(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),(591,1,'2016-02-28 12:39:11','2016-02-28 04:39:11','[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. I\'m certainly in the minority in my industry-techie-types love the best gear. But here are the reasons I don\'t support FTTP:\n\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\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\". \n\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.\n\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\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.\n\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\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. \n\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.\n\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\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. \n\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>\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>\n\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. \n\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. \n\nPlease consider:\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>\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>\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>\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>\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>\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.\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.\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.\n\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','','inherit','closed','open','','519-autosave-v1','','','2016-02-28 12:39:11','2016-02-28 04:39:11','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-autosave-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(590,1,'2014-09-01 08:06:31','2014-09-01 00:06:31','[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 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. 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 08:06:31','2014-09-01 00:06:31','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(592,1,'2014-09-04 22:51:36','2014-09-04 14:51:36','The Unity Framework\n\nFeatures (Epic) \nRequirements (Stories/What)\nSpecifications (How)\n\nUser Stories: As a [user], I want [requirement] so that [benefit]\nAcceptance Tests: Given [situation] when [action] then [result]\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://www.flexerasoftware.com/products/entitlement-management/flexnet-licensing/\" title=\"FlexLM\"></a>\n<a href=\"https://www.openlm.com/\" title=\"OpenLM\"></a>\n<a href=\"http://jmonkeyengine.org\">JMonkey 3D Engine</a>\n\nConfig tools\nGraph Visualisation: Keylines\n\nTime Series\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','','','2014-09-04 22:51:36','2014-09-04 14:51:36','',436,'http://www.smartestplace.net/436-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(593,1,'2014-09-07 22:06:56','2014-09-07 14:06:56','<blockquote>\"Everything is obvious once you know the answer\"</blockquote>\n<div style=\"font-size: 20px;\">\n<em>- Duncan Watts</em></div>','Obviousness','','publish','closed','open','','593','','','2014-09-07 22:11:59','2014-09-07 14:11:59','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?p=593',0,'post','',0),(594,1,'2014-09-07 22:06:56','2014-09-07 14:06:56','\"Everything is obvious once you know the answer\"\n\n- Duncan Watts','','','inherit','closed','open','','593-revision-v1','','','2014-09-07 22:06:56','2014-09-07 14:06:56','',593,'http://www.smartestplace.net/593-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(595,1,'2014-09-07 22:08:36','2014-09-07 14:08:36','\"Everything is obvious once you know the answer\"\n\n<em>- Duncan Watts</em>','Obviousness','','inherit','closed','open','','593-revision-v1','','','2014-09-07 22:08:36','2014-09-07 14:08:36','',593,'http://www.smartestplace.net/593-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(596,1,'2014-09-07 22:11:59','2014-09-07 14:11:59','<blockquote>\"Everything is obvious once you know the answer\"</blockquote>\n<div style=\"font-size: 20px;\">\n<em>- Duncan Watts</em></div>','Obviousness','','inherit','closed','open','','593-revision-v1','','','2014-09-07 22:11:59','2014-09-07 14:11:59','',593,'http://www.smartestplace.net/593-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(597,1,'2014-09-07 22:18:04','2014-09-07 14:18:04','[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:\n\n<strong>1) Costs vs. Benefits</strong>\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 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.\n\n<strong>2) Priorities</strong>\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.\n\n<strong>3) Appropriateness</strong>\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.\n\n<strong>4) People Centric Internet</strong>\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. \n\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>\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>\n\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. \n\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. \n\nPlease consider:\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>\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>\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>\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>\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>\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.\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.\n<li>The argument the fibre to the home is cheaper to maintain also succumbs to this argument. There would be less fibre to maintain, and history would suggest the last leg wireless would be replaced anyway - as new technologies come along.\n\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','','inherit','closed','open','','519-revision-v1','','','2014-09-07 22:18:04','2014-09-07 14:18:04','',519,'http://www.smartestplace.net/519-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(599,1,'2014-10-17 07:16:47','2014-10-16 23:16:47','[caption width=\"670\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://pad3.whstatic.com/images/thumb/0/06/Create-a-User-Manual-Step-1.jpg/670px-Create-a-User-Manual-Step-1.jpg\" width=\"670\" height=\"503\" alt=\"Personal User Manual\" class /> Source: WikiHow.com[/caption]\r\nA few years ago when I was flying back to Canada, I came across an interesting article in Canadian Business about a CEO from Europe who has a personal User Guide that he gives to new members of his team so they can get to know his management style more quickly.\r\n\r\nI think this is an excellent idea, so I\'ve decided to produce my own. I\'ll publish it here once it is ready to go.','A Personal User Manual','','publish','closed','open','','personal-user-manual','','','2014-10-19 11:34:45','2014-10-19 03:34:45','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?p=599',0,'post','',0),(600,1,'2014-10-17 07:16:47','2014-10-16 23:16:47','[caption width=\"670\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://pad3.whstatic.com/images/thumb/0/06/Create-a-User-Manual-Step-1.jpg/670px-Create-a-User-Manual-Step-1.jpg\" width=\"670\" height=\"503\" alt=\"Personal User Manual\" class /> Source: WikiHow.com[/caption]\r\nA few years ago when I was flying back to Canada, I came across an interesting article in Canadian Business about a CEO from Europe who has a personal User Guide that he gives to new members of his team so they can get to know his management style more quickly.