longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11
th, 2013 at 2:58pm:
Bobby. wrote on Sep 11
th, 2013 at 10:40am:
John S wrote on Sep 11
th, 2013 at 7:30am:
What a good link - & the problem is well explained.
maybe all the signatories will agree to have their taxes increased significantly to pay for it. I bet that gets them off it.
You can't substantiate your assertion that fibre to the premises will be "significantly" more expensive, can you? Given that bandwidth demand is forecast to
exceed 1Gb/s by 2020. The nodes will need to be scrapped before most of them are even installed. Will short-term parsimony prove wasteful in the longer term? If so, are you just putting off your "significant" tax increase? Of course, the fertiliser won't impact the ventilator until after the next election, which is probably the plan.
longweekend58 wrote on Sep 11
th, 2013 at 2:59pm:
Bobby. wrote on Sep 11
th, 2013 at 1:50pm:
Sprint,
how much will Turnbull charge you to get a fiber optic link?
if you actually need one you will find the cost quite affordable. if you don't NEED it and just WANT it you will find it obscenely high.
Turnbull says $5,000, but that's based on an idealised assessment. Come to think of it, the whole plan is based on an idealised assessment of the condition of Telstra's customer access network (the wires into premises).
From a national perspective, even the unrealistically idealised $5,000 is an unjustified extra expense. Multiplied by the millions of premises in Australia, the Coalition's plan is unaffordable.
Abandoning fibre to the premises is nothing short of treason.