Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 105217	2009-11-23 19:08:00	DEBATE: The Second PressF1 Great Debate	somebody (208)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
832867	2009-11-23 19:08:00	Welcome all to the second PressF1 Great Debate. This will be a formal debate between two teams of two members. Each team member is allowed one post. Each also team is allowed one additional concluding/summarising post at the end of the debate, which must be made by the first "speaker" of the team. The rules are as follows: - Each debater will have up to 2000 words to state their argument. Debaters may (and should) build on the arguments presented by their teammate, introduce new arguments, and rebut arguments by the opposition. - Debaters are encouraged to use whatever resources they have to research the topic. - Each speaker must make their post by 11:59pm on the day after the previous post is made - i.e. a maximum 24hr turnaround time. If speakers are unable to meet this deadline, they would be assumed to have forfeited their turn. - Posting must alternate between teams - i.e. First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, followed by Negative Summary, Affirmative Summary (speaking order reversed as per convention). - New substantive points may not be introduced in the final concluding/summarising posts. Guidelines for teams: - Standard PF1 rules apply - so no personal attacks, no txt speak etc. - Rule clarifications can be made by sending me a PM. If you believe that the other team has broken a rule, please PM me. - Speaking order can be decided by your team. - You may discuss arguments with your teammate, and consult any resource you wish (i.e. Wikipedia, etc.). It is recommended that team members work together to formulate a coherent and consistent line. - The 2000 word limit is an absolute limit. You are under no obligation to write 2000 words. - Links/references - you are encouraged to cite respectable sources (i.e. Wikipedia does not count as a respectable source!) - for example, "according to a report by the United Nations in 2007...26.8% of blah blah blah". You may post links to these resources at the bottom of your post. - Sweep has posted a useful link in Erayd's original debate thread outlining the obligations of each team member. There are also some excellent resources at www.debating.org.nz outlining what each team should do. Guidelines for everyone else: - Do not post in this thread unless you are on one of the teams. There is a separate thread for discussion/commentary. - At the conclusion of the debate, a poll will be opened (for 7 days) to decide the winner - Please do not interfere with the debate by heckling or intimidating any participant. --------------------------- The Teams: Teams have not yet been determined. If you wish to particpate, please post here and state which side (affirmative or negative) you wish to be in. Teams will be allocated on a first-come first serve basis. The first four posters in this thread will be the 4 speakers taking part in this debate. ---------------------------- The Topic: "This house supports a state-funded fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) broadband network" ----------------------------	somebody (208)
832868	2009-11-25 20:07:00	It seems like we only have Cato, Sweep & Erayd interested at this stage. If there are no more takers, how about I join in the debate? I propose the following team allocations & sides, just to make things interesting: 1A: Sweep 1N: Somebody 2A: Cato 2N: Erayd If everyone taking part is ok with this, then let's kick off the debate with the first affirmative speaker making their post by 11:59pm on Saturday (just to allow time for research). If you have objections to the speaking order & team allocations, please say so.	somebody (208)
832869	2009-11-28 01:52:00	"This house supports a state-funded fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) broadband network" As the first affirmative poster I post the following in support:- 1. How can New Zealand most effectively compete in global markets? New Zealand is a country that is geographically isolated from our major export markets and it would therefore make sense to roll out a complete fibre optic network. A fibre network would, over time, replace the aging copper and has the advantage of being future proof in so far as when technology changes we simply change the hardware installed rather than replacing the fibre. 2. How much does world class communications matter to New Zealand? The New Zealand Institute has identified national economic benefits from broadband in the range of $2.7-4.4 billion year with further upside potential possible. There is a significant cost to waiting. The longer that New Zealand waits the more economic value it will forego and so New Zealand should approach the investment in fibre with urgency. The New Zealand Institute recommends that New Zealand should develop a fast and efficient national path to the rollout of fibre. The high cost of delay means New Zealand should focus on a path that supports rapid progress in high-value segments from which benefits can be realised rapidly. This would mean that we should concentrate on fibre in high population density areas as a first step with businesses, hospitals, schools, Universities and local councils at the front of the queue. 