https://code.google.com/p/odata4j/\" target=\"_blank\">OData4j</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Authentication</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://oauth.net/\" target=\"_blank\">OAuth</a>\r\n\r\n<strong>Useful Tools</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.teamviewer.com/en/index.aspx\" target=\"_blank\">TeamViewer</a> Online Meetings\r\n<a href=\"http://notepad-plus-plus.org/\" target=\"_blank\">Notepad++</a> with XML and JSON extensions\r\n<a href=\"http://www.scootersoftware.com/index.php\" target=\"_blank\">Beyond Compare</a> (Code & Config Comparison)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.xmlvalidation.com/\" target=\"_blank\">XML Validation Tool</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://getglimpse.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Glimpse</a> (Diagnostics platform for web apps)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.trilead.com/Download/\" target=\"_blank\">VMX</a> (Virtual Server Management)\r\n<a href=\"http://wixtoolset.org/\" target=\"_blank\">WIX</a> (Windows installation package builder)\r\n<a href=\"http://fiddler2.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Fiddler</a> (HTTP debugging proxy)\r\n\r\n<strong>UI Software</strong>\r\n<a href=\"http://balsamiq.com/\" target=\"_blank\">Balsamiq</a> (Wireframing Software)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.crazyegg.com/#.\" target=\"_blank\">Crazy Egg</a> (Eye Tracking Software)\r\n\r\n<strong>Charting libraries</strong>\r\nD3\r\ngRaphaël\r\nHighcharts\r\nAngularJS\r\nTelerik Kendo UI\r\naCharts\r\nCubism.js\r\nDojo GFX\r\ndygraphs\r\nFlot\r\nFlotr\r\nFlotr2\r\nGoogle Chart Tools\r\nEnvision.js\r\nJavascript InfoVis Toolkit\r\njqPlot\r\njQuery Sparklines\r\njQuery Visualize\r\nmilkchart\r\nRGraph\r\nRickshaw\r\nTimeplot\r\nGraphUp\r\n\r\nBusiness Tools\r\n\r\nIntranet <a href=\"http://www.simpleintranet.org/\">Wordpress Simple Intranet Directory </a>\r\nAccounting <a href=\"https://www.xero.com/au/\">Xero</a>\r\nProject Management <a href=\"https://basecamp.com\">Basecamp</a>','Development Tools','','inherit','closed','open','','282-revision-v1','','','2014-07-30 09:19:39','2014-07-30 01:19:39','',282,'http://www.smartestplace.net/282-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(512,1,'2014-08-13 11:10:29','2014-08-13 03:10:29','<blockquote>\"Nothing Happens Until Someone Sells Something\"</blockquote>\r\n<div style=\"font-size: 20px;\"><em>- <b>Thomas J. Watson</b></em></div>','Sell Something','','publish','closed','open','','sell-something','','','2014-08-13 11:10:29','2014-08-13 03:10:29','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?p=512',0,'post','',0),(513,1,'2014-08-13 11:09:07','2014-08-13 03:09:07','Nothing Happens Until Someone Sells Something','Sell Something','','inherit','closed','open','','512-revision-v1','','','2014-08-13 11:09:07','2014-08-13 03:09:07','',512,'http://www.smartestplace.net/512-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(514,1,'2014-08-13 11:10:29','2014-08-13 03:10:29','<blockquote>\"Nothing Happens Until Someone Sells Something\"</blockquote>\r\n<div style=\"font-size: 20px;\"><em>- <b>Thomas J. Watson</b></em></div>','Sell Something','','inherit','closed','open','','512-revision-v1','','','2014-08-13 11:10:29','2014-08-13 03:10:29','',512,'http://www.smartestplace.net/512-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(515,1,'2014-08-20 17:12:18','2014-08-20 09:12:18','<u>Business Stack</u>\nVision\nMission\n\n<u>Business Philosophy</u>\nLean Startup\nA Stake in the Outcome\nGetting Real\nWinning\nOpen Source\n\n<u>Admin Stack</u>\nFinancials - Xero\n<strong></strong>\n<u>Management Stack</u>\nProject Management - Basecamp\n\n<u>Marketing Stack</u>\n\n<u>Sales Stack</u>\n\n<u>Tech Stack</u>\nOS - Linux\nLanguage - Java\nDependency Injection - Spring\nBuild Automation - Maven\nWeb Service - Apache Tomcat\nGraph Database Framework - Titan\nKey Value/BigTable Database - Apache Cassandra\nRelational Database - Postgres\nScheduler - Quartz\nEvent Processor - Apache Storm\nBig Data Processor - Apache Hadoop\nData Warehousing - Apache Hive\nBig Data Analysis - Apache Pig\nOData Services - Apache Lingo\nCharting - D3js\n\n<u>Development Tools</u>\nIDE - IntelliJ\nContinuous integration - TeamCity\nSource Control - Gitlab\n\n<u>Miscellaneous Tools</u>\nText Editor - Notepad++\nText search - Agent Ransack\nText comparison - Beyond Compare\n\nMotivation\n<a href=\"http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation#t-1104642\">http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation#t-1104642</a>','Business Basis','','inherit','closed','open','','476-revision-v1','','','2014-08-20 17:12:18','2014-08-20 09:12:18','',476,'http://www.smartestplace.net/476-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(517,1,'2014-08-24 16:06:26','2014-08-24 08:06:26','<u>Business Stack</u>\nVision\nMission\n\n<u>Business Philosophy</u>\nLean Startup\nA Stake in the Outcome\nGetting Real\nWinning\nOpen Source\n\n<u>Admin Stack</u>\nFinancials - Xero\n<strong></strong>\n<u>Management Stack</u>\nProject Management - Basecamp\n\n<u>Marketing Stack</u>\n\n<u>Sales Stack</u>\n\n<u>Tech Stack</u>\nOS - Linux\nLanguage - Java\nDependency Injection - Spring\nBuild Automation - Maven\nWeb Service - Apache Tomcat\nGraph Database Framework - Titan\nKey Value/BigTable Database - Apache Cassandra\nRelational Database - Postgres\nScheduler - Quartz\nEvent Processor - Apache Storm\nBig Data Processor - Apache Hadoop\nData Warehousing - Apache Hive\nBig Data Analysis - Apache Pig\nOData Services - Apache Lingo\nCharting - D3js\n\n<u>Development Tools</u>\nIDE - IntelliJ\nContinuous integration - TeamCity\nSource Control - Gitlab\n\n<u>Miscellaneous Tools</u>\nText Editor - Notepad++\nText search - Agent Ransack\nText comparison - Beyond Compare\n\nMotivation\n<a href=\"http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation#t-1104642\">http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation#t-1104642</a>\n','Business Basis','','inherit','closed','open','','476-autosave-v1','','','2014-08-24 16:06:26','2014-08-24 08:06:26','',476,'http://www.smartestplace.net/476-autosave-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(518,1,'2014-08-24 16:07:09','2014-08-24 08:07:09','<u>Business Stack</u>\r\nVision\r\nMission\r\n\r\n<u>Business Philosophy</u>\r\nLean Startup\r\nA Stake in the Outcome\r\nGetting Real\r\nWinning\r\nOpen Source\r\n\r\n<u>Admin Stack</u>\r\nFinancials - Xero\r\n<strong></strong>\r\n<u>Management Stack</u>\r\nProject Management - Basecamp\r\n\r\n<u>Marketing Stack</u>\r\n\r\n<u>Sales Stack</u>\r\n\r\n<u>Tech Stack</u>\r\nOS - Linux\r\nLanguage - Java\r\nDependency Injection - Spring\r\nBuild Automation - Maven\r\nWeb Service - Apache Tomcat\r\nGraph Database Framework - Titan\r\nKey Value/BigTable Database - Apache Cassandra\r\nRelational Database - Postgres\r\nScheduler - Quartz\r\nEvent Processor - Apache Storm\r\nBig Data Processor - Apache Hadoop\r\nData Warehousing - Apache Hive\r\nBig Data Analysis - Apache Pig\r\nOData Services - Apache Lingo\r\nCharting - D3js\r\n\r\n<u>Development Tools</u>\r\nIDE - IntelliJ\r\nContinuous integration - TeamCity\r\nSource Control - Gitlab\r\n\r\n<u>Miscellaneous Tools</u>\r\nText Editor - Notepad++\r\nText search - Agent Ransack\r\nText comparison - Beyond Compare\r\n\r\nMotivation\r\n<a href=\"http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation#t-1104642\">http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation#t-1104642</a>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action\" title=\"Simon Sinek - The Golden Circle\" target=\"_blank\"></a>','Business Basis','','inherit','closed','open','','476-revision-v1','','','2014-08-24 16:07:09','2014-08-24 08:07:09','',476,'http://www.smartestplace.net/476-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(519,1,'2014-08-31 20:25:32','2014-08-31 12:25:32','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. I\'m certainly in the minority in my industry: Techies love to have the best gear. But here are the reasons I don\'t support FTTH:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Thinking about this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". \r\n\r\nAs far as I can tell, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? The problem is that the people advocating the most expensive Fibre to the Home option are not spending their own money. I am sure that when these same people go to the car dealership to choose a car to purchase they carefully compare needs, features and costs when making their decision - because it is <em>their own money</em>. Somehow this rational logic goes out of the window when it comes to their views on public policy. So my first, and most important, point is that the community should demand <em>value</em> from the tax dollars taken from them. Fibre to the Home does not represent value.