Level3 is without peer, now what to do?

He has a point when he talks about NBNCo's CPE device offering. But that's not really a big deal. Most of his griping seems like nitpicking. Te point of the NBN is getting fiber in the ground that no one company owns. Once that is done all of his other complaints can be dealt with. We can argue incessently over what kind of CPE device to deploy, and change it, without altering the fact that NBNCo now has the fiber in the ground.

He also has a point about the number of POIs that NBN will require the wholesalers to interface with. But again, this is missing the forest for the trees.

>Frankly, the less of Labor's NBN that gets built the better.

Simon doesn't make that argument. His argument is to do it differently, which is completely different than not do it. In the Q&A he makes suggestions to do some parts of the NBN differently, but it's clear he is generally in favor of it.

The NBN is about getting non-monopolized fiber in the ground. Once that's done everything else about it can be changed to suit his or your desires.

Excluding today's most demanding use case doesn't get you anywhere. If you need a wired connection for that then you need a wired connection. The installed base of smartphones and tablets is still growing significantly and that's going to eat any technological improvements you can make to cellular and then some. Meanwhile people still want to be able to watch Netflix on a tablet from the back of a minivan, and to be able to make that happen at scale you're going to have to remove as much other traffic from the cellular network as possible.

> Wireless is easier to deploy and as its use grows, more spectrum will likely open up. Free markets have the benefit of deploying scarce resources where they are most in demand.

Free markets can't change the laws of physics. Allocating more spectrum is a linear increase. 20% more spectrum costs billions of dollars and only makes it 20% faster. The market solution when there is a high demand scarce resource is to shift usage to a resource that isn't as scarce for any use case where the alternative resource is viable. There is a reason one of the first things you already do when you get to a friend's house for the first time is ask for the WiFi password, and it's not because there is no cellular coverage.

> The biggest advantage of a wired home broadband connection over a wireless one that I see is the ability to stream video.

The advantage is that it allows you to transfer more bits cheaply. Today's most prevalent use case for that is streaming video, sure. It's hardly the only one. Anything that requires uploading or downloading large amounts of data is a bad fit for cellular. And we can't predict what interesting applications will become commonplace once the typical connection is 1Gbps.

> A wired connection has a lot of disadvantages: it's useless outside the home and the infrastructure is significantly more expensive.

The infrastructure is significantly more expensive, once. The cost to maintain fiber is not materially different than the cost to maintain copper. And it's not useless outside the home when everybody else has one too. If you're at home you have WiFi. At work? WiFi. Friend's house? Coffee house? Hotel? WiFi. About the only fixed places there is no WiFi are the places there is also no cellular, like the middle of the woods.

Using cellular when you're in a building with WiFi doesn't make sense. Using cellular when you're on the move does -- and that's the use case we should be preserving the scarce wireless spectrum for, by using wired connections everywhere else.

I think that's the reason why Comcast wants to do the 300GB 'unlimited' with a $10/50GB overage charge. As they get the best of both worlds.

The issue with having a 'hybrid' plan is that to Comcast's finance department they still view it as a fixed gross per customer. Where-as with metered usage, the finance department would hopefully realize that the bigger the pipes the greater the potential for $$$.

In regards to peering, Comcast currently has no incentive to upgrade there peering exchange points. But in a metered system, they have a lot of money to gain for upgrading the exchange points. Giving level 3 and Comcast incentives to upgrade peering exchanges. (Today its only Level 3 who benefits).

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I think by the time Simon gave that particular presentation he'd been saying the same stuff on a regular basis for a good two years, so it started to sound really rehearsed. Have a look at some of his older videos eg. [1] Although, that is, to a major degree, just how Simon sounds when he talks.

I don't think you fully understand the implications of what NBN Co is building.

> Te point of the NBN is getting fiber in the ground that no one company owns.

This is exactly what is not happening. Labor's NBN Co is (was?) building another Telstra-like monopoly. The one company that owns the fibre is NBN Co. which will, like almost every other government asset, be sold at a loss to a private company. And, like Telstra, it will become notorious for dragging its feet when it comes to appropriately pricing the wholesale service.

> He also has a point about the number of POIs that NBN will require the wholesalers to interface with. But again, this is missing the forest for the trees.

While you (I don't mean you personally, I mean 'you' in the general sense of the Australian voter) are focus on 'fibre regardless of costs' then yes, sure, you're correct.

> Simon doesn't make that argument.

You're right, he doesn't. That is my argument. And, like I always said from the very first first announcement of the NBN "well that will take Labor winning the next 6 elections".

> The NBN is about getting non-monopolized fiber in the ground. Once that's done everything else about it can be changed to suit his or your desires.

Change. Yes, just like Telstra. In fact, the scenario with Telstra is better than NBN Co. At least Telstra has been forced to resell ULL (Unbundled Local Loop, ie. vacant copper) to ISPs. NBN Co. is being built from the ground up to not be like that.

WHY!

I'll take Dark fibre to the premises, or no fibre thanks.

The creation of NBN Co. even resulted in the enactment of new legislation that prohibits competing fibre network builds. Hell, NBN Co. is taking TPG to court over TPGs pre-existing fibre network! [2] This is decided not the role NBN Co. could be playing.

(edit: clarity)

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMeYr2_rJmo 2. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/nbn-turns-the-heat-...