\r\n\r\nI think this is an excellent idea, so I\'ve decided to produce my own. I\'ll publish it here once it is ready to go.','A Personal User Manual','','inherit','closed','open','','599-revision-v1','','','2014-10-17 07:16:47','2014-10-16 23:16:47','',599,'http://www.smartestplace.net/599-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(601,1,'2014-10-17 07:18:10','2014-10-16 23:18:10','<blockquote>\"It is better to be vaguely right than exactly wrong\"</blockquote>\r\n<div style=\"font-size: 20px;\">\r\n<em>- Carveth Read</em></div>','Vaguely Right','','publish','closed','open','','vaguely-right','','','2014-10-19 11:33:45','2014-10-19 03:33:45','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?p=601',0,'post','',0),(602,1,'2014-10-17 07:18:10','2014-10-16 23:18:10','<blockquote>\"It is better to be vaguely right than exactly wrong\"</blockquote>\r\n<div style=\"font-size: 20px;\">\r\n<em>- Carveth Read</em></div>','Vaguely Right','','inherit','closed','open','','601-revision-v1','','','2014-10-17 07:18:10','2014-10-16 23:18:10','',601,'http://www.smartestplace.net/601-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(603,1,'2014-10-19 07:58:03','2014-10-18 23:58:03','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\n\n- Highland Park Whisky\n<a href=\"https://m.danmurphys.com.au/mob/product/DM_73487/highland-park-12-year-old-scotch-whisky-700ml.jsp;jsessionid=631E9EEF7BE1AAF797BD3D0906B77ECA.ncdlmorasp1301?bmUID=kDdq4H_\">Like this</a>\n\n- Nice water glasses\nLike this from TableCulture\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/wpid-20141116_131343.jpg\"><img title=\"20141116_131343.jpg\" class=\"alignnone size-full\"  alt=\"image\" src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/wpid-20141116_131343.jpg\" /></a> \n\n- Grey Canvas Crocs\n<a href=\"http://www.bstore.com.au/crocs-santa-cruz-espresso-espresso#\">Like this</a>\n\n- Memento DVD\nMy favourite movie on DVD. <a href=\"http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B004FHCH9Q/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1416724842&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SY200_QL40\">Like this</a>\n\n- A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\n\n- A book: Tribes by Seth Godin\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1591842336\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \n\n- A staple gun \n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\n\n- Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\n\n- Another book: Leadership by Rudolph Giuliani\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1401359280\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \n\n- A NUC - To easily have Bittorrent, Netflix & HBO on our TV\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\n\n- Another book: Zero to One by Peter Thiel \n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/0804139296\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a>','Steven\'s <br>Christmas List 2014','','publish','closed','open','','christmas-list-2014','','','2014-11-23 14:42:35','2014-11-23 06:42:35','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?page_id=603',0,'page','',0),(604,1,'2014-10-19 07:07:35','2014-10-18 23:07:35','','Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 07:07:35','2014-10-18 23:07:35','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(605,1,'2014-10-18 23:12:28','2014-10-18 15:12:28','','Checklists','','publish','closed','closed','','checklists','','','2014-10-18 23:12:28','2014-10-18 15:12:28','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/checklists/',0,'page','',0),(606,1,'2014-10-19 07:16:58','2014-10-18 23:16:58','','Test List','','publish','closed','open','','test-list','','','2014-10-19 07:16:58','2014-10-18 23:16:58','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?post_type=checklist&#038;p=606',0,'checklist','',0),(607,1,'2014-10-19 07:58:03','2014-10-18 23:58:03','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on this list!)\r\n\r\n1) A not-mini Spirit Level <a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this one)</a>\r\n\r\n2) A staple gun <a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this)</a>\r\n\r\n3) A basic Bluetooth stereo - For my shed <a href=\"http://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/bush-bluetooth-speaker-sound-bar-black-prbas750bt?searchTerm=bluetooth speaker\" title=\"Simple Bluetooth Stereo\" target=\"_blank\">(something like this)</a>\r\n\r\n4) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\nMore expensive ($180)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n5) A NUC - Allows your TV to download and play Bittorrent directly, plus more\r\nMore expensive (US$350+PP) \r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Like this from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 07:58:03','2014-10-18 23:58:03','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(608,1,'2014-10-19 08:17:03','2014-10-19 00:17:03','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\n\n- A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\n\n- A book: Tribes by Seth Godin\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1591842336 \" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \n\n- A staple gun \n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\n\n- Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\n\n- A NUC - To easily have Bittorrent, Netflix & HBO on our TV\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\n\n- Another book: Tribes by Seth Godin\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1591842336 \" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \n\n ','Steven\'s <br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-autosave-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:17:03','2014-10-19 00:17:03','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-autosave-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(617,1,'2014-10-19 08:10:23','2014-10-19 00:10:23','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n1) A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n- A book: Tribes by Seth Godin\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1591842336 \" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\"></a> \r\n\r\n2) A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n3) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n4) A NUC - To easily have Bittorrent, Netflix & HBO on our TV\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s<br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:10:23','2014-10-19 00:10:23','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(609,1,'2014-10-19 08:00:51','2014-10-19 00:00:51','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on this list!)\r\n\r\n1) A not-mini Spirit Level <a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this one)</a>\r\n\r\n2) A staple gun <a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this)</a>\r\n\r\n3) A basic Bluetooth stereo - For my shed <a href=\"http://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/bush-bluetooth-speaker-sound-bar-black-prbas750bt?searchTerm=bluetooth speaker\" title=\"Simple Bluetooth Stereo\" target=\"_blank\">(something like this)</a>\r\n\r\n4) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n5) A NUC - Allows you TV to download and play Bittorrent directly, plus Netflix+HBO\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:00:51','2014-10-19 00:00:51','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(615,1,'2014-10-19 08:05:24','2014-10-19 00:05:24','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n1) A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n2) A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n3) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n4) A NUC - Allows you TV to download and play Bittorrent directly, plus Netflix+HBO\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s<br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:05:24','2014-10-19 00:05:24','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(610,1,'2014-10-19 08:01:22','2014-10-19 00:01:22','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on this list!)