NBN: Correcting the Record on the Coalition NBN Plan

This is a collection of Omissions, inaccuracies or misleading statement in the Coalition's NBN Policy documents.

Please Note:

• The comments here are concise and assume a more technical knowledge than "an ordinary reader".
• I'm NOT supporting either Political Party or their Policy.
• Both Plans have deep, concerning issues.
• Both side of Politics are making unfounded statements and questionable promises.
• This piece is NOT analysis or recommendation for or against the Coalition Plan. It only seeks to layout facts that can be checked and confirmed on the public record.

MSFT: A Big Day - stock downgraded on back of PC sales 'turmoil' (15% down) and mobile offerings 'underwhelm'

This is a big day for Microsoft: it's stock has been downgraded to 'hold' from 'buy' on back of PC sales 'turmoil' (15% down) and they're criticised for "underwhelming" performance in new mobile markets.

MSFT: The Application that dare not Speak Its Name

There have been recent reports about the decline in global PC sales. Laptops replaced Desktops are the most common "PC" platform 5 or more years ago. What impact on the market will this have?

NBN: Turnbull pre-releases Policy to News Ltd, engages Full-FUD drive.

News Ltd is spruiking for the Coalition again, spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt far and wide.

It's complete B/S for anyone, including NBN Co and Conroy, to say they know the exact project cost or completion schedule, either "on-time, on-budget" or a gross exaggeration of 2-3 times over budget, or even as Turnbull has been claiming, "it is a failing project".

I'm sorry, but "Failing projects" don't deliver anything, the NBN Co work is progressing and progressing well. The ALP and NBN Co are doing a lousy job of selling their performance and informing the public of their progress. MT would be right to criticise there.

NBN: The Coalition has it backwards - it should be pro-Fibre.

In 2001, Prime Minister, Howard was seen by his own party, as "mean and tricky". Not only that, but they had things backwards, summarised on "7:30" as:

The Government was "mean and tricky, out of touch and not listening" and it had deserted its own voter base, especially small business and self-funded retirees. 

If Fibre-to-Business was not a good idea, then why did the Coalition not block a $23 million project to upgrade 252 electoral offices to "Ultra-fast Internet Cables"? This is the very worst hypocrisy by a cynical cohort of politicians living high on the publicly funded hog: "I'm alright, Jack, blow you!".

Messers Abbot, Turnbull, Fletcher and Joyce are repeating this same wrong-headed blindness and being allowed to get away with it, unchallenged, by their own constituency and the Labor Party.

If you ask THE question about the NBN, "Who Benefits, Right Now?", then the answer is plain and unequivocal. it is NOT the urban dwelling middle-class who benefit. It's the Coalition's heartland:

NBN: CommsDay vs ABC.

Media Watch pointed to the CommsDay "riposte" to the ABC's definitive article listing the issues around NBN. [Part 2 of article]. Written 14-march-2013.

Here's my analysis of Grahame Lynch's "50 problems". Commsday comments in this colour.
[18-Mar: Apologies to Grahame for misspelling his name]

For completeness, some disclosure: I don't work for, or hold shares in, a Telco, NBN Co or one of their suppliers or contractors, nor am I a member or supporter of any Political Party. Neither do I support the Labor NBN plan over the Coalition's unannounced NBN. I hold the position that either Policy with deliver better broadband access. My interest is for a clear and informed debate on what I consider the defining Technology of the 21st Century for national Business Productivity and Competitiveness.

Unsolicited Advise to a classmate

I've never been a politician, managed a large budget or run even a moderate sized project, so why do I have the hubris to offer some unsolicited advice to a newly minted I.T. Minister, to whom by accident, I was once briefly a classmate?

Rejecting these thoughts "because nobody else is doing them" is an option, though not a great reason.

Rejecting them "because they're too expensive" is a judgement call, but has to be measured against "Compared to What?".
Doing nothing will cost you a whole bunch, you've already have the report on that.

The core arguments in support of my observations are:

• How important to the current and future BackOffice and FrontOffice operations of your Government is I.T.? I suggest that the machinery of Government cannot operate without it I.T. systems, not simply ineffectively, but like airlines, not at all.
• There is an internal consistency in what I propose, derived from one of the toughest businesses around. The challenge is not "will this work", but "how can it be made to work for us".

National Security: Prevention and Strengthening Defences missing from Gillard Strategy

The Gillard government has released a new National Security strategy specifically including Cyber-Security. It updates a 2009 strategy released by the Rudd government:

Strong and Secure: A Strategy for Australia's National Security

The strategy is strong, competent and wrong...
Because what is outlined is incomplete:

They have failed to address the root cause of cyber-attacks: vulnerable and error-filled Operating Systems and poor Application Software. Fix the weakness, stop the compromises before they happen, spend the money on where it can do good, not support "Business As Usual".