3. What benefits can New Zealand expect? A fibre network would allow teleconferencing on a wider scale than we can currently achieve with the outdated current network. Quite a few businesses in New Zealand are, in fact, home based and a fast internet and VOIP phone services are getting to be a necessity for these to compete and indeed even survive. Quite a few people may even find that their employer would let them work from home and therefore they would not have to join the rush hour traffic thus less fuel would be consumed. 4. Will recent announcements deliver on the broadband aspiration? I believe so. John Key on his Billboard web site had this to say:- National Party Leader John Key. "A National Government will invest up to $1.5 billion to drive the roll-out of a 'fibre to the home' ultra-fast broadband network. "I am focused on the issues that matter this election. Enhancing our economic performance is one of the vital issues that New Zealand must address. "Delivering a future-proof broadband network to New Zealanders to enhance our economic performance is one way to help deliver on the economic step change we are seeking. "National's medium to long-term vision is for a fibre connection to almost every home, supported by satellite and mobile solutions where it makes sense. "Our initial aim is to ensure the accelerated roll-out of fibre right to the home of 75% of New Zealanders. In the first six years, priority will be given to business premises, schools, health facilities, and the first tranche of homes. "National will also take additional steps to accelerate high-speed broadband roll-out to rural and remote areas, with the first step being doubling the Broadband Challenge Fund to $48 million and refocusing it on rural and remote areas. "A National Government will work with the telecommunications industry to achieve these goals. "Fibre will deliver big economic benefits for New Zealand – enhanced productivity, improved global connectivity, and enhanced capacity for innovation. "Independent experts have estimated those benefits will be worth between $2.7 billion and $4.4 billion a year. "New Zealand has fallen behind its global competitors when it comes to broadband. National is committed to investing in ultra-fast broadband." 5. What regulatory framework and funding model is required to deliver on the aspiration? It is obvious that Telecom would be a major player in the fibre market but currently they have no real incentive to invest in fibre and seem intent on protecting and reselling the copper network they currently have so therefore the New Zealand Institute, who, by the way are the same independent experts mentioned above have this to say:- “BROADBAND ASPIRATION A price regulated investment vehicle, called FibreCo, is granted a monopoly over the fibre access network. FibreCo is required to roll out fibre at a pre-determined rate so as to deliver FTTP to 75% of the population within 10 years. FibreCo grants equal and open access to the network at a regulated price FibreCo is structured to provide commercially attractive returns for private shareholders, with the government as the investor of last resort Seek to attract investors comfortable with the risk, return, and time horizon properties of passive fibre infrastructure. The sequencing of investment allows for higher return areas to be served first, with early investors getting a right of first refusal on further capital rounds. There are important roles in FibreCo for key stakeholders, including telcos, utilities, central and local government, and private investors. Some parties contribute funding, others provide assets or expertise (e.g. access to ducting) and others facilitate investment (e.g. the consenting process) Owners of existing (copper and fibre) networks can sell these assets to FibreCo on a commercial basis. Create FibreCo, a price regulated monopoly investor in the fibre access network. FibreCo is structured to maximise the amount of private capital invested.Provide a wide range of industry participants with value creating roles in FibreCo . Commence a rapid programme of action to move towards the launch of FibreCo. Commence a rapid work programme to confirm the regulatory arrangements and the funding mechanism, to transfer existing networks, and to bring the key stakeholders on board.” With that I conclude my arguement.	Sweep (90)
832870	2009-11-28 02:08:00	Doh. Forgot to affirm my attentions. Would have loved to be on the negative.	the_bogan (9949)
832871	2009-11-29 02:03:00	Doh. Forgot to affirm my attentions. Would have loved to be on the negative. After consultation with all debate participants, the_bogan will be taking my place in the debate.	somebody (208)