\r\n\r\n1) A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this one)</a>\r\n\r\n2) A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this)</a>\r\n\r\n3) A basic Bluetooth stereo - For my shed <a href=\"http://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/bush-bluetooth-speaker-sound-bar-black-prbas750bt?searchTerm=bluetooth speaker\" title=\"Simple Bluetooth Stereo\" target=\"_blank\">(something like this)</a>\r\n\r\n4) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n5) A NUC - Allows you TV to download and play Bittorrent directly, plus Netflix+HBO\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:01:22','2014-10-19 00:01:22','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(614,1,'2014-10-19 08:03:37','2014-10-19 00:03:37','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n1) A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n2) A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n3) A basic Bluetooth stereo - For my shed <a href=\"http://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/bush-bluetooth-speaker-sound-bar-black-prbas750bt?searchTerm=bluetooth speaker\" title=\"Simple Bluetooth Stereo\" target=\"_blank\">(Something like this)</a>\r\n\r\n4) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n5) A NUC - Allows you TV to download and play Bittorrent directly, plus Netflix+HBO\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s<br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:03:37','2014-10-19 00:03:37','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(611,1,'2014-10-19 08:02:00','2014-10-19 00:02:00','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on this list!)\r\n\r\n1) A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this one)</a>\r\n\r\n2) A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this)</a>\r\n\r\n3) A basic Bluetooth stereo - For my shed <a href=\"http://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/bush-bluetooth-speaker-sound-bar-black-prbas750bt?searchTerm=bluetooth speaker\" title=\"Simple Bluetooth Stereo\" target=\"_blank\">(something like this)</a>\r\n\r\n4) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n5) A NUC - Allows you TV to download and play Bittorrent directly, plus Netflix+HBO\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s<br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:02:00','2014-10-19 00:02:00','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(612,1,'2014-10-19 08:02:28','2014-10-19 00:02:28','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n1) A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this one)</a>\r\n\r\n2) A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this)</a>\r\n\r\n3) A basic Bluetooth stereo - For my shed <a href=\"http://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/bush-bluetooth-speaker-sound-bar-black-prbas750bt?searchTerm=bluetooth speaker\" title=\"Simple Bluetooth Stereo\" target=\"_blank\">(something like this)</a>\r\n\r\n4) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n5) A NUC - Allows you TV to download and play Bittorrent directly, plus Netflix+HBO\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s<br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:02:28','2014-10-19 00:02:28','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(613,1,'2014-10-19 08:03:12','2014-10-19 00:03:12','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n1) A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n2) A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">(Like this)</a>\r\n\r\n3) A basic Bluetooth stereo - For my shed <a href=\"http://www.officeworks.com.au/shop/officeworks/bush-bluetooth-speaker-sound-bar-black-prbas750bt?searchTerm=bluetooth speaker\" title=\"Simple Bluetooth Stereo\" target=\"_blank\">(Something like this)</a>\r\n\r\n4) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n5) A NUC - Allows you TV to download and play Bittorrent directly, plus Netflix+HBO\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s<br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:03:12','2014-10-19 00:03:12','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(616,1,'2014-10-19 08:06:42','2014-10-19 00:06:42','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n1) A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n2) A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n3) Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n4) A NUC - To easily have Bittorrent, Netflix & HBO on our TV\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s<br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:06:42','2014-10-19 00:06:42','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(618,1,'2014-10-19 08:14:24','2014-10-19 00:14:24','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n- A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n- A book: Tribes by Seth Godin\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1591842336 \" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\"></a> \r\n\r\n- A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n- Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n- A NUC - To easily have Bittorrent, Netflix & HBO on our TV\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s <br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:14:24','2014-10-19 00:14:24','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(619,1,'2014-10-19 08:15:00','2014-10-19 00:15:00','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n- A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n- A book: Tribes by Seth Godin\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1591842336 \" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \r\n\r\n- A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n- Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n- A NUC - To easily have Bittorrent, Netflix & HBO on our TV\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s <br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:15:00','2014-10-19 00:15:00','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(620,1,'2014-10-19 08:18:05','2014-10-19 00:18:05','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n- A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n- A book: Tribes by Seth Godin\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1591842336\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \r\n\r\n- A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n- Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n- A NUC - To easily have Bittorrent, Netflix & HBO on our TV\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n- Another book: Leadership by Rudolph Giuliani\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1401359280\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s <br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:18:05','2014-10-19 00:18:05','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(621,1,'2014-10-19 08:19:00','2014-10-19 00:19:00','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\r\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\r\n\r\n- A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\r\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n- A book: Tribes by Seth Godin\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1591842336\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \r\n\r\n- A staple gun \r\n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\r\n\r\n- Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\r\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\r\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\r\n\r\n- Another book: Leadership by Rudolph Giuliani\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1401359280\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \r\n\r\n- A NUC - To easily have Bittorrent, Netflix & HBO on our TV\r\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\r\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\r\n\r\n ','Steven\'s <br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 08:19:00','2014-10-19 00:19:00','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(622,1,'2014-10-19 11:06:47','2014-10-19 03:06:47','Here is my Christmas List for 2014, in no particular order:\n(Let Suzanne know if you\'re going to get something on my list, please!)