Cleaning up the mess and containing damage after the fact is exactly wrong: it's attempting to catch the horse after its has bolted.

Security: Computer Security for Business Continuity in Healthcare

If you run a Healthcare-realted Business, things changed in the last 6 months...
Ransomware is set to boom [0] and cyber-security is now part of our National Security Plan.
Businesses now have to secure their computers and data just as they secure their premises and goods.

It's not optional, fail to do so and you will go out of business, just when is the question.
Ask yourself this: "If my computers were destroyed, how long could I continue the business? At reduced capacity or at all?", then act accordingly.
i.e. Does anyone around the world see you as a high-value, exploitable target?
Especially those in low-income countries with employment problems: poverty corrupts, not just power or the love of money.

The Internet is defined by its explosive growth: A few For-Profit hackers have noticed Business Ransomware is an ideal way to monetise remote computer attacks & exploits.
The numbers of these attacks will now double every few months as word gets around, new "toolkits" are sold to them and they ramp up their activities.

Every business that can raise $5,000 and relies on its systems and data for daily operations is now in their sights. These people have no morals, ethics or compassion in their work: they want your money and don't care about the damage they cause or the impact of their actions. Appeals to them will fall on deaf ears. Neither believe that a single ransom payment will be the last you'll hear of them. Why would you trust the word of criminals who've already broken in and callously damaged your systems?

Security: Healthcare systems are "soft-targets": the Next Big Exploit

Previous pieces on Security:

• NBN: the business case for 100-1000Mbps symmetric for SOHO & SME
• Security: The Massive hole in the PCEHR system
• Cyberwar: paper-tiger or real threat?
• NBN, stuxnet and Security: It's worse than you can believe
• Cyberwar: Bush/O'Bama authorised Stuxnet
• The NBN and defending against Cyber warfare attacks.
• The NBN as an Essential Strategic Defence for Cyber-warfare.
• CyberWars, Governments and Internet Security
• Why new Secure Internet solutions are technically Hard

I'd been racking my brains as to how Cybercriminals can "monetise" e-Health Records and writing to someone else, think I've understood it finally after a "Top of the News" report by the Security for Professionals: SANS.

There are two ways to monetise e-Health Records:

• Identity Theft. Huge amount of high-quality info. Medicare Cards are worth 'points' as Govt. ID's.
• Ransomware: healthcare can't operate without its data and they print money by the truckload.

Storage: Smaller is better in Hard Disks

I upgraded my TimeMachine ® drive two days ago on my Apple Desktop [2009 Intel Mac Mini, OS/X Snow Leopard].

I went to a local office supply chain-store and bought a Seagate USB3 drive for $90, replacing my older 'Buffalo' USB2 drive, maybe 12-18 months old. While the Mac Mini only has USB2 ports and I can realise the higher bus speed, it will work on newer computers as well.

My new drive is 1TB, 2.5", covered by the statutory 12mth warranty. Better to replace without pressure, than when things are broken... The old drive can go on the shelf as a long-term roll-back.

This is a trick I learnt from a friend with a number of Macbooks and iMacs:

permanently attach an external drive for TimeMachine... Cheap and Effective!

2.5" is important.
The consumer drive variants (not 'enterprise', designed for servers) are built to be mobile (laptops & portable devices) and so are more robust, shock-resilient, etc.

But that's not the 'secret sauce': it's power consumption, and its relative, heat dissipation.

2.5" drives can be fully powered by USB 2, in the normal/correct specification [not the 10W+ that the iPad demands, but well under 5W, even 2.5W]. They run cool, quietly, on low-power.

Not needing a "wall-wart" is really important: it can never be lost, never blow up, never "leak mains power" or cause earth-loop problems (my Western Digital 3.5" drive sparks against the frame when I plug it in. Scary.)

There's a reason based in physics for 2.5" drives using a lot less power:

the aerodynamic drag of the platters,  the main power consumer that is turned into heat, is affected by 3 factors: number of platters, rotational rate, size of platters.

Firstly, they only have 1 or 2 platters, versus 4 (max 5?) you'll find in 3.5" drives.
"low performance" 2.5" drives at 5400rpm spin slower than 3.5" drives, mostly7200rpm  -  a ratio of 1.33:1.
Aerodynamic drag increases with the cube (third power) of speed/rotational rate. The cube of 1.33 is 2.37.

Just these two factors reduce potential power demand by about five times, albeit for one-quarter the space compared to a 4TB 3.5" drive. But 1TB is more than enough to maintain snapshots of my 300GB drive and is a good fit for me.

