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
832877	2009-12-15 21:26:00	Thanks Eryad for taking the_bogans' part in this debate and for your summary. I won't keep you waiting for the affirmative side of this debate. “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.” This debate is not about any other “pressing needs” which in any event you have not defined. The affirmative have never suggested that FTTH should be fully funded by Government but that the Govt. should have a stake in such an enterprise. The affirmative have not suggested building a brand new redundant network but rather combine the networks we currently have under one Telco which the Govt would have a stake in along with other investors. We believe that far more people than niche players would benefit. Assuming the Govt. is a stakeholder then one would assume a profit to the Govt over time much like them currently holding shares in Air New Zealand and Power Companies. We would see a Crown Fibre Company and Local Fibre Companies like Local Bodies set up. “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.” I can’t see any figures produced to justify the above paragraph. We have seen that speed over copper degrades rapidly the further away from the cabinet you happen to be. “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.” What do you mean by relatively cheap? Once again no hard facts produced. Bandwidth hungry applications are not currently supported in Tokoroa unless I go to a leased line which in my case is not affordable and bear in mind I am only 2.5 Km from State Highway 1. Parts of major cities like Auckland can’t even get ADSL2 yet and the way things are going it will be quite some time coming. “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 .” OK. A link to the document that contains the figures we quoted:- www.nzinstitute.org Some 25 pages but does contain the information you have requested. It is true to say that the affirmative have relied heavily on the above document. We have done so because The New Zealand Institute is an INDEPENDENT body with no axe of their own to grind. “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.” Delay normally costs money. For example the Auckland Harbour bridge was constructed. Then we bought the Nippon Clip on. Now we are finding that it costs heaps just to maintain the clip on so are just now looking for an alternative. At this time the powers that be have not managed to even decide what alternative should be built in spite of the fact that the projected life of the bridge is now only 25-30 years. One would assume that to maintain the present copper wire we currently rely on costs money which currently the Telcos do but the user still pays for it anyway. “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.” You have not proven that what we have now is more than enough. It may be in certain areas but certainly not for most rural and semi rural New Zealand. I also remind you that you have not defined what the other “pressing needs” are. That concludes the debate.	Sweep (90)
832878	2009-12-15 22:52:00	Thanks very much to the affirmative team for a great debate :D	Erayd (23)
832879	2009-12-15 22:59:00	Also the debate would not have been interesting but for the input from the negative team and the affirmative thank them.	Sweep (90)
832880	2009-12-16 05:29:00	Voting is now open.	somebody (208)
832881	2009-12-16 08:00:00	Come on people, let's get the voting going!	Renmoo (66)
832882	2009-12-19 23:27:00	Just to make it easier for those who want to read the debate: First affirmative: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz First negative: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz Second affirmative: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz Second negative: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz Negative summary: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz Affirmative summary: pressf1.pcworld.co.nz Vote away when you have read the debate :)	Renmoo (66)
832883	2009-12-21 05:29:00	I've cleaned this thread up and removed all the chitter-chatter to make it easier for people to find and read the actual debate posts. The chitter-chatter posts are now in the debate discussion thread. :)	Jen (38)
1 2