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. \r\n\r\nJust as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not likely ever be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.</li>\r\n	<li>Another argument I hear (probably one of the best) is that, the Fibre-to-the-Home NBN won\'t ultimately cost the community anything because the government will privatise it. This is based on the presumption that the government will recoup its money on an investment that is sub-optimal, by design (otherwise the private sector would have already provided it). So there will almost certainly be a significant shortfall that will reduce our ability to address more pressing challenges.</li>\r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over wireless, or even old-copper while it is still around.</li>\r\n	<li>One argument for the NBN was that it was necessary for the government to step in because of market failure. There was some truth to this, in that when rational consideration was given to requirements and costs, the government of the time\'s NBN \'vision\' was somewhat different to what was sensible. The market would not naturally deliver the degree of inefficiency (servicing remote areas and the like) without certainty of a return. The government should have subsidised this inefficiency openly, by subsidising private enterprise to deliver the social good. Instead they again made the classic mistake of thinking that Government can run a business - and have wasted billions of dollars in the process.\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is wireless.\r\n	<li>The argument that fibre to the home is cheaper to maintain than copper also succumbs to this argument. No fibre and no copper to the home is cheaper still. With FTTN there would be less fibre to maintain, and history would suggest the exact last leg wireless implementation would be replaced anyway - as new technologies come along. As they always do.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','publish','closed','open','','nbn-fibre-to-the-node','','','2016-02-28 12:40:08','2016-02-28 04:40:08','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?p=519',0,'post','',0),(520,1,'2014-08-30 11:36:27','2014-08-30 03:36:27','People are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN.\r\n\r\n1) Costs vs Benefits\r\nThe main reason for this is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), The average Australian will get all the benefits of faster Broadband for 1/3 of the price. Remember that faster speeds than ADSL2 are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere, either bigger debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need t make our choice - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints.\r\n\r\n2) Faster Internet at Home is a nice to have, not a need to have.\r\nWhile I agree that access to the Internet at home is now (in an advanced society) a right, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be nice to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of 15, but would that really improve my life? Would 100mb/s mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? Wikipedia, ITunesU, Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources to improving entertainment? \r\n\r\n3) Proportionality\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it. But it is unnecessary, and not cost effective, to provide everyone with a Porsche.\r\n\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-30 11:36:27','2014-08-30 03:36:27','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(521,1,'2014-08-30 11:41:48','2014-08-30 03:41:48','People are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN.\r\n\r\n1) Costs vs Benefits\r\nThe main reason for this is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), The average Australian will get all the benefits of faster Broadband for 1/3 of the price. Remember that faster speeds than ADSL2 are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere, either bigger debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need t make our choice - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints.\r\n\r\n2) Faster Internet at Home is a nice to have, not a need to have.\r\nWhile I agree that access to the Internet at home is now (in an advanced society) a right, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be nice to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of 15, but would that really improve my life? Would 100mb/s mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? Wikipedia, ITunesU, Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources to improving entertainment? \r\n\r\n3) Proportionality\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it. It reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: Q:\"What is the best solution?\" A:\"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost?\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-30 11:41:48','2014-08-30 03:41:48','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(677,1,'2014-11-16 20:05:30','2014-11-16 12:05:30','','wpid-20141116_131343.jpg','','inherit','closed','open','','wpid-20141116_131343-jpg','','','2014-11-16 20:05:30','2014-11-16 12:05:30','',603,'http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/wpid-20141116_131343.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(523,1,'2014-08-31 08:35:07','2014-08-31 00:35:07','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason for this is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), The average Australian will get all the benefits of faster Broadband for 1/3 of the price. Remember that faster speeds than ADSL2 are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere, either bigger debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need t make our choice - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints. So my first point is about <em>value</em>.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nFaster Internet at Home is a nice to have, not a need to have. While I agree that access to the Internet at home is now (in an advanced society) a right, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be nice to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my life? Would 100mb/s mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? Wikipedia, ITunesU, Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Is it really government\'s role to borrow or divert scarce resources away from essentials to improving entertainment? So my second point is about <em>priorities</em>.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it. Home needs fast broadband, but not the need to stream 15 high-def TV shows at the same time - it is just overkill. It reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: Q:\"What is the best solution?\" A:\"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 08:35:07','2014-08-31 00:35:07','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(524,1,'2014-08-31 08:36:44','2014-08-31 00:36:44','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that the average Australian will get all the benefits of faster Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. Faster speeds than ADSL2 are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere, either bigger debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints. So my first and most important point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nFaster Internet at Home is a nice to have, not a need to have. While I agree that access to the Internet at home is now (in an advanced society) a right, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be nice to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my life? Would 100mb/s mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? Wikipedia, ITunesU, Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Is it really government\'s role to borrow or divert scarce resources away from essentials to improving entertainment? So my second point is about <em>priorities</em>.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it. Home needs fast broadband, but not the need to stream 15 high-def TV shows at the same time - it is just overkill. It reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: Q:\"What is the best solution?\" A:\"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 08:36:44','2014-08-31 00:36:44','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(525,1,'2014-08-31 08:39:21','2014-08-31 00:39:21','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that the average Australian will get all the benefits of faster Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. Faster speeds than ADSL2 are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere, either bigger debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints. So my first and most important point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet at Home is a nice to have, not a need to have. While I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a human-right, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be nice to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life? Would 100mb/s mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I believe No. Wikipedia, ITunesU, Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. So is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from essentials (or take on debt) to improving our entertainment choices? So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em>.