\n\n- A Spirit Level (not a short one!)\n<a href=\"http://www.vertextools.com/media/catalog/product/cache/12/image/800x800/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/p/spirit-level_3.jpg\" title=\"Spirit Level\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\n\n- A book: Tribes by Seth Godin\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1591842336\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \n\n- A staple gun \n<a href=\"https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/3fee24f3-eadf-483a-8ac5-464ea18d3769.jpg\" title=\"Staple Gun\" target=\"_blank\">Like this</a>\n\n- Adobe Lightroom - Software to touch up digital photos\n<em>More expensive ($180)</em>\n<a href=\"http://www.corpsoft.com.au/cache/item-1409752public.html?cache=no\" title=\"Adobe Lightroom\" target=\"_blank\">Get it here</a>\n\n- Another book: Leadership by Rudolph Giuliani\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/1401359280\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a> \n\n- A NUC - To easily have Bittorrent, Netflix & HBO on our TV\n<em>More expensive (US$350+PP) </em>\n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/B00H3YT8CC \" target=\"_blank\">Get it here from Amazon</a>\n\n- Another book: Zero to One by Peter Thiel \n<a href=\"http://amzn.com/0804139296\" title=\"Tribes\" target=\"_blank\">Here it is</a>','Steven\'s <br>Christmas List 2014','','inherit','closed','open','','603-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 11:06:47','2014-10-19 03:06:47','',603,'http://www.smartestplace.net/603-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(627,1,'2014-10-19 11:44:08','2014-10-19 03:44:08','','Warming','','inherit','closed','open','','warming','','','2014-10-19 11:44:08','2014-10-19 03:44:08','',625,'http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(629,1,'2014-08-01 11:50:24','2014-08-01 03:50:24','<center>[caption width=\"490\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/green-house/2010/01/22/solarhomex-large.jpg\" width=\"490\" height=\"337\" class /> Source: USA Today[/caption]</center>\r\n\r\nOne thing that makes me laugh about devotees of the Green-Left is they define themselves by ... wait for it ... What they buy. \r\n\r\n\"Look at my rainwater tank/Tesla/grey-water system, organic fruit smoothies, ....\". So convenient of them to delude themselves into thinking that the shiny new solar panel array on their house grew in a forest, without any help from the nasty mining or petroleum industries. So long as it all makes them feel \'nice\' to be doing the \'right thing\', I suppose it is worth it. Ha.\r\n\r\nI\'m likely to get all of the above too. But at least I am honest enough to admit the reason why: I like shiny new stuff, particularly if it saves me money in the long run.\r\n\r\nOne person I heard called this green consumerism the quest for \"eco-bling\". It is obviously more important to some to be seen doing the right thing, than to do the right thing.\r\n\r\n<center>[caption width=\"480\" align=\"alignnone\"]<img src=\"http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/no-bling-480.gif\" width=\"480\" height=\"480\" class /> Source: Venturebeat[/caption]</center>','What makes you Green?','','publish','closed','open','','makes-green','','','2014-10-19 14:55:48','2014-10-19 06:55:48','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?p=629',0,'post','',0),(630,1,'2014-10-20 11:34:45','2014-10-20 03:34:45','<center><img src=\"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kbq4y_QD5M/TmAw0Qg-PGI/AAAAAAAAABY/jqJatthlDWY/s1600/1_4_2_1_1.sflb.jpg\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" alt=\"Pollution\" class=\"alignnone\" /></center>\n\nJust to be absolutely clear: Yes, I do believe anthropogenic climate change is occurring. And... I think it is totally worth it.\n\nHaving holidayed in China just last year, I find it hard to believe arguments that humans are not impacting the climate, but I also think that the change being caused is *far* less than the Green-Left would like us to think. The truth is that real warming has been consistently below that predicted by climate models, and many climate scientists accept that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 15 years or so. Yes there is a longer-term trend, but it really ain\'t that bad.\n\nJust take a look at this chart using the IPCC\'s own figures:\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg\"><img src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming-254x300.jpg\" alt=\"Warming\" width=\"450\" height=\"500\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-627\" /></a>\n\nFrom my own experience with the complex transient models in my profession, the problem with these models is that they are highly dependent on the assumed feedback constants - this is the Butterfly Effect in action. The difference between entering 0.1, 0.11 and 0.12 into an equation can be all the difference between predictions of an ice-age, life as normal, or a parched wasteland.\n\nHowever the purpose of this post is not to attack these computer models, but instead to defend the warming that we are all implicitly choosing to have - a choice reflected by our individual actions. I honesty don\'t mind if people choose to post to \'Get Up!\' about the need for more wind-power from their shiny, new iPhone 6 and then drive (in their imported car) to the polling booth to vote for Senator Ludlum - just so long as they recognise their own hypocrisy and realise they are just talking the talk.\n\nI am totally at peace with my choice, as my view is that the climate change we are causing is simply worth it - because of the quality of life it offers my family, and also for the enormous numbers of people that are being given a better life in the developing world. \n\nOver the past twenty years alone vast numbers of people have moved out of poverty, particularly in China.\n\n<center><img src=\"http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-XC741_POVERT_E_20130417171914.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"943\" alt=\"Poverty rates\" class=\"alignnone\" /></center>\n\nWhen these percentages are translated to numbers, we are already talking 1,500,000,000 people who have moved out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years. Long may this trend continue, but don\'t kid yourself into thinking it would have been possible without global warming. Make your choice, and then live with that choice. I have.\n\nThis evidence is a far stronger motivator for my actions than Green-Left political arguments: That sometime in the future (but conveniently not yet), millions of people will have their homes inundated by rising sea-levels. I won\'t hold my breath for this, but even if sea-levels were to rise, people aren\'t just going to sit there and ... drown. They would move. So even this risk acceptable, and more than compensated for by the global benefits real people are enjoying right now. My house is only 15 metres above sea-level, indeed I may have to move if the doomsayers most pessimistic projections are correct.\n\nIronically the Green-Left are engaged in an ongoing fear campaign to try to influence voters ... when they so vocally denounce such tactics when used by the right. The consistent message from these groups has been negative: That we are stuffing up the world. That we are rapidly approaching a tipping point. And that we need to radically cut back on consumption. This is a campaign that seeks to make us all feel guilty, and ... here is the key bit ... vote for politicians that will dismantle the very system that has brought us prosperity in the first place.