For the next factor:

Disk Drive form-factors are related - each size has platters half the area of the larger size, so the diameter/radius ratio is 0.7/1.4 times, the square root...

The 3rd factor overshadows all others:

The drag is proportional to the fifth (5th) power of diameter.
This ratio for a diameter ratio 0.7/1.41 is 0.18/5.66.

Just halving platter area, and halving capacity/plater, reduces power needs by another five times.

Without trying, 2.5" drives use 20 times less power, for only 1/2 to 1/4 the capacity.
For the same capacity but slower spin-rate, they use 10 (ten) times less power,

Four 2.5" drives use just a little less space than a single 3.5" drive [102mm x 140mm x 19-25.4mm] vs [102mm x 147mm x 26.1mm], ignoring connectors.

The Small Form Factor Committee very nicely designed the footprint of each device size to be the same ratio meaning the length of the next smaller size is the width of the current size. If you've ever noticed, you can lay a 2.5" drive sideways across a 3.5" drive. Four 2.5" drives, in 2 stacks of 2, will fit within a box that would hold a single 3.5" drive. Adding connectors is trickier - they are at right-angles to each other in the two form factors.

A side benefit you have 4 sets of independent electronics, buffers and heads working for you.

You get better aggregate throughput and seek performance from 4 smaller drives, OR you can sacrifice 33% of capacity for radically improved fault-resilience and setup RAID-5 over 4 drives.

But 2.5" drives cost around 35-100% more per GB, depending on models.
It depends what value you put on your time and your data...
I think $90/TB vs $75/TB is insignificant compared to the benefits, even for home use.

If its business or professional-use data for a modest drive count, the economics of 2.5" drives are a slam-dunk (or "no-brainer").  If you have petabytes to store, you got other problems to solve.

At this point you might be wondering "If small is good, and much smaller is much better, why don't we have smaller Form Factors in common use?"

We do.

1.75 inch drives are manufactured in volume, but not sold in "computers", only embedded in mobile devices. They are tricky to manufacture with the same problems as making watches.
The Small Form Factor Committee never specified a standard, especially for thickness, of these drives.

There have been previous credible attempts at micro-minature HDD's: around 2000, IBM built the largest capacity "Compact Flash" drive available. It was a hard disk. While they were both highest capacity and best price/MB, they weren't popular with working Professional Photographers - they were too fragile... One of the extreme advantages of solid-state memory, like "Flash", is its robustness, especially when turned off. If you keep static electricity away from them, they can be nearly indestructible. The data will fade away ("Flash" EPROM is not permanent) long before they'll succumb to mechanical damage...

But within a couple of years the market collapsed because real Flash memory overtook them in capacity, price/MB and transfer rate.

Not long after RAID-5 was proposed in 1989, there was a good academic paper that suggested by 2000 we'd have a new type of storage: many single platter 1 inch drives soldered onto boards.

The economics of very small form-factor disk drives turned out never to be compelling.

If nobody is building the drives in volume, the price cannot be competitive with substitutes, like Flash for smaller units and 2.5" and 3.5" drives for larger units.
If there is no demand for a product, then no manufacturer will invest in the R&D and manufacturing facilities to ramp-up to volume production.

It sounds like a chicken-and-egg problem: nobody builds small drives so nobody designs products based on them so there is no reason to build small drives.

But that's not the whole story: drive manufacturers can do the Maths and know their production economics and capabilities very well.
If they thought they could produce rugged, small drives that were cheaper and higher-capacity compared to Flash, then one of them would've tried it. If they'd have made a profit, everyone would've followed, just like the 5.25 inch to 3.5 inch and 3.5 inch to 2.5 inch changeovers.

The stumbling block is per-device manufacturing cost.

Disks are complex mechanical devices, assembled individually to very fine tolerances. Their production costs are dominated by that, not raw materials and the process doesn't scale well with volume. While disk capacity has doubled every year for 15 years, the minimum unit price has either remained the same or risen.

Very small format drives, even in high volume, would, per unit, cost a sizeable fraction of 2.5" or 3.5" drives.

Compact Flash chips, whilst small capacity (1-32Gb) compared to even 2.5 inch drives (1000Gb), are cents per chip to produce and the technology to scale volume production of them is very well known and researched, but more importantly lends itself to scaling up.

Flash current sells for $1-$10/Gb and 32Gb is $10-20 retail, or less. SSD's are more expensive per GB than SD cards and USB Flash memory devices for a number of reasons related to speed, reliability/durability and wear-rate.

No 2.5" drive can be smaller than mid-capacity Flash memory or SSD: no user would buy one.
Or, the smallest 2.5" drives you can sell for $50-$60 are 250GB, or $0.20/GB.