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it. Home needs fast broadband, but not the need to stream 15 high-def TV shows at the same time - it is just overkill. It reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: Q:\"What is the best solution?\" A:\"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 08:39:21','2014-08-31 00:39:21','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(526,1,'2014-08-31 08:59:21','2014-08-31 00:59:21','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that the average Australian will get all the benefits of faster Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere, either bigger debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints. So my first and most important point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds (than ADSL2\\4G) are a nice to have, not a need to have. While I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be nice to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life? Would 100mb/s mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I believe No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from essential services (or take on more debt) to improving our entertainment choices? So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em>.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it. Home needs fast broadband, but not the need to stream 15 high-def TV shows at the same time - it is just overkill. It reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: Q:\"What is the best solution?\" A:\"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 08:59:21','2014-08-31 00:59:21','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(527,1,'2014-08-31 09:02:44','2014-08-31 01:02:44','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that Australians will get all the benefits of faster Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. While I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else.  It would be nice to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life? Would 100mb/s mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I believe No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless.So my first and most important point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds (than ADSL2\\4G) are a nice to have, not a need to have.  The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere, either bigger debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints. Is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from essential services (or take on more debt) to improving our entertainment choices? So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em>.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it. Home needs fast broadband, but not the need to stream 15 high-def TV shows at the same time - it is just overkill. It reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: Q:\"What is the best solution?\" A:\"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 09:02:44','2014-08-31 01:02:44','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(528,1,'2014-08-31 09:10:12','2014-08-31 01:10:12','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that Australians will get almost all the benefits of faster Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. While I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians, faster speeds<em> at home </em>really benefit entertainment and little else.  It would be nice to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life? Would 100mb/s mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I believe No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from essential services (or take on more debt) for the purposes of improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have.  The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints. Fibre to the Node provides virtually all the real benefits for 1/3 of the cost.  So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it. Home requires fast broadband, but not super-fast broadband at any cost. At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us than they already do. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: Q:\"What is the best solution?\" A:\"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 09:10:12','2014-08-31 01:10:12','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(529,1,'2014-08-31 10:32:55','2014-08-31 02:32:55','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. Would 100mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I believe No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home </em>really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  Is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from essential services (or take on more debt) for the purposes of improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have.  The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home has to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile investments in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real limits and constraints. Fibre to the Node provides virtually all the real benefits for 1/3 of the cost.  If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in education, I might be convinced. But we haven\'t. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they need it. Homes require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us than they already doto benefit society. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Tehir answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 10:32:55','2014-08-31 02:32:55','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(530,1,'2014-08-31 10:39:40','2014-08-31 02:39:40','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. Would 100mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I believe No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile spending in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints. Fibre to the Node provides virtually all the real benefits for 1/3 of the cost.  If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in education, I might be convinced. But we haven\'t. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community. Fibre to the node distorts our priorities.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us than they already do. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Thier answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 10:39:40','2014-08-31 02:39:40','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(531,1,'2014-08-31 10:44:09','2014-08-31 02:44:09','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. Would 100mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I believe No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile spending in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints. Fibre to the Node provides virtually all the real benefits for 1/3 of the cost.  If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in education, I might be convinced. But we haven\'t. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community. Fibre to the node distorts our priorities.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us than they already do. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are \'fit for purpose\'. The fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides real tangible benefits now.\r\n\r\n4)\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 10:44:09','2014-08-31 02:44:09','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(534,1,'2014-08-31 15:29:14','2014-08-31 07:29:14','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could be made in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be convinced. But we haven\'t. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are \'fit for purpose\'. The fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides real, tangible benefits.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centricism</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are voting with their feet. They want their Internet ubiquitous and focussed on them.\r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 15:29:14','2014-08-31 07:29:14','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(532,1,'2014-08-31 10:47:15','2014-08-31 02:47:15','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), I contend that Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the price to the community. Would 100mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I believe No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile spending in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints. Fibre to the Node provides virtually all the real benefits for 1/3 of the cost.  