\n\nI am a strong believer that we should make decisions based upon opportunity, not fear. I choose to be both a pragmatist and an optimist, and in my mind the opportunities offered by continued development and growth are <em>far</em> more tangible than the debilitating fear that it is all going to suddenly go so wrong. \n\nThe Green-Left are the real Axis of Evil, and being green is just a sugar-coating so they can try and administer their \"Big Government knows best\" doctrine. Not on my watch.','Climate Change - <br>A worthwhile endeavor','','inherit','closed','open','','625-autosave-v1','','','2014-10-20 11:34:45','2014-10-20 03:34:45','',625,'http://www.smartestplace.net/625-autosave-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(625,1,'2014-10-19 11:48:10','2014-10-19 03:48:10','<center><img src=\"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kbq4y_QD5M/TmAw0Qg-PGI/AAAAAAAAABY/jqJatthlDWY/s1600/1_4_2_1_1.sflb.jpg\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" alt=\"Pollution\" class=\"alignnone\" /></center>\r\n\r\nJust to be absolutely clear: Yes, I do believe anthropogenic climate change is occurring. And... I think it is totally worth it.\r\n\r\nHaving holidayed in China just last year, I find it hard to believe arguments that humans are not impacting the climate, but I also think that the change being caused is *far* less than the Green-Left would like us to think. The truth is that real warming has been consistently below that predicted by climate models, and many climate scientists accept that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 15 years or so. Yes there is a longer-term trend, but it really ain\'t that bad.\r\n\r\nJust take a look at this chart using the IPCC\'s own figures:\r\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg\"><img src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming-254x300.jpg\" alt=\"Warming\" width=\"450\" height=\"500\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-627\" /></a>\r\n\r\nFrom my own experience with the complex transient models in my profession, the problem with these models is that they are highly dependent on the assumed feedback constants - this is the Butterfly Effect in action. The difference between entering 0.1, 0.11 and 0.12 into an equation can be all the difference between predictions of an ice-age, life as normal, or a parched wasteland.\r\n\r\nHowever the purpose of this post is not to attack these computer models, but instead to defend the warming that we are all implicitly choosing to have - a choice reflected by our individual actions. I honesty don\'t mind if people choose to post to \'Get Up!\' about the need for more wind-power from their shiny, new iPhone 6 and then drive (in their imported car) to the polling booth to vote for Senator Ludlum - just so long as they recognise their own hypocrisy and realise they are just talking the talk.\r\n\r\nI am totally at peace with my choice, as my view is that the climate change we are causing is, simply, worth it - because of the quality of life it offers my family, and also for the enormous numbers of people that are being given the chance of a better life in the developing world. \r\n\r\nOver the past twenty years alone vast numbers of people have moved out of poverty, particularly in China.\r\n\r\n<center><img src=\"http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-XC741_POVERT_E_20130417171914.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"943\" alt=\"Poverty rates\" class=\"alignnone\" /></center>\r\n\r\nWhen these percentages are translated to numbers, we are already talking 1,500,000,000 people who have moved out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years. Long may this trend continue, but don\'t kid yourself into thinking it would have been possible without global warming. Make your choice, and then live with that choice.\r\n\r\nThis evidence is a far stronger motivator for my actions than Green-Left political arguments: That sometime in the future (but conveniently not yet), millions of people will have their homes inundated by rising sea-levels. I won\'t hold my breath for this, but even if sea-levels were to rise, people aren\'t just going to sit there and ... drown. They would move. So even this risk acceptable, and more than compensated for by the global benefits real people are enjoying right now. My house is only 15 metres above sea-level, indeed I may have to move if the doomsayers most pessimistic projections are correct.\r\n\r\nIronically the Green-Left are engaged in an ongoing fear campaign to try to influence voters ... when they so vocally denounce such tactics when used by the right. The consistent message from these groups has been negative: That we are stuffing up the world. That we are rapidly approaching a tipping point. And that we need to radically cut back on consumption. This is a campaign that seeks to make us all feel guilty, and ... here is the key bit ... vote for politicians that will dismantle the very system that has brought us prosperity in the first place.\r\n\r\nI am a strong believer that we should make decisions based upon opportunity, not fear. I choose to be both a pragmatist and an optimist, and in my mind the opportunities offered by continued development and growth are <em>far</em> more tangible than the debilitating fear that it is all going to suddenly go so wrong. \r\n\r\nThe Green-Left are the real Axis of Evil, and being green is just a sugar-coating so they can try and administer their \"Big Government knows best\" doctrine. Not on my watch.','Climate Change - <br>A worthwhile endeavor','','publish','closed','open','','climate-change-worthwhile-endeavor','','','2014-10-20 11:36:08','2014-10-20 03:36:08','',0,'http://www.smartestplace.net/?p=625',0,'post','',0),(628,1,'2014-10-19 11:48:10','2014-10-19 03:48:10','Just to be absolutely clear: Yes, I do believe climate change is occurring...\r\n\r\nI find it hard to believe arguments that humans are not impacting the climate, but I also think that the change being caused is *far* less than the \"Green-Left\" would like us to think. The truth is that real warming has been consistently below that predicted by climate computer models, and many climate scientists accept that there has been no statistically significant warming occurring over the past 18 years. \r\n\r\nJust take a look at this chart using the IPCC\'s own figures:\r\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg\"><img src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming-254x300.jpg\" alt=\"Warming\" width=\"254\" height=\"300\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-627\" /></a>\r\n\r\nBut the purpose of this post is to defend the warming that we are all choosing to have. I am at peace with this choice, as my view is that the climate change we are causing is simply worth it - because of the enormous numbers of people that are being given a better life.\r\n\r\nOver the past twenty years alone vast numbers of people have moved out of poverty, particularly in China. \r\n\r\nIronically the left are engaged in an ongoing fear campaign to try to influence voters ... when they so vocally denounce such tactics when used by the right. The left are the real Axis of Evil, and being green is just a sugar-coating so they can try and administer their \"Big Government knows best\" doctrine. Not on my watch.','Climate Change - A worthwhile endeavor','','inherit','closed','open','','625-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 11:48:10','2014-10-19 03:48:10','',625,'http://www.smartestplace.net/625-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(631,1,'2014-10-19 12:08:01','2014-10-19 04:08:01','<img src=\"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kbq4y_QD5M/TmAw0Qg-PGI/AAAAAAAAABY/jqJatthlDWY/s1600/1_4_2_1_1.sflb.jpg\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" alt=\"Pollution\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nJust to be absolutely clear: Yes, I do believe climate change is occurring.