|
Yes, this is pure FUD mixed with ignorance.
1) Railroad tracks have a life span of much less than 25 years. Imagine someone had brought this up as an argument against building railroads? All infrastructure needs to be maintained, fibre is no exception.
2) He brings up the valid issue of contention and then goes on to refute/ignore it. Of course we can't have everybody using 100Mbps all the time simultaneously. But we can give 100Mbps to everybody at different times for short periods of time (i.e. support typical Internet use). Motorways are built to allow driving at 110km/h, this doesn't mean everybody can be on the motorway at all times doing 110 all the time.
3) Tell that to people who are waiting for an 8Mbps ADSL service and can't get it.
4) Yes 4G is coming. And no, data was not an afterthought with 3G. The reason 3G was developed as successor to GPRS was to properly support data and decent bandwidths, in particular concurrent voice and data. Wireless networks have a short range though, something is going to be needed to connect the cells. Something like, say, a fibre backbone network.
5) So what? All government schemes are always going to be rorted by the private sector (incl Telstra). Should governments stop spending on infrastructure altogether in the light of this?
If they're laughing over at Telstra and waiting to pick up the pieces then they should be happy and content, and watch it unfold and falter. Why snipe against the project? It's not their money that's being spent. Afraid of competition much?
Cheers
Steffen.
|