If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in education, I might be convinced. But we haven\'t. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community. Fibre to the node distorts our priorities.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us than they already do. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are \'fit for purpose\'. The fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides real tangible benefits now.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centricism</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are voting with their feet. They want their Internet ubiquitous and focussed on them.\r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 10:47:15','2014-08-31 02:47:15','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(533,1,'2014-08-31 12:01:11','2014-08-31 04:01:11','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the price. Would 100mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> other more worthwhile spending in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints. Fibre to the Node provides virtually all the real benefits for 1/3 of the cost.  If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in education, I might be convinced. But we haven\'t. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community. Fibre to the node distorts our priorities.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us than they already do. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are \'fit for purpose\'. The fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides real tangible benefits now.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centricism</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are voting with their feet. They want their Internet ubiquitous and focussed on them.\r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 12:01:11','2014-08-31 04:01:11','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(535,1,'2014-08-31 15:38:02','2014-08-31 07:38:02','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Necessity</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could be made in health and education. We need to make our choice as a community - unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be convinced. But we haven\'t. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are \'fit for purpose\'. The fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides real, tangible benefits.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centricism</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many now choosing to forgo their home landline. Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, so the question should   \r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\nEducation\r\nBeware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 15:38:02','2014-08-31 07:38:02','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(536,1,'2014-08-31 15:49:01','2014-08-31 07:49:01','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could instead be made in health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. But we need to choose our priorities - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are \'fit for purpose\'. The fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides real, tangible benefits.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centricism</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many now choosing to forgo their home landline. Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, so the question should   \r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\nEducation\r\nBeware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 15:49:01','2014-08-31 07:49:01','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(537,1,'2014-08-31 15:56:03','2014-08-31 07:56:03','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could instead be made in health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. But we need to choose our priorities - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Proportionality</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em>. The fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides real, tangible benefits.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centricism</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg should be wireless. So the question again becomes economic; \"How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?\".    \r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\nEducation\r\nBeware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nLatency is as important as throughput.\r\n\r\nBut while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 15:56:03','2014-08-31 07:56:03','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(538,1,'2014-08-31 16:25:27','2014-08-31 08:25:27','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could instead be made in health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. But we need to choose our priorities - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg should be wireless. So the question again becomes economic; \"How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?\". Do we really need the more costly option of a transmitter in every one of the   \r\n\r\nWhether the NBN should be delivered with fibre or wireless has devolved to an argument against the fastest speeds (fixed-fibre) versus cost effectiveness (wireless). But people have already voted with their feet, the so-called \'last leg\' (how the physical device is ultimately connected) is more often than not using wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care more about cost than whether it is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. People talk about the copper network needing replacement as justification for a $100 billion fibre programme - but does it really? Many people no longer choose to have phones at home, they have chosen to live mobile only. The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers. So the real questions become; what do people realistically want to be doing over wireless that they can\'t already do? For the community to concurrently achieve this level of speed, does the wireless-access point <strong>need</strong> to be in the home. Because having it in the home is triple the cost of other options. So my final point is that <em>the future is wireless</em>, so let\'s achieve this in the most cost-effective way.\r\n\r\n\r\nTo conclude this post I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. I fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to ignore the costs of doing this, and the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible internet may revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But technology proves this wrong again and again. I recall some people saying that not more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper- ha. Wireless improvements have continually outpaced my demand for speed (Wifi A/B/N, 3G, 4G). And \r\n 	<li>And with Education, the benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is a big difference between no Internet and dial-up, there is still a large difference between dial-up and ADSL, but there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and NBN. In fact, I pull up to 100mb at work right now, and it is barely any different to at home.</li>\r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\nEducation\r\nBeware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nLatency is as important as throughput.\r\n\r\nBut while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 16:25:27','2014-08-31 08:25:27','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(539,1,'2014-08-31 16:26:22','2014-08-31 08:26:22','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could instead be made in health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. But we need to choose our priorities - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg should be wireless. So the question again becomes economic; \"How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?\". Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters? \r\n\r\nWhether the NBN should be delivered with fibre or wireless has devolved to an argument against the fastest speeds (fixed-fibre) versus cost effectiveness (wireless). But people have already voted with their feet, the so-called \'last leg\' (how the physical device is ultimately connected) is more often than not using wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care more about cost than whether it is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. People talk about the copper network needing replacement as justification for a $100 billion fibre programme - but does it really? Many people no longer choose to have phones at home, they have chosen to live mobile only. The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers. So the real questions become; what do people realistically want to be doing over wireless that they can\'t already do? For the community to concurrently achieve this level of speed, does the wireless-access point <strong>need</strong> to be in the home. Because having it in the home is triple the cost of other options. So my final point is that <em>the future is wireless</em>, so let\'s achieve this in the most cost-effective way.\r\n\r\n\r\nTo conclude this post I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. I fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to ignore the costs of doing this, and the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible internet may revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But technology proves this wrong again and again. I recall some people saying that not more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper- ha. Wireless improvements have continually outpaced my demand for speed (Wifi A/B/N, 3G, 4G). And \r\n 	<li>And with Education, the benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is a big difference between no Internet and dial-up, there is still a large difference between dial-up and ADSL, but there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and NBN. In fact, I pull up to 100mb at work right now, and it is barely any different to at home.</li>\r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway\r\nEducation\r\nBeware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nLatency is as important as throughput.\r\n\r\nBut while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 16:26:22','2014-08-31 08:26:22','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(540,1,'2014-08-31 16:30:48','2014-08-31 08:30:48','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could instead be made in health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. But we need to choose our priorities - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the question again becomes economic; \"How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?\". Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters? \r\n\r\nWhether the NBN should be delivered with fibre or wireless has devolved to an argument against the fastest speeds (fixed-fibre) versus cost effectiveness (wireless). But people have already voted with their feet, the so-called \'last leg\' (how the physical device is ultimately connected) is more often than not using wireless.    So the real questions become; what do people realistically want to be doing over wireless that they can\'t already do? For the community to concurrently achieve this level of speed, does the wireless-access point <strong>need</strong> to be in the home. Because having it in the home is triple the cost of other options. So my final point is that <em>the future is wireless</em>, so let\'s achieve this in the most cost-effective way.\r\n\r\n\r\nTo conclude this post I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. I fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to ignore the costs of doing this, and the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible internet may revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But technology proves this wrong again and again. I recall some people saying that not more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper- ha. Wireless improvements have continually outpaced my demand for speed (Wifi A/B/N, 3G, 4G). And \r\n 	<li>And with Education, the benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is a big difference between no Internet and dial-up, there is still a large difference between dial-up and ADSL, but there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and NBN. In fact, I pull up to 100mb at work right now, and it is barely any different to at home.</li>\r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway. People talk about the copper network needing replacement as justification for a $100 billion fibre programme - but does it really? Many people no longer choose to have phones at home, they have chosen to live mobile only.\r\n\r\nEducation\r\nBeware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nLatency is as important as throughput.\r\n\r\nBut while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 16:30:48','2014-08-31 08:30:48','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(541,1,'2014-08-31 16:52:02','2014-08-31 08:52:02','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could instead be made in health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. But we need to choose our priorities - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nTo conclude this post I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. I fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to ignore the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. Consider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or knowledge-economy company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible internet may revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall some people saying in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious. In my own case, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G, 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently offering), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of this technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>With fibre to the home advocates who argue it will have benefits for Education, I contend that the benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is a big difference between no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n\r\n\r\nKorea\r\nSurgery\r\nCopper needs replacing anyway. People talk about the copper network needing replacement as justification for a $100 billion fibre programme - but does it really? Many people no longer choose to have phones at home, they have chosen to live mobile only.\r\n\r\nEducation\r\nBeware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians,\r\n\r\nLatency is as important as throughput.\r\n\r\nBut while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to \r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 16:52:02','2014-08-31 08:52:02','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0);
INSERT INTO `wp_posts` VALUES (542,1,'2014-08-31 17:13:16','2014-08-31 09:13:16','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending which could instead be made in health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. But we need to choose our priorities - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 17:13:16','2014-08-31 09:13:16','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(543,1,'2014-08-31 19:34:49','2014-08-31 11:34:49','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think, No. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:34:49','2014-08-31 11:34:49','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(544,1,'2014-08-31 19:35:37','2014-08-31 11:35:37','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:35:37','2014-08-31 11:35:37','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(546,1,'2014-08-31 19:37:42','2014-08-31 11:37:42','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:37:42','2014-08-31 11:37:42','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(545,1,'2014-08-31 19:36:18','2014-08-31 11:36:18','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial limits and constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:36:18','2014-08-31 11:36:18','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(547,1,'2014-08-31 19:38:40','2014-08-31 11:38:40','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but I do not believe they need \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:38:40','2014-08-31 11:38:40','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(548,1,'2014-08-31 19:39:08','2014-08-31 11:39:08','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are <em>\'fit for purpose\'</em> for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:39:08','2014-08-31 11:39:08','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(549,1,'2014-08-31 19:40:30','2014-08-31 11:40:30','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world of realistic choices, the fastest internet only needs to be available where it provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the cost.