Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:45AM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

I'm sure One News didn't mean to be mean...

Why not? They obviously couldn't be arsed doing any kind of serious reportage or analysis. Gee, David Cunliffe thinks it's rubbish (no shit, Sherlock!), but you're just going to have to wait and see what Labour's actual policy is. End of line.

As I've said on another thread -- and meaning no damnation with faint praise: PAS: kudos for substantive and meaningful debate and analysis. MSM: Ku-don't-s.

Posted at 10:53AM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

and, more importantly, found third parties willing to invest at least some of the marching private funding, for a long-term return. And then you build it

and, as the EPMU points out, found enough people to actually do the physical work.

This from Key give a little more info, mostly about what the plan isn't, but does make it sound like a variety of companies owning the cables to me.

Posted at 11:01AM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Good on National but the wider picture from National has to be:

PRIVATISATION DOESN"T WORK!

Telecom has failed in its obligation to NZ through the Kiwi Share and any competitors have already thrown in the towel to try and build an infrastructure.

This has been a long played and failed experiment.

The obvious comparison to Air NZ - it works well but needs massive govt cash injections to stay afloat.

Railways are dying the slowest of deaths and desperately need govt intervention.

This is Socialism for the Rich, bailing out private firms and interests.

An honest politician would Nationalise the lot but this pretence of false markets ,suits the Labour/National govt.

Posted at 11:19AM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

PRIVATISATION DOESN"T WORK!

That's a broad statement inviting 15 BUTS of exceptions.

Posted at 11:37AM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

I think I have found Nationals research on FTTH. Perhaps we could have zero GST on fibre thus encouraging higher fibre intake.

Posted at 11:46AM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Kyle where has it worked for essential infrastructure?

It hasn't and has always been bailed out by govt because it doesn't work.

I'm trying to think of a positive example & I just can't.

Posted at 11:53AM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Toastmasters. You're kidding right? They are terrible trainers of public speakers.

Posted at 11:58AM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Great!! 1 billion so I can download more porn and illegal movies faster.

Am I the only one who thinks the money could be better spent on say schools, transport, hospitals, research etc.

The only thing a faster home link for 99% of people will do is allow movies on demand/TV. We dont need a billion to allow more people to watch the goggle box

Posted at 12:10PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Am I the only one who thinks the money could be better spent on say schools, transport, hospitals, research etc.

I think most of those sort of groups would be quite happy to have better interwebs. The research institutions have steamingly fast interwebs, but it limits what I can get done in the evening sometimes. I think fast interwebs should be transformational on all sorts of levels, and in unexpected ways. Not just more pR0n and movies.

Someone noted yesterday that it would (for example) facilitate data back-ups. Or having remote servers etc. I'm sure that most primary schools would be quite happy to have all of that sort of thing done seamlessly and more centrally somewhere, rather than having to worry about doing their own back-ups.
I also think it could have an amazing impact on business.

I should now point out that I'm uber-unqualified to comment on this. (Other than that that KAREN rules)

Posted at 12:11PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

I'm trying to think of a positive example & I just can't.

Auckland International Airport? Government Print? Ministry of Works and Development? New Zealand Steel? Natural Gas? Government Supply Brokerage Corporation? State Insurance Office? Government Printing Office? National Film Unit? Terralink International?

I don't follow all those closely and what they do, but some seem to have worked out OK (State Insurance are a crappy insurance company though, but I don't think that's privatisation, they just screwed me over when someone hit my car :P).

I think we all tend to think more about those that haven't worked. NZ Rail, Telecom, BNZ, Air NZ etc with bailouts are the headlines.

Posted at 12:14PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

No real justification for posting this... but I hadn't actually looked at a 24 hour animated weathermap for KAREN before.
http://weathermap.karen.net.nz/animations/karen-2008-04-22.gif

Posted at 12:18PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

This sort of infrastructurre does need to be put in place, no doubt. The devil will, of course, be in the detail.

Posted at 12:18PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

It may be useful at school as we occasionally use the internet but quite frankly the speed now is sufficient for what we need.

At home as you say Stephen, we will only be using it to download movies.

I guess businesses may or may not need ultra fast connections but I'd like to know how many and what for. Most businesses like my local mechanic or the supermarket, or the dairy or nappy shop are probably not cracking open the champagne. Maybe people could fill me in on some examples in the techno world of how great advantages can be gained cos I'm pretty ignorant there.

In Korea it's bloody fast but the main use as far as I could ever tell was to have websites with so many pop ups, bells and whistles that you couldn't find what you were looking for and for playing Starcraft online in PC rooms.

Posted at 12:28PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Good. This probably puts both parties on a reasonably equal footing WRT commitment to IT infrastructure.

The TV report mentioned focusing on municipals, schools hospitals and business first. That is pretty similar to the MUSH networks that have been or are being rolled out so not much new there AFAI can tell. Fibre to homes is something that has been mooted for a while and good to see it being taken up and run with.

Free access for business to KAREN would be a great and very simple thing instead of the shonky bloody way access to that *existing* advanced network is run now.

Free Wifi is something a bunch of us in Wellington are working on as well.

Stephen Moratti, I whole heartedly agree. As I see it the problem is similar to good roads. All they do is facilitate access to drinking dens and other places of vice. We should stop building and maintaining them.

Posted at 12:33PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

I'ld hardly consider most of those essential infrastructure (& don't know too much about many) but sure Terralink does some good work.

AKL is owned by Local Govt - so devolved ownership - and a monopoly. It was always gonna win even with Banks as Lord Mayor.

Likewise Min. of Works was split and Dept of Conservation takes on many of their privious roles. Councils like CCC have 'City Care' as another devolved local Govt owned infrastructure business taking over from min of Works.

The essential infrastructure needs to be nationalised or the situation will continue of bailouts, ideology beating economic reality.

Posted at 12:42PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

I'm all for an injection of Government money if that's the difference between this happening and not - I think a $1.5b initial investment would see a fairly good "social ROI" within a few years.
But I can't see how this plan is going to work given that these are the criteria:

The investment will be made alongside additional private sector investment and will be subject to a series of five principles, said Key. These include the network being open-access; ensuring the investment does not see already-planned investments cut back; ensuring increased broadband services; and making sure the investment does not end up lining the pockets of incumbent industry players.

Since it was announced yesterday I've been trying to work out a model that would fulfil all those and can't really think of one... Anyone with a better take on open-access infrastructure investment planning?

Posted at 12:46PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

Why do people constantly require justification against today's concepts when faster 'net to the home is discussed? Seriously, who'd have thought of YouTube five years ago? It requires broadband as an enabler, and in the absence of that nobody was going to really think of it. There will be other ideas out there that just require someone to view it as viable before they try it out. You don't try ideas that are doomed to failure because the market is inaccessible.

The short version is, the ideas follow the technology. Cart, horse, etc. Demanding that the ideas be around to justify the technology is a nonsense.

Posted at 12:46PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

well all I can say is "roll on the election year internet infrastructure bidding wars!" - mind you he really said:

"In the first six years, priority will be given to business premises, schools, health facilities, and the first tranche of homes"

I'm not sure how one joins the "first tranche of homes"

(a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranche_(disambiguation) in my experience usually refers to a type of financial instrument so I for one am confused - maybe it's the meat reference)

I work at home, run a small business, maybe I can weasel in that way

Posted at 12:47PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

wow. national spending up on a big infrastructure project... and labour complaining that it will create a monopoly, stifling competition? i knew the 80s were making a comeback.

that animated KAREN thing is very cool

Posted at 12:48PM on 23 Apr 08. Permalink.

crap that link was meant to be 'Tranche'