Post by DMPost by Rod SpeedMight not too, gunna be interesting to see what the voters
do about the complete fuckups like the insulation fiasco.
The insulation scheme was only a political fiasco. In the real world
they insulated well over a million extra homes with no noticeable
increase in deaths by electrocution and only the expected number of
shonky installs and frauds for the industry. Anything to do with roofs
or ceilings has a high fraud rate because so few people are willing or
able to get up there and inspect the quality of the work closely.
The ALP was politically inept in handling the situation, but there
really wasn't a problem that hasn't already been there for decades.
OH&S in the industry is a State responsibility anyway, as is quality
management and it was up to the homeowner to select an installer.
Garrett was an idiot not to have pointed this out.
Back to broadband though, if Google can deliver 1Gb/s to 500,000 US
consumers as a *test*, its obvious the way the industry is heading in
the long term. The people who reckon a length of wet string is good
enough and reject FTTH are out of touch.
I disagree. Picking 500,000 people in dense populations from the
USSA population is probably quite do-able. FTTH is a nonsense
at the moment in this country:
1. just the logistics of digging the holes and laying the pipe to
each premises isn't do-able. Think of all old Sydney, Melbourne
and Brisbane that needs laying.
2. And for what? Most people don't require this speed. If they
did people would have already purchased it. As mentioned,
I am hardly a newbie at working on the net, and I use up
6-7 GB per MONTH. Currently at ISDN rate (speed) or
slower. It does everything I need it to do.
3. I might support a NBN of the model was FTTN, increased
wireless coverage from these points, and enough ports to
carry those that WANT FTTH.
Post by DMThe future is cloud computing,
Unsure on that. A public utility software delivery paradigm
was proposed in 1968 and I don't see it being adopted at any
speed.
Post by DMinternet based storage
Strongly disagree. Local or near storage is cheap and fast.
A 1Gbps or 10Gbps SAN, iSCSI or NAS is cheap to build.
I just bought a TB of storage for $280. That cost me a few million
not so long ago at the Department of Minerals and Petroleum.
And I can't see the big end of town outsourcing data security
in a big hurry.
Post by DMand software as
a service.
Software as a service is an interesting model.
I don't know how popular it is going to be. It
seems like re-visiting the promise of 'thin-client'
on a global scale. It never got popular on a MAN.
Even at LAN speeds. Just the mention of Citrix
will get me running from a room screaming ;-)
Post by DMI'm already finding 100Mb/s struggling to cope inside my
LAN.
Buy better switches. Upgrade to a Gbit network for internal
traffic. Analise what traffic is causing the problems, and why?
Segment. Internal proxies. Bridged near storage.......
Post by DMIn 5 years time we will flounder if we can't get that kind of
speed out of our WAN.
For such a large infrastructure investment, whoever is doing it needs
to present a need, and a willingness for the population to take it
up at MARKET RATES. Otherwise we are back in the old boat and
can expect a NBN Co 'sell-off' shortly, with no shareholder, Telstra
or
NBN Co doing any good on investment.
Sorry, the idea is crap. You could do it in Canberra, for the sake
of Canberrans, paid for by the rest of Australia, but laying a pipe
out to lot 164, Cheepie, QLD is a joke that will never happen.
Mark.