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:40:30','2014-08-31 11:40:30','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(550,1,'2014-08-31 19:42:29','2014-08-31 11:42:29','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway.) Wireless communications naturally fit this preference, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:42:29','2014-08-31 11:42:29','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(551,1,'2014-08-31 19:43:48','2014-08-31 11:43:48','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes economic; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:43:48','2014-08-31 11:43:48','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(552,1,'2014-08-31 19:45:00','2014-08-31 11:45:00','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. So the questions we need to answer again becomes practical; \r\n	<li>How long can last-leg wireless be while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the more costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:45:00','2014-08-31 11:45:00','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(553,1,'2014-08-31 19:46:29','2014-08-31 11:46:29','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community again becomes practical; \r\n	<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:46:29','2014-08-31 11:46:29','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(554,1,'2014-08-31 19:47:58','2014-08-31 11:47:58','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community becomes practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:47:58','2014-08-31 11:47:58','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(555,1,'2014-08-31 19:48:35','2014-08-31 11:48:35','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets provide the speeds required for homes?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:48:35','2014-08-31 11:48:35','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(556,1,'2014-08-31 19:49:26','2014-08-31 11:49:26','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\nNow that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should stick to a Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin that has been put on the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But history has shown technology has proven these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps could be achieved over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very best to . Beware the \'build for the future\'.\r\n\r\nWhile I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, access to the Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while there is a right to internet, there is no right to a wireless transmitter in every home.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 19:49:26','2014-08-31 11:49:26','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(557,1,'2014-08-31 20:01:05','2014-08-31 12:01:05','Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:01:05','2014-08-31 12:01:05','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(558,1,'2014-08-31 20:07:04','2014-08-31 12:07:04','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:07:04','2014-08-31 12:07:04','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(561,1,'2014-08-31 20:13:43','2014-08-31 12:13:43','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:13:43','2014-08-31 12:13:43','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(559,1,'2014-08-31 20:10:25','2014-08-31 12:10:25','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node future I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:10:25','2014-08-31 12:10:25','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(560,1,'2014-08-31 20:13:05','2014-08-31 12:13:05','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/><br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:13:05','2014-08-31 12:13:05','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(562,1,'2014-08-31 20:16:06','2014-08-31 12:16:06','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>Benefits to Education coming from fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:16:06','2014-08-31 12:16:06','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(563,1,'2014-08-31 20:17:10','2014-08-31 12:17:10','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nConsider these facts:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:17:10','2014-08-31 12:17:10','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(564,1,'2014-08-31 20:18:38','2014-08-31 12:18:38','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:18:38','2014-08-31 12:18:38','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(565,1,'2014-08-31 20:19:48','2014-08-31 12:19:48','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of fibre to the home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre to the Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home is a 20th century solution, the future is indeed mobile.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:19:48','2014-08-31 12:19:48','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(566,1,'2014-08-31 20:21:10','2014-08-31 12:21:10','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\nTo conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:21:10','2014-08-31 12:21:10','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(567,1,'2014-08-31 20:21:34','2014-08-31 12:21:34','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must ensure that access to high-speed Internet is now a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving it, keep in mind our bigger priorities, and recognise the way in which the Internet is already moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:21:34','2014-08-31 12:21:34','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(568,1,'2014-08-31 20:23:43','2014-08-31 12:23:43','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude I agree that, to avoid unassailable disadvantage, we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we need to favour the most cost-effective way of achieving this goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and at the same time recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:23:43','2014-08-31 12:23:43','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(569,1,'2014-08-31 20:25:19','2014-08-31 12:25:19','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a nice to have, not a need to have. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:25:19','2014-08-31 12:25:19','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(570,1,'2014-08-31 20:27:11','2014-08-31 12:27:11','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:27:11','2014-08-31 12:27:11','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(571,1,'2014-08-31 20:28:34','2014-08-31 12:28:34','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:28:34','2014-08-31 12:28:34','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(572,1,'2014-08-31 20:29:04','2014-08-31 12:29:04','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:29:04','2014-08-31 12:29:04','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(573,1,'2014-08-31 20:30:19','2014-08-31 12:30:19','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:30:19','2014-08-31 12:30:19','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(574,1,'2014-08-31 20:31:50','2014-08-31 12:31:50','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:31:50','2014-08-31 12:31:50','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(583,1,'2014-09-01 07:34:29','2014-08-31 23:34:29','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Thinking about this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". As far as I can tell, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? The problem is that the people advocating the most expensive Fibre to the Home solution are not spending their own money. I am sure that when these same people go to the car dealership to choose a car to purchase they carefully compare needs, features and costs when making their decision - because it is <em>their own money</em>. Somehow this rational logic goes out of the window when it comes to their views on public policy. So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over wireless, or even old-copper while it is still around.