"The paper makes clear that the government is not only shaping the market, but also the types of technology and the specifications that are being recommended for interfacing on system software and hardware as well. This stopped being a slippery slope and entered the realm of bad news when the government intended supplying the types of gear that would be used for FTTH connectivity in the first place, never mind specifying the interfaces on interface devices, which are universally defined as PON optical network terminals, or ONTs, making only passing mention of the use of wireless for the boondocks."
---
As in other jurisdictions, eventually the choices will be made: sometimes by commercial interests, sometimes in combination with policy. Japan is different from Korea, which is different from the Netherlands, which is different from Sweden.
After the network is built, regulation can define ways in which various players may operate. Isn't the goal throughput and capacity? Without government involvement, Australia would never be taking this step, far beyond anything we've contemplated here.
Is the objection that government cannot speak for the public interest, when in fact that is government's responsibility? Or is it that imperfections and differences enable possible weaknesses? What perfection, satisfactory to all, should the Australians adopt? Or is it simply that only "the market" - or the disgrace that we call the telecomms "market" - can and should determine network architecture, hardware and services?
Jim |