\r\n\r\nI find it hard to believe arguments that humans are not impacting the climate, but I also think that the change being caused is *far* less than the \"Green-Left\" would like us to think. The truth is that real warming has been consistently below that predicted by climate computer models, and many climate scientists accept that there has been no statistically significant warming occurring over the past 18 years. Just take a look at this chart using the IPCC\'s own figures:\r\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg\"><img src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming-254x300.jpg\" alt=\"Warming\" width=\"254\" height=\"300\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-627\" /></a>\r\n\r\nBut the purpose of this post is to defend the warming that we are all choosing to have, a choice refleted by our individual actions. I am at peace with my choice, as my view is that the climate change we are causing is simply worth it - because of the quality of life it offers my family and also for the enormous numbers of people that are being given a better life in the developing world. This evidence is far stronger a motivator for my actions than the fear that sometime in the future, but conveniently not yet, millions of people will have their homes inundated by rising sea leves. I won\'t hold my breath for this, but even if sealevels were to rise, people aren\'t just going to sit there and ... drown. They\'d move, and that is still an acceptable risk. My house is only 15 metres above sea-level, I may have to move.\r\n\r\nOver the past twenty years alone vast numbers of people have moved out of poverty, particularly in China.\r\n<img src=\"http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-XC741_POVERT_E_20130417171914.jpg\" width=\"359\" height=\"239\" alt=\"Poverty rates\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nWhen these percentages are translated to numbers, we are already talking about over 1,000,000,000 people who have moved out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years. And the trend continues.\r\n\r\nIronically the left are engaged in an ongoing fear campaign to try to influence voters ... when they so vocally denounce such tactics when used by the right. \r\nThe consistent message from these groups has been a fear campaign: That we are stuffing up the world. That we are reaching a tipping point. And that we need to radically cut back on consumption. This is a campaign that seeks to make us all feel guilty, and ... here is the key bit ... vote for politicians that will free us from the very system that has brought us the prosperity in the first place.\r\n\r\nI am a strong believer that we should make decisions based upon opportunity, not fear. I choose to be a pragmatist and an optimist, and in my mind at least the opportunities offered by continued development and growth are far more tangible than the fear that it is all going to suddenly go so wrong. \r\n\r\nThe left are the real Axis of Evil, and being green is just a sugar-coating so they can try and administer their \"Big Government knows best\" doctrine. Not on my watch.','Climate Change - A worthwhile endeavor','','inherit','closed','open','','625-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 12:08:01','2014-10-19 04:08:01','',625,'http://www.smartestplace.net/625-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(632,1,'2014-10-19 12:09:01','2014-10-19 04:09:01','<img src=\"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kbq4y_QD5M/TmAw0Qg-PGI/AAAAAAAAABY/jqJatthlDWY/s1600/1_4_2_1_1.sflb.jpg\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" alt=\"Pollution\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nJust to be absolutely clear: Yes, I do believe climate change is occurring.\r\n\r\nI find it hard to believe arguments that humans are not impacting the climate, but I also think that the change being caused is *far* less than the \"Green-Left\" would like us to think. The truth is that real warming has been consistently below that predicted by climate computer models, and many climate scientists accept that there has been no statistically significant warming occurring over the past 18 years. Just take a look at this chart using the IPCC\'s own figures:\r\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg\"><img src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming-254x300.jpg\" alt=\"Warming\" width=\"254\" height=\"300\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-627\" /></a>\r\n\r\nBut the purpose of this post is to defend the warming that we are all choosing to have, a choice refleted by our individual actions. I am at peace with my choice, as my view is that the climate change we are causing is simply worth it - because of the quality of life it offers my family and also for the enormous numbers of people that are being given a better life in the developing world. This evidence is far stronger a motivator for my actions than the fear that sometime in the future, but conveniently not yet, millions of people will have their homes inundated by rising sea leves. I won\'t hold my breath for this, but even if sealevels were to rise, people aren\'t just going to sit there and ... drown. They\'d move, and that is still an acceptable risk. My house is only 15 metres above sea-level, I may have to move.\r\n\r\nOver the past twenty years alone vast numbers of people have moved out of poverty, particularly in China.\r\n<img src=\"http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-XC741_POVERT_E_20130417171914.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"943\" alt=\"Poverty rates\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nWhen these percentages are translated to numbers, we are already talking about over 1,000,000,000 people who have moved out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years. And the trend continues.\r\n\r\nIronically the left are engaged in an ongoing fear campaign to try to influence voters ... when they so vocally denounce such tactics when used by the right. \r\nThe consistent message from these groups has been a fear campaign: That we are stuffing up the world. That we are reaching a tipping point. And that we need to radically cut back on consumption. This is a campaign that seeks to make us all feel guilty, and ... here is the key bit ... vote for politicians that will free us from the very system that has brought us the prosperity in the first place.\r\n\r\nI am a strong believer that we should make decisions based upon opportunity, not fear. I choose to be a pragmatist and an optimist, and in my mind at least the opportunities offered by continued development and growth are far more tangible than the fear that it is all going to suddenly go so wrong. \r\n\r\nThe left are the real Axis of Evil, and being green is just a sugar-coating so they can try and administer their \"Big Government knows best\" doctrine. Not on my watch.','Climate Change - A worthwhile endeavor','','inherit','closed','open','','625-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 12:09:01','2014-10-19 04:09:01','',625,'http://www.smartestplace.net/625-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(633,1,'2014-10-19 12:18:31','2014-10-19 04:18:31','<img src=\"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kbq4y_QD5M/TmAw0Qg-PGI/AAAAAAAAABY/jqJatthlDWY/s1600/1_4_2_1_1.sflb.jpg\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" alt=\"Pollution\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nJust to be absolutely clear: Yes, I do believe anthropogenic climate change is occurring. And... I think it is totally worth it.