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 07:34:29','2014-08-31 23:34:29','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(576,1,'2014-08-31 20:34:11','2014-08-31 12:34:11','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-08-31 20:34:11','2014-08-31 12:34:11','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(577,1,'2014-09-01 07:14:57','2014-08-31 23:14:57','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. So healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for fibre to the home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 07:14:57','2014-08-31 23:14:57','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(578,1,'2014-09-01 07:21:42','2014-08-31 23:21:42','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". Faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 07:21:42','2014-08-31 23:21:42','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(579,1,'2014-09-01 07:23:55','2014-08-31 23:23:55','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". As far as I can tell, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 07:23:55','2014-08-31 23:23:55','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(580,1,'2014-09-01 07:27:49','2014-08-31 23:27:49','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over old copper or wireless. Thinking of this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". As far as I can tell, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? The problem is that the people advocating the most expensive Fibre to the Home solution are not spending their own money. I am sure that when these same people go to the car dealership to choose a car they carefully compare needs, features and costs when making their decision - because it is their own money. Somehow this rational logic goes out of the window when it comes to their views on public policy. \r\nSo my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 07:27:49','2014-08-31 23:27:49','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(581,1,'2014-09-01 07:31:16','2014-08-31 23:31:16','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Thinking about this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". As far as I can tell, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? The problem is that the people advocating the most expensive Fibre to the Home solution are not spending their own money. I am sure that when these same people go to the car dealership to choose a car they carefully compare needs, features and costs when making their decision - because it is their own money. Somehow this rational logic goes out of the window when it comes to their views on public policy. \r\nSo my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over wireless, or even old-copper while it is still around.</li>\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 07:31:16','2014-08-31 23:31:16','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(589,1,'2014-09-01 08:04:48','2014-09-01 00:04:48','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Thinking about this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". As far as I can tell, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? The problem is that the people advocating the most expensive Fibre to the Home solution are not spending their own money. I am sure that when these same people go to the car dealership to choose a car to purchase they carefully compare needs, features and costs when making their decision - because it is <em>their own money</em>. Somehow this rational logic goes out of the window when it comes to their views on public policy. So my first, and most important, point is that the community should demand <em>value</em> from the tax dollars taken from them. Fibre to the Home does not represent value.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.</li>\r\n	<li>Another argument I hear (probably one of the best) is that, the Fibre-to-the-Home NBN won\'t ultimately cost the community anything because the government will privatise it. This is based on the presumption that the government will recoup its money on an investment that is sub-optimal, by design (otherwise the private sector would have already provided it). So there will almost certainly be a significant shortfall.</li>\r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over wireless, or even old-copper while it is still around.</li>\r\n	<li>One argument for the NBN was that it was necessary for the government to step in because of market failure. There was some truth to this, in that when rational consideration was given to requirements and costs, the government of the time\'s NBN \'vision\' was somewhat different to what was sensible. The market would not naturally deliver the degree of inefficiency (servicing remote areas and the like) without certainty of a return. The government should have subsidised this inefficiency openly, by subsidising private enterprise to deliver the social good. Instead they again made the classic mistake of thinking that Government can run a business - and have wasted billions of dollars in the process.\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 08:04:48','2014-09-01 00:04:48','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(584,1,'2014-09-01 07:46:00','2014-08-31 23:46:00','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Thinking about this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". As far as I can tell, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? The problem is that the people advocating the most expensive Fibre to the Home solution are not spending their own money. I am sure that when these same people go to the car dealership to choose a car to purchase they carefully compare needs, features and costs when making their decision - because it is <em>their own money</em>. Somehow this rational logic goes out of the window when it comes to their views on public policy. So my first, and most important, point is about <em>value</em> to the community.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over wireless, or even old-copper while it is still around.</li>\r\n	<li>One argument for the NBN was that it was necessary for the government to step in because of market failure. There was some truth to this, in that when rational consideration was given to requirements and costs, the government of the time\'s NBN \'vision\' was somewhat different to what was sensible. The market would not naturally deliver the degree of inefficiency (servicing remote areas and the like) without certainty of a return. The government should have subsidised this inefficiency openly, by subsidising private enterprise to deliver the social good. Instead they again made the classic mistake of thinking that Government can run a business - and have wasted billions of dollars in the process.\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 07:46:00','2014-08-31 23:46:00','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(585,1,'2014-09-01 07:48:58','2014-08-31 23:48:58','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Thinking about this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". As far as I can tell, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? The problem is that the people advocating the most expensive Fibre to the Home solution are not spending their own money. I am sure that when these same people go to the car dealership to choose a car to purchase they carefully compare needs, features and costs when making their decision - because it is <em>their own money</em>. Somehow this rational logic goes out of the window when it comes to their views on public policy. So my first, and most important, point is that the community should demand <em>value</em> from the tax dollars taken from them.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over wireless, or even old-copper while it is still around.</li>\r\n	<li>One argument for the NBN was that it was necessary for the government to step in because of market failure. There was some truth to this, in that when rational consideration was given to requirements and costs, the government of the time\'s NBN \'vision\' was somewhat different to what was sensible. The market would not naturally deliver the degree of inefficiency (servicing remote areas and the like) without certainty of a return. The government should have subsidised this inefficiency openly, by subsidising private enterprise to deliver the social good. Instead they again made the classic mistake of thinking that Government can run a business - and have wasted billions of dollars in the process.\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 07:48:58','2014-08-31 23:48:58','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(586,1,'2014-09-01 07:49:54','2014-08-31 23:49:54','[caption width=\"800\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://www.itandtelesys.com/images/opticalcommunication.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"600\" class /> Source: IT and Telecommunications Systems[/caption]Working in IT, people are often surprised that I don\'t support Fibre to the Home for the NBN. Here are my reasons:\r\n\r\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\r\nThe main reason I don\'t support fibre to the home is cost-benefit: With Fibre to the Node (street), Australians will get almost all the benefits of fast Broadband for 1/3 of the cost. Thinking about this reminds me of a question I asked my Engineering professor back at Uni when talking about alternative engineering solutions: I asked \"What is the best solution?\" Their answer? \"The best solution is the one that meets all the requirements, including aesthetics and safety, at the lowest cost\". As far as I can tell, faster speeds at home really benefit entertainment and little else. It would be <em>nice</em> to download Game of Thrones in one minute instead of fifteen, but would that really improve my quality of life?  