If you could make a very small format disk drive for as little as $30 retail, it has to compete with Flash.
It'd have to be over 128GB to sell, or at least half the capacity of a small 2.5 inch drive or one-eight the size of high-capacity 2.5 inch drives.

Which gives a smallest economic form-factor of 1.25 inch, this year.
Next year, when Flash memory reduces another 30%, it's marginal and the year after, when Flash cost/GB has halved, completely uneconomic. A two year product life is well below the payback period.

There haven't been any discoveries or developments in magnetic disks that will change these economies within 10 years: we won't ever see high volume production of computer drives smaller than 2.5 inch.

---

Drive Dimensions:
2.5":  70mm x 102mm x 9mm [thickness varies, 7mm to 12.7mm. 15mm for 'enterprise']
3.5": 102mm x 147mm x 26.1mm [std "1-inch" thickness]

Sources:
[http://www.sffcommittee.com/ie/index.html]
[ftp://ftp.seagate.com/sff/8000_PRJ.HTM]
[ftp://ftp.seagate.com/sff/SFF-8200.PDF] 2.5"
[ftp://ftp.seagate.com/sff/SFF-8300.PDF] 3.5"

Content: What's wrong with the Wikipedia Knowledge Model

The Register had a recent piece on Wikipedia: they're rolling in cash and the lucky few are enjoying that gravy train. Talking about this led to a discussion on the strengths and failings of the Wikipedia Content Model vs Classical Encyclopaedias, like Britannica.

Wikipedia has a simplistic Model of Knowledge: There is But One Truth.

If you are an engineer or a programmer, then this is as axiomatic as binary data and logic: true/false, 0/1, just one correct answer to every equation or calculation/test, there is but one truth.

Which is exactly where Wikipedia excels: if you need to look up a technical topic, especially in computing/communications and some engineering, where there is a well defined specification, then you find very good articles, often concise, complete and well explained.

But this is at best an undergraduate view of engineering: incomplete, naive, simplistic and completely without nuance. It's deeply wrong and misleading.

What does Encyclopaedia Britannica provide?

Experts. With a comprehensive knowledge of the field, its history, the current "State of the Art and Practice" and the currently accepted theories with competing ideas and approaches  to problems at 'the edge'. They understand nuance and the many theories nature of the development of science. But more importantly, they bring judgement and an ability to explain their field to others.

Even in objective technical fields, like computing and electronic engineering, there are many competing theories about the field, each with their benefits and limitations, all argued for strongly by proponents and all, even those appearing 'weak' or later proven wrong or limited, offer insight and understanding.

Knowing the whole story, what works, whats been tried, whats been discarded - and why, is as important as knowing the current best theory. And that's for objective fields of knowledge: 'truth' isn't fixed and immutable, but constantly and unpredictably evolving and changing.

The proof of this is the 1902 statement by the newly appointed Commissioner of Patents in the US:

In my opinion, all previous advances in the various lines of invention will appear totally insignificant when compared with those which the present century will witness. I almost wish that I might live my life over again to see the wonders which are at the threshold.

He was proven right, beyond his wildest dreams... The nature of Science is change, "truth" evolves over time.

For more subjective fields, the 'soft sciences', even history and philosophy, the many viewpoints approach of science is vitally important: the discourse is more important than "the" answer.
Or fields requiring judgement, in answering questions about "best", ethics or belief and emotions: the stuff of real life.

Within this Many Theories and Viewpoints model of knowledge, articles with single identified authors are important. Readers may wish to read more by the author or disagree with their viewpoint and avoid their writing.

Contributions from Domain Experts in Encyclopaedias offer the same promise as Undergraduate courses for professionals:

Complete coverage of the field: an A-Z guide of the current state of the art, influenced by the experts viewpoint and approach.

This is the weakness of the "autodidact", or the self-taught: they can easily miss large and important areas of a field. They don't know what they don't know, whilst a "good" undergraduate course carries the promise of knowing what you know and what you don't know: formal education is about removing the "Unknown Unknowns". The self-taught, without feedback from others, can never be certain they've learnt the whole field. [Because they aren't hampered by preconceptions, they can sometimes arrive at startling new answers, but mostly they fall into known fallacies and logic traps.]

To evolve, grow and thrive, Wikipedia needs to embrace single identified authorship, multiple competing views on the same subject and good histories of the subject, reflecting the cut-and-thrust of all lively, developing areas of academic debate.

For Wikipedia to be more than the naive "font of all undergraduate wisdom", it has to embrace the complex, many faceted view of knowledge and discourse in world of graduates and researchers.

Recruiting FAIL: The Non-Response of ITCRA.

I'm not impressed with the ITCRA grievance process.

As a mere 'candidate', they were happy to accept a 'grievance' from me, using that term, to communicate with me