|
|
|
|
|
by shard972
3331 days ago
|
|
> According to partisan figures that were often repeated but never justified. I mean if you pretend that the $30~ billion paid to telstra had absolutely nothing to do with the NBN then yea you can avoid the 2x figure but I still have no idea how you can say the two things are completely unrelated. > Instead we have the current NBN who's costs have blown out just as much to delivery 20th century infrastructure. How? It's fiber for over 95% the connection with plans already been tested to allow people to complete the line to their house with fiber if your willing to pay for it. That's a lot better than what was available in 20th century. I don't see the big problem with having the government do the entire backbone and lines close to the houses and allow people to fund the final hop if they want to. |
|
What do you think is more efficient, digging up the footpath once and giving everyone a fiber connection, or doing it 50+ times? Because if everyone completes the line to their house, that's what will happen.
More importantly, if you're trying to start a business or provide a government service, you can't rely on everyone having a 100Mb connection, you have to plan for the lowest common denominator.