832872	2009-11-29 05:50:00	Thank you for your input Sweep. As the first negative poster, I now offer my input. I did not see you define your explanation of the moot, other than repeat it. Our team’s definition of the moot is “Should the New Zealand government use tax payers’ money to fund a fibre broadband network to every New Zealanders home or business?” Without understanding your definition of the moot, I have done my best to respond to your comments. I have only included the headings, as I believe they are easy to locate in your post. 1. How can New Zealand most effectively compete in global markets? You say that we need fibre to be competitive. We are doing fine with copper - with technologies such as VDSL, we can simply upgrade the connecting hardware and make the most of our existing copper networks rather than rolling out expensive new fibre. Of course, I haven’t mentioned other companies that have or may spring up. Telstraclear with their Cable network are a prime example. At a time when we're running national deficits - we should not be spending money on shiny new toys we don't need, with money better spent elsewhere. Who’s to say that in ten years time the fibre network won’t be in the same boat as copper is now? In technology, it is very hard to future proof. After all, it could be a number of years until New Zealand gets another cable like the Southern Cross. Up to that point, our access to international data does not change, which the majority of the population (personal and business) require. 2. How much does world class communications matter to New Zealand? Why should we care what the New Zealand Institute thinks? You've said they've identified up to $4,000,000,000 (four billion) of benefits, but haven't actually said what any of those benefits are, or who they will benefit. Something tangible is required, rather than just some-one’s say so. They also claim that delay has a high cost - why? Our existing networks are fine, so how does delay cost us anything? If anything, delaying should help, as the price of technology drops. 3. What benefits can New Zealand expect? Our existing network is already capable of supporting teleconferencing at the main locations, and the rest are mostly just a matter of upgrading endpoint hardware, or paying their ISP for the extra benefits- we don't need an entirely new fibre network just to make fancy phone calls. Many home-based businesses are also currently very happy with the speed of their connection on existing technology - why are we trying to tell them they need upgrades when they are already happy? Most gripes are related to the level of service provided by the ISP, they aren't related to the backend technology used to connect premises. Rolling out fibre won't fix any of those complaints. Working from home can also be isolating - most teams work far better when they share office space to bounce ideas/problems off each other. They need the human contact. 4. Will recent announcements deliver on the broadband aspiration? That’s all these announcements are. Words from a Politician. The majority of us have fallen victim to, or seen a Government stating one thing, then doing another. Regardless, I do not believe whether the State is going to deliver FTTH or not is relevant to us discussing whether they should or not. 5. What regulatory framework and funding model is required to deliver on the aspiration? This discussion is whether the New Zealand taxpayers should fund a network, not how it might end up. I do not see the relevance in this topic. Thank you for taking the time to read what I had to say. I look forward to your rebuttal.	the_bogan (9949)
832873	2009-12-07 00:33:00	With regards to the moot, the affirmative team accepts the definition as proposed by the_bogan . You said New Zealand is doing fine with the century-old copper technology, and that any upgrades that are to be done can be diverted to the aspect of connecting hardware instead . Over here, you have not identified the specific components meant by “connecting hardware”, a crucial piece of information which is required for further debate . On top of this, such measure will eventually be rendered ineffective when the copper wire itself becomes the rate-limiting step . Furthermore, you quoted VDSL as an example where constant upgrading of connecting hardware will allow such technology be achieved . You have failed to note that VDSL actually relies on fibre optic network for data transmission, thus such example is unrelated to what you were explaining earlier . You mentioned TelstraClear’s cable network . You described it as “a prime example” of companies that have or may spring up . Firstly, a cable network consists of fibre optic and copper wire . Therefore, it is unclear how the “prime example” is relevant to supporting either side of the house . Secondly, you did not elaborate the relationship between companies that have sprung up and the competitiveness of New Zealand in global market . Finally, laying out cable network involves the use of labour as well as miscellaneous inconvenience such as traffic-stopping, road diversion and occasional accidents . As such, if we were to go for the option of restructuring the country’s network backbone, why not go for the best (i . e . pure fibre optic) rather than settle down with a newer technology that may last only for a decade? You questioned the future-proof capability of fibre optic network . I will single out one reason that fibre optics has over copper wire: immunisation to electromagnetic interference . With the increased prevalence of handheld devices nationwide, the potential events of electromagnetic interference increase substantially . This has an impact on the performance of data transmission over the traditional copper wire . If the switch to fibre optic is made, this would prevent such interference from occurring . In the hindsight, fibre optic can be regarded as “future proof” as it disallows future interferences from happening . From a bigger picture perspective, the Australian government have already approved the deployment of nationwide FTTH technology, a move which the industry analysts said as “future proof” . This serves as a convincing corroboration that fibre optic is the wise choice for New Zealand’s Internet backbone . You noted that the New Zealand’s access to international data does not change . This statement is somewhat unconvincing unless further explanation and / or examples are given . However, it is more likely than not that New Zealand’s access to international data will increase . This is because New Zealand’s unfavourable geographical position means that the utilisation of e-commerce would likely become more prevalent . This includes activities such as international conferencing and inter-country collaboration on business matter . Thus, fibre optic bandwidth capability of 2 . 