John Linton ......as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses." (Attributed to a variety of people - more probably either Ambrose Bierce or Mrs Patrick Campbell)
However, the horses, or at least one horse, is becoming frightened of what may happen in the streets around the big city's suburbs in the future based on this:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17545/53/
I think it is the first of the 'independent DSLAM roller outers' to begin to believe that FTTN has got some sort of show of becoming a partial reality (partial reality being in the most 'popular' exchanges where 'independent DSLAMs' are located which you can bet is what Telstra sees as Phase 1 of this project is going to be) based on this disingenuous/fatuous statement:
"If we start from the mistaken belief that we must do a full node cut-over – that is, completely disconnect all of the copper wires leading back to the exchange from every area in which a new node is deployed – the consequences for the industry and consumers will be detrimental and long-lasting," said Hackett.
Who does he think he's kidding? (presumably his investors/backers who put up the money for InterNode's DSLAM infrastructure).
It would be the ONLY justification for a FTTN solution or what would be the de-facto situation of a FTTH solution.
As for being "detrimental and long-lasting"; yes it will be - to those small companies who have invested in their own DSLAMs on 7 - 10 year ROI scenarios who will be stuck with long lease payouts on an infrastructure that will have no income.
Not that it will happen in the near future but I guess it does reflect the very real concern that this current 'government' is just crazy enough/feels locked in to their 'win at all costs' election promise of:
"No Australian child will live in broadband poverty by 1st January 2010" (or am I confusing that with Robert (call me Bob) Hawke's equally ludicrous promise used to win a previous election?).
Certainly now Rudd has found a way to get rid of the OPEL contract causing Optus to,understandably, say that Optus may not bid for another Federal communications infrastructure tender, Telstra looks like they'll get their hands on the Fed's money to build the network and as "speed of delivery" will be essential to the Rudd/Conroy idiocracy you can be sure that Telstra's deployment plan will be, completely co-incidentally, to the locations that are currently serviced by 'independent DLSAMS' and they will get that by the government on the basis that it can be done "immediately" to XX% of the population".
It may never happen but if you have some long term lease liability for DSLAM infrastructure on your books you will now, apparently, need to be practicing what you have to say to your investors if you were the someone who convinced them to invest on longer than a 4-5 year payback.
The desperation of the idiocracy to actually make some sort of pretence that they will 'honour' (what a strange word to use in relation to an Australian politician) their pre-election rhetoric of "no broadband poverty" appears to already have the effect I referenced last year - that of putting 'independent DSLAM' investments on hold while the people being asked to fund them try to understand what will really happen to the money they've already invested.
What other inference/conclusion can be drawn from the referenced article?