And is it really government\'s role to divert scarce resources away from areas that are more important toward improving our entertainment choices? The problem is that the people advocating the most expensive Fibre to the Home solution are not spending their own money. I am sure that when these same people go to the car dealership to choose a car to purchase they carefully compare needs, features and costs when making their decision - because it is <em>their own money</em>. Somehow this rational logic goes out of the window when it comes to their views on public policy. So my first, and most important, point is that the community should demand <em>value</em> from the tax dollars taken from them. Fibre to the Home does not represent value.\r\n\r\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\r\nI believe that faster Internet speeds are a \'nice to have\', not a \'need to have\'. The extra $30 billion required for fibre to the home would have to come from somewhere; either more debt or <em>instead of</em> more worthwhile spending in areas such as health and education. If we had already overcome challenges with homelessness, aboriginal disadvantage or were leading the world in educational outcomes, I might be more inclined. But we haven\'t. We must choose our priorities carefully - as unfortunately there are real financial constraints which we have to live within. We are not talking pocket change; thirty thousand million dollars, I can\'t even comprehend that amount of money. So my second point is about choosing our <em>priorities</em> correctly as a community.\r\n\r\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\r\nPlaces that need fibre to the premises (for example; hospitals, schools, universities, and organisations) will get it because they really need it. Homes do require fast broadband, but not \"super-fast broadband at any cost\". At home we do not <em>need</em> to stream 15 high-definition TV shows at the same time - this is not a goal that inspires me to think it is acceptable for government to take more money from us as a community than they already do. Just as the universal solution to providing public transport is not to buy everyone a Ferrari, fibre to the home is not proportional to the need. Providing everyone (including me) with a Ferrari is just wasteful; spend the money on more worthwhile things. So my third point is that as individuals and as a society we should be making decisions that are <em>appropriate</em>, that are \'fit for purpose\' for the use-cases. In this world, where we unfortunately need to make trade-offs, the very fastest internet only needs to be available where it clearly provides the tangible benefits to the community that can justify the costs.\r\n\r\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\r\nWith the move of the Internet towards social media and mobile devices, people are choosing the shape of the connectivity they want. They want their Internet ubiquitous - available everywhere they go, and personalised to them. In years gone by there was a need for a family, residential telephone service. But this has given way to multiple mobiles in one home, with many families now choosing to forgo their home landline altogether. (The only home calls I get these days are from telemarketers anyway!). Wireless communications naturally fit this preference for ubiquity, which is why almost everyone now agrees that the last-leg (how the physical device is ultimately connected) should usually be wireless. People don\'t like wires, they don\'t want to be tied-down. They really want great access wherever they happen to be; at home, in the street, on the bus or at the shopping mall. In practice, providing that wireless can give them adequate speed, they will choose wireless over wired every-time and care far more about cost than whether their wireless access is from their home-LAN or a node down the street. \r\n\r\nSo the questions we need to answer as a community become practical;<li>How far can last-leg wireless be, while providing the bandwidth realistically required?</li>\r\n	<li>Do we really need the most costly option of fibre to every one of the 5.6 million homes in Australia to feed these transmitters, or will fibre to each of the 120,000 streets in Australia provide the speeds we need?</li>\r\n\r\n<br/>Now that I have covered my reasons why the NBN should be built using Fibre to the Node, I want to address some of the political spin surrounding the NBN. \r\n\r\nI fully understand the \'vision\' of providing the very fastest possible Internet to every Australian. I want Australia to lead the world as much as the next guy. But it is immature and negligent to give scant regard to the costs of doing this, and I feel the benefits of fibre to the home are being significantly overplayed. \r\n\r\nPlease consider:\r\n	<li>Korea has the fastest internet in the world and they do not (and will not) lead the Internet-economy. Indeed I struggle to think of one Korean software or Internet company.</li>\r\n	<li>The fastest possible Internet may indeed revolutionise remote surgery, but surgery isn\'t (and will not be) conducted in the home. Wireless was once considered unreliable, but this is no longer true with technology from remote alarm systems and telemetry moving toward the mainstream - developed by organisations like NASA who have had to depend on wireless communications to protects its people and equipment. So again healthcare is, at best, a weak argument for Fibre to the Home.</li>\r\n	<li>People argue that the problem with wireless spectrum is that it is limited, and we all have to share it - unlike our own fibre line to our house. But the history of technology has shown these kind of so-called \'physical limits\' wrong again and again. I recall in the 1990s that not much more than 14.4kbps was considered physically possible over copper - hilarious in retrospect. In my own experience, improvements in wireless bandwidth have continually outpaced my demand for the increased speed (Wifi A/B/G/N/, 3G and 4G). And the latest wireless research has achieved 100Gb/s (1000x faster than what fibre-to-the-home is currently promising), so there is a very good chance that this improvement in wireless will continue. And even if I\'m wrong, we can always do fibre when the costs of that particular technology have come down further.  \r\n 	<li>The \'Educational\' benefits of Fibre-to-the-Home are tenuous at best. The benefits of faster Internet tail-off fast. There is indeed an enormous difference between having no Internet and having access. And again there is a significant benefit to having fast Internet; moving up from say dial-up to ADSL. But there is a much smaller difference between ADSL and Fibre. I see evidence of this everyday; I pull up to 100mb/s at my office and it is barely any different to the Internet experience I get at home. Indeed for most of the things we currently do, latency is far more important than bandwidth. Would 100+mb/s at home mean that my kids have better educational opportunities? I think not. Wikipedia, Google, ITunesU, and Skype, all work perfectly fine over wireless, or even old-copper while it is still around.</li>\r\n	<li>One argument for the NBN was that it was necessary for the government to step in because of market failure. There was some truth to this, in that when rational consideration was given to requirements and costs, the government of the time\'s NBN \'vision\' was somewhat different to what was sensible. The market would not naturally deliver the degree of inefficiency (servicing remote areas and the like) without certainty of a return. The government should have subsidised this inefficiency openly, by subsidising private enterprise to deliver the social good. Instead they again made the classic mistake of thinking that Government can run a business - and have wasted billions of dollars in the process.\r\n	<li>Another justification I hear for a $100 billion Fibre-to-the-Home programme is that the \"Copper needs replacing anyway\" - but does it really? People are moving away from having fixed phones at home, choosing to live mobile only. And more people now access the Internet by mobile than through fixed connections. Fixed fibre to the home feels like a 20th century solution to a problem that doesn\'t exist. People are voting with their feet; The future is indeed wireless.\r\n\r\n<br/>To conclude, I agree that to avoid unassailable disadvantage we must guarantee access to high-speed Internet as a right for all Australians. But I contend that while ensuring this right for all the members of our community, we must favour the most cost-effective way of achieving our goal; keeping in mind our bigger priorities and  recognising the way in which the Internet is <em>already</em> moving.\r\n\r\n\r\n','NBN: Fibre to the Node is the way to go','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-01 07:49:54','2014-08-31 23:49:54','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),