5 Gb/s makes it a better choice to handle the increase in traffic, as opposed to 1 . 5 Mb/s offered by copper wire . Moving on to the next point, the New Zealand institute is a think-tank which churns out high quality ideas that aim to contribute to a more prosperous New Zealand . These ideas often have a major impact on New Zealand’s economic and social future . Therefore, the institute is highly regarded and any propositions made by the institute should not be simply dismissed . In addition, it is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that operates largely uninfluenced by the government, thus any opinion formed tends to be independent and unbiased . The 2 . 7 to 4 . 4 billion in economic benefit range from increased productivity in the education and health sectors, to the high value innovation in weightless economy . Collectively, this forms a vast amount of economic value that New Zealand can certainly benefit from . In the long run, the fibre optic network can also serve as an attraction of foreign investment due to the appealing Internet infrastructure available . Thus, for every second delayed in the setup of fibre optic network, there would be countless loss in economic benefits that are within New Zealand’s grasp . Again, you questioned the need of fibre optic network with the assumption that New Zealand is fine with the current network available . Not only does fibre optic network future proof the Internet infrastructure in New Zealand, but also it provides benefits as described previously . With the nationwide expansion of the fibre optic network, high definition, real-time video conferencing – which is currently unachievable with the current copper network – can be made possible between people who work from home, thus allow realistic human-to-human contact . As stated by Sweep earlier, this eliminates the costly transportation between home and the workplace, thus contribute as an indirect benefit . With regards to what John Key had to say on the development of FTTH, you have chosen to ignore it completely and rubbished it as “political views” which does not deserve a spotlight in today’s debate . Such political statements are important – and therefore, relevant – as political intervention is needed in order to ensure nationwide deployment of fibre . This is said as Telecom is largely uninterested in FTTH; rather, it is more keen on the money and prefers to continue selling copper wire to bridge up computers . Therefore, FTTH opinions offered by John Key, as the prime minister of New Zealand, should be considered in this debate . Lastly, the regulatory framework and funding model discussion mentioned by Sweep earlier explains how a fibre optic network may be deployed should the funding is approved . This allows insight into how the money is used as well as the financial structure that is associated, thus providing assurance to the tax-payers that a successful outcome will emerge at the end of the day . Thank you for reading the rebuttal .	Renmoo (66)
832874	2009-12-07 07:06:00	Thanks for an awesome post there Jamuz :D. Watch this space for the negative reply...	Erayd (23)
832875	2009-12-08 10:59:00	Thank you to Jamuz for an great post :D. I will now continue with the second negative reply. The affirmative team have brought some excellent points to the table, but most of these points seem to fall short of actually addressing the issue fully, and completely overlook the negative side of the argument. I shall now address this inconsistancy. In your defense of an end-to-end, all-the-way-to-the-premises fibre network (FTTH), you have presented several examples of networks which have a fibre core, but use copper for the last mile. You have claimed these networks are inadequate, but have utterly failed to produce any conclusive evidence to that effect. Let's start by looking at Telecom's current network. This is a leading-edge DSL-based network, with a largely fibre core. Fibre is used for the main backbone links, and for backhaul links from exchanges & cabinets. The 'last mile' link to businesses and homes is served over copper. Telecom's network is more than adequate; in fact its potential capacity vastly exceeds our current ability to utilise it. A simple upgrade to the copper termination equipment will enable the use of such technologies as VDSL and pair bonding, resulting in real-world symmetric (both up & down) speeds of over 100mb/sec for end users. This speed is more than adequate for almost all likely uses of a national high-speed network. Services such as high-definition videoconferencing typically consume less than 10% of such a link. Another example of a combination fibre and copper network is TelstraClear's cable network in the Wellington and Christchurch regions. Already capable of extremely high speeds, TelstraClear is currently partway through a large-scale rollout of DOCSIS-3 equipment on its network. Although most ISPs place artificial speed limits on this hardware, it is easily capable of real-world, sustained throughput of several hundred mb/sec in both directions. As you can see, we already have two great networks in place, one of which covers almost the entire country, and neither of which costs the taxpayer any significant amount of money. As such, there is no logical reason to waste tax money on yet another high-speed network when we already have other options available, especially noting the poor shape our economy is in as we recover from the recession. I'm sure some of you may be thinking “great network, but why don't I see that speed?” The simple fact of the matter is that New Zealand is extremely limited by the amount of international bandwidth available, and most internet traffic a typical user will require is international. Due to the enormous cost of this bandwidth, New Zealand ISPs massively oversell (i.e. only allocate a very small amount of international bandwith per user – I believe Telecom is somewhere in the region of 20kb/sec per user). When everyone jumps online at the same time, the result is intense competition for the minimal international bandwidth available, and low speeds. The poor performance is almost always not related in any way to the national network over which the data is delivered. Because of our current stavation of international connectivity, there is no point in building yet another high-speed network when we can't even utilise our existing ones properly. We should be investing in another overseas cable system before we even consider network upgrades at home. The affirmative team seems to have set much store by the supposed economic gains to be realised by building a new FTTH network, but they have still failed to give a single, factual point supporting their position, even when challenged to do so in the previous negative post. I invite them again to please offer any evidence they have available to back up their position – so far, the only data you have provided in this area are the rather tenuous guesses of a 'think-tank' group, with no factual basis. Can you, in fact, list any more than a few specialist cases which would benefit financially from such a network upgrade? Why should New Zealand's taxpayers finance a brand new network simply to benefit a few niche corporate players, when many of us are already struggling under the heavy burden of weathering a major recession? If a few elite businessmen want a shiny new internet connection to play with, why can't they pay for it themselves? You have also brought up the current government's political propoganda about the implementation of a new network – again, we'd like to repeat that it's simply irrelevant. Such a large investment needs to be fully justified before even starting to discuss how it should be implemented. Political propoganda is outside the scope of this debate, and should be ignored. On a related note, I'd like to address the inconvenience you mentioned earlier of constructing networks on a large scale. The affirmative team highlights, quite rightly, such inconveniences as “traffic-stopping, road diversion and occasional accidents”. We agree absolutely with this; it's yet another reason why we should simply stick with the high-speed networks we already have. These don't require any such disturbances, as the cabling and infrastructure is already in place. A new network would require untold amounts of hassle and disruption to install, for no real gain. “Future proofing.” This seems to be one of the affirmative team's biggest arguing points. Sadly, it's also one of the weakest. Wanting to invest taxpayer in a FTTH network today is like wanting to build a twenty-lane replacement for the Auckland harbour bridge to accommodate future traffic. Sure, it may eventually come to that, but not in a short enough timeframe to warrant building that bridge tomorrow, and other infrastructure requirements need to be taken care of long before such a bridge could ever even be properly utilised. New Zealand's internet needs for the forseeable future can be served more than adequately by our existing networks, with occasional (relatively) minor upgrades to the connecting hardware to keep up with demand. There's plenty of capacity left where we need it, and there's a very long way to go before we need to even start thinking about replacing the 'last mile.' Finally, I'd like to take a moment to list some of the factual errors in the affirmative argument, and advise the audience to read their viewpoint with an extremely critical mindset. “VDSL actually relies on fibre optic network for data transmission” - this is blatantly incorrect, VDSL is a technology for creating extremely high-speed connections over existing copper phonelines. The very first sentence in the Wikipedia article for VDSL states “VDSL or VHDSL (Very High Bitrate DSL)[1] is a DSL technology providing faster data transmission over a single flat untwisted or twisted pair of copper wires.” Such twisted-pair phone cable already connects almost every premises in the country to Telecom's network. “However, it is more likely than not that New Zealand’s access to international data will increase. This is because New Zealand’s unfavourable geographical position means that the utilisation of e-commerce would likely become more prevalent.” - the affirmative is mistaking 'desire for and use of international bandwidth' for 'better access to international bandwidth.' In the real world, simply wanting or using something doesn't make it better; somebody will need to spend real money on a very large scale improving our international links before this can happen. “...as opposed to 1.5 Mb/s offered by copper wire” - copper-wire networking has been far faster than this for many decades; even old 10-Base2 coax networking was faster. Current copper networking technologies run in excess of 10GBits/sec over standard Cat6 ethernet cable, and over 100mb/sec over ordinary copper telephone connections. “immunisation to electromagnetic interference” - this is a complete non-issue; current networks are either extremely well shielded, or use mature techniques for working around such interference, depending on which part of the network you're talking about. Claiming that fibre will offer any real benefit in this area is simply scaremongering, as our existing networks are easily robust enough to cope. “real-time video conferencing – which is currently unachievable with the current copper network” - of course it's achievable; just try telling the thousands of people who do this regularly with clients such as Skype, MSN, Google talk etc that they are somehow delusional, and are merely imaging that they see their loved ones on the screen in front of them. In summary, we believe that building a new FTTH network is a waste of taxpayer money when there are already other high-speed options available that will serve us well for many years to come. In addition, the challenges and bottlenecks currently of note aren't caused by our national networks, but by other factors. A fibre network is a luxury that would benefit only a few, and is a foolhardy investment in the current economic climate – we should be concentrating on recovering from the recession, not building new toys for the corporate suits to play with. Thank you for reading, and I now turn the floor over to the_bogan for the overall negative summary.	Erayd (23)
832876	2009-12-15 10:53:00	As the_bogan has gone missing in action without leaving us any clue where he's got to, I will now post the negative summary, by the agreement of all other participants. Our argument can largely be summarised in this simple sentence: What we have at the moment is more than enough, and we should be using our money on other, far more pressing needs than building a brand new, redundant network we don't need now, and won't need for many years to come, that would benefit only a few niche players. As such, we do not support spending taxpayer money to build a full FTTH (fibre-to-the-home) network at the present time. The networks we currently have available are capable of vastly higher speeds than the affirmative team has given them credit for; current bottlenecks are almost entirely related to the excessive overselling of capacity on New Zealand's international links or artificial limits imposed by the ISP, and have very little (and in most cases nothing) to do with the capacity of our current national networks. Fancy phonecalls (videoconferencing), HD video delivery, and many other bandwidth-hungry services are either already supported by existing networks, or can have that support added via relatively cheap upgrades of the network termination equipment. The opposition has repeatedly brought up vast economic benefits as a compelling motivator, but has utterly failed to produce the facts to back up their oft-repeated figures – this makes their argument highly suspect, and it can't be taken seriously. Summaries are not generally allowed to contain new substantive points, but I'd be interested to see where these alleged benefits lie – so feel free to post them anyway :rolleyes:. Political propaganda regarding the way the current administration intends to implement such a network is irrelevant – the purpose of this debate is to decide whether or not the construction of such a network is a worthy use of taxpayer funds. Delaying the construction of such a network until we can see a real need for it will allow us to take better advantage of emerging technologies, and will help keep the costs down – as we all know, technology depreciates at one hell of a rate, and existing gear is made obsolete by new and improved tech extremely quickly. 'Future proofing' is a stupid idea when the future you're trying to proof against is such a rapidly moving target; it makes far more sense to target the immediate need, and add a reasonable margin to accommodate growth – this is exactly what the people who constructed our existing national networks did, and as a result they are still serving us admirably today, and will continue to do so for many years to come. To conclude, I remind you once again of this simple fact: What we have at the moment is more than enough, and we should be using our money on other, far more pressing needs than building an extremely expensive network we clearly don't need. Thank you for reading, and I now turn over the floor to the affirmative team.	Erayd (23)
1 2