\r\n\r\nI find it hard to believe arguments that humans are not impacting the climate, but I also think that the change being caused is *far* less than the Green-Left would like us to think. The truth is that real warming has been consistently below that predicted by climate computer models, and many climate scientists accept that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 18 years. From my own experience with the complex transient models in my profession, the problem with these models is that they are highly dependent on the assumed feedback constants - this is the Butterfly Effect in action. The difference between entering 0.1, 0.11 and 0.12 into an equation can be all the difference between predictions of an ice-age, life as normal, or a \r\n\r\nJust take a look at this chart using the IPCC\'s own figures:\r\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg\"><img src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming-254x300.jpg\" alt=\"Warming\" width=\"254\" height=\"300\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-627\" /></a>\r\n\r\nBut the purpose of this post is actually to defend the warming that we are all choosing to have, a choice reflected by our individual actions. I am at peace with my choice, as my view is that the climate change we are causing is simply worth it - because of the quality of life it offers my family, and also for the enormous numbers of people that are being given a better life in the developing world. This evidence is far stronger a motivator for my actions than the fear that sometime in the future, but conveniently not yet, millions of people will have their homes inundated by rising sea leves. I won\'t hold my breath for this, but even if sealevels were to rise, people aren\'t just going to sit there and ... drown. They\'d move, and that is still an acceptable risk. My house is only 15 metres above sea-level, I may have to move.\r\n\r\nOver the past twenty years alone vast numbers of people have moved out of poverty, particularly in China.\r\n<img src=\"http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-XC741_POVERT_E_20130417171914.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"943\" alt=\"Poverty rates\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nWhen these percentages are translated to numbers, we are already talking about over 1,000,000,000 people who have moved out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years. And the trend continues.\r\n\r\nIronically the left are engaged in an ongoing fear campaign to try to influence voters ... when they so vocally denounce such tactics when used by the right. \r\nThe consistent message from these groups has been a fear campaign: That we are stuffing up the world. That we are reaching a tipping point. And that we need to radically cut back on consumption. This is a campaign that seeks to make us all feel guilty, and ... here is the key bit ... vote for politicians that will free us from the very system that has brought us the prosperity in the first place.\r\n\r\nI am a strong believer that we should make decisions based upon opportunity, not fear. I choose to be a pragmatist and an optimist, and in my mind at least the opportunities offered by continued development and growth are far more tangible than the fear that it is all going to suddenly go so wrong. \r\n\r\nThe left are the real Axis of Evil, and being green is just a sugar-coating so they can try and administer their \"Big Government knows best\" doctrine. Not on my watch.','Climate Change - A worthwhile endeavor','','inherit','closed','open','','625-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 12:18:31','2014-10-19 04:18:31','',625,'http://www.smartestplace.net/625-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(634,1,'2014-10-19 12:21:52','2014-10-19 04:21:52','<img src=\"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kbq4y_QD5M/TmAw0Qg-PGI/AAAAAAAAABY/jqJatthlDWY/s1600/1_4_2_1_1.sflb.jpg\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" alt=\"Pollution\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nJust to be absolutely clear: Yes, I do believe anthropogenic climate change is occurring. And... I think it is totally worth it.\r\n\r\nI find it hard to believe arguments that humans are not impacting the climate, but I also think that the change being caused is *far* less than the Green-Left would like us to think. The truth is that real warming has been consistently below that predicted by climate computer models, and many climate scientists accept that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 18 years. From my own experience with the complex transient models in my profession, the problem with these models is that they are highly dependent on the assumed feedback constants - this is the Butterfly Effect in action. The difference between entering 0.1, 0.11 and 0.12 into an equation can be all the difference between predictions of an ice-age, life as normal, or a parched wasteland.\r\n\r\nJust take a look at this chart using the IPCC\'s own figures:\r\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg\"><img src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming-254x300.jpg\" alt=\"Warming\" width=\"254\" height=\"300\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-627\" /></a>\r\n\r\nBut the purpose of this post is actually to defend the warming that we are all choosing to have, a choice reflected by our individual actions. I am at peace with my choice, as my view is that the climate change we are causing is simply worth it - because of the quality of life it offers my family, and also for the enormous numbers of people that are being given a better life in the developing world. This evidence is far stronger a motivator for my actions than the fear that sometime in the future, but conveniently not yet, millions of people will have their homes inundated by rising sea leves. I won\'t hold my breath for this, but even if sealevels were to rise, people aren\'t just going to sit there and ... drown. They\'d move, and that is still an acceptable risk. My house is only 15 metres above sea-level, I may have to move.\r\n\r\nOver the past twenty years alone vast numbers of people have moved out of poverty, particularly in China.\r\n<img src=\"http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-XC741_POVERT_E_20130417171914.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"943\" alt=\"Poverty rates\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nWhen these percentages are translated to numbers, we are already talking about over 1,000,000,000 people who have moved out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years. And the trend continues.\r\n\r\nIronically the left are engaged in an ongoing fear campaign to try to influence voters ... when they so vocally denounce such tactics when used by the right. \r\nThe consistent message from these groups has been a fear campaign: That we are stuffing up the world. That we are reaching a tipping point. And that we need to radically cut back on consumption. This is a campaign that seeks to make us all feel guilty, and ... here is the key bit ... vote for politicians that will free us from the very system that has brought us the prosperity in the first place.\r\n\r\nI am a strong believer that we should make decisions based upon opportunity, not fear. I choose to be a pragmatist and an optimist, and in my mind at least the opportunities offered by continued development and growth are far more tangible than the fear that it is all going to suddenly go so wrong. \r\n\r\nThe left are the real Axis of Evil, and being green is just a sugar-coating so they can try and administer their \"Big Government knows best\" doctrine. Not on my watch.','Climate Change - A worthwhile endeavor','','inherit','closed','open','','625-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 12:21:52','2014-10-19 04:21:52','',625,'http://www.smartestplace.net/625-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(635,1,'2014-10-19 12:23:12','2014-10-19 04:23:12','<img src=\"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kbq4y_QD5M/TmAw0Qg-PGI/AAAAAAAAABY/jqJatthlDWY/s1600/1_4_2_1_1.sflb.jpg\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" alt=\"Pollution\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nJust to be absolutely clear: Yes, I do believe anthropogenic climate change is occurring. And... I think it is totally worth it.\r\n\r\nI find it hard to believe arguments that humans are not impacting the climate, but I also think that the change being caused is *far* less than the Green-Left would like us to think. The truth is that real warming has been consistently below that predicted by climate computer models, and many climate scientists accept that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 18 years. \r\n\r\nFrom my own experience with the complex transient models in my profession, the problem with these models is that they are highly dependent on the assumed feedback constants - this is the Butterfly Effect in action. The difference between entering 0.1, 0.11 and 0.12 into an equation can be all the difference between predictions of an ice-age, life as normal, or a parched wasteland.\r\n\r\nJust take a look at this chart using the IPCC\'s own figures:\r\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg\"><img src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming-254x300.jpg\" alt=\"Warming\" width=\"254\" height=\"300\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-627\" /></a>\r\n\r\nBut the purpose of this post is actually to defend the warming that we are all choosing to have, a choice reflected by our individual actions. I am at peace with my choice, as my view is that the climate change we are causing is simply worth it - because of the quality of life it offers my family, and also for the enormous numbers of people that are being given a better life in the developing world. This evidence is far stronger a motivator for my actions than the fear that sometime in the future, but conveniently not yet, millions of people will have their homes inundated by rising sea leves. I won\'t hold my breath for this, but even if sealevels were to rise, people aren\'t just going to sit there and ... drown. They\'d move, and that is still an acceptable risk. My house is only 15 metres above sea-level, I may have to move.\r\n\r\nOver the past twenty years alone vast numbers of people have moved out of poverty, particularly in China.\r\n<img src=\"http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-XC741_POVERT_E_20130417171914.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"943\" alt=\"Poverty rates\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nWhen these percentages are translated to numbers, we are already talking about over 1,000,000,000 people who have moved out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years. And the trend continues.\r\n\r\nIronically the left are engaged in an ongoing fear campaign to try to influence voters ... when they so vocally denounce such tactics when used by the right. \r\nThe consistent message from these groups has been a fear campaign: That we are stuffing up the world. That we are reaching a tipping point. And that we need to radically cut back on consumption. This is a campaign that seeks to make us all feel guilty, and ... here is the key bit ... vote for politicians that will free us from the very system that has brought us the prosperity in the first place.\r\n\r\nI am a strong believer that we should make decisions based upon opportunity, not fear. I choose to be a pragmatist and an optimist, and in my mind at least the opportunities offered by continued development and growth are far more tangible than the fear that it is all going to suddenly go so wrong. \r\n\r\nThe left are the real Axis of Evil, and being green is just a sugar-coating so they can try and administer their \"Big Government knows best\" doctrine. Not on my watch.','Climate Change - A worthwhile endeavor','','inherit','closed','open','','625-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 12:23:12','2014-10-19 04:23:12','',625,'http://www.smartestplace.net/625-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(636,1,'2014-10-19 12:23:57','2014-10-19 04:23:57','<img src=\"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9kbq4y_QD5M/TmAw0Qg-PGI/AAAAAAAAABY/jqJatthlDWY/s1600/1_4_2_1_1.sflb.jpg\" width=\"1200\" height=\"801\" alt=\"Pollution\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nJust to be absolutely clear: Yes, I do believe anthropogenic climate change is occurring. And... I think it is totally worth it.\r\n\r\nI find it hard to believe arguments that humans are not impacting the climate, but I also think that the change being caused is *far* less than the Green-Left would like us to think. The truth is that real warming has been consistently below that predicted by climate computer models, and many climate scientists accept that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 18 years. \r\n\r\nJust take a look at this chart using the IPCC\'s own figures:\r\n<a href=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming.jpg\"><img src=\"http://smartestplace.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Warming-254x300.jpg\" alt=\"Warming\" width=\"254\" height=\"300\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-627\" /></a>\r\n\r\nFrom my own experience with the complex transient models in my profession, the problem with these models is that they are highly dependent on the assumed feedback constants - this is the Butterfly Effect in action. The difference between entering 0.1, 0.11 and 0.12 into an equation can be all the difference between predictions of an ice-age, life as normal, or a parched wasteland.\r\n\r\nBut the purpose of this post is actually to defend the warming that we are all choosing to have, a choice reflected by our individual actions. I am at peace with my choice, as my view is that the climate change we are causing is simply worth it - because of the quality of life it offers my family, and also for the enormous numbers of people that are being given a better life in the developing world. This evidence is far stronger a motivator for my actions than the fear that sometime in the future, but conveniently not yet, millions of people will have their homes inundated by rising sea leves. I won\'t hold my breath for this, but even if sealevels were to rise, people aren\'t just going to sit there and ... drown. They\'d move, and that is still an acceptable risk. My house is only 15 metres above sea-level, I may have to move.\r\n\r\nOver the past twenty years alone vast numbers of people have moved out of poverty, particularly in China.\r\n<img src=\"http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-XC741_POVERT_E_20130417171914.jpg\" width=\"800\" height=\"943\" alt=\"Poverty rates\" class=\"alignnone\" />\r\n\r\nWhen these percentages are translated to numbers, we are already talking about over 1,000,000,000 people who have moved out of extreme poverty over the past 20 years. And the trend continues.\r\n\r\nIronically the left are engaged in an ongoing fear campaign to try to influence voters ... when they so vocally denounce such tactics when used by the right. \r\nThe consistent message from these groups has been a fear campaign: That we are stuffing up the world. That we are reaching a tipping point. And that we need to radically cut back on consumption. This is a campaign that seeks to make us all feel guilty, and ... here is the key bit ... vote for politicians that will free us from the very system that has brought us the prosperity in the first place.\r\n\r\nI am a strong believer that we should make decisions based upon opportunity, not fear. I choose to be a pragmatist and an optimist, and in my mind at least the opportunities offered by continued development and growth are far more tangible than the fear that it is all going to suddenly go so wrong. \r\n\r\nThe left are the real Axis of Evil, and being green is just a sugar-coating so they can try and administer their \"Big Government knows best\" doctrine. Not on my watch.','Climate Change - A worthwhile endeavor','','inherit','closed','open','','625-revision-v1','','','2014-10-19 12:23:57','2014-10-19 04:23:57','',625,'http://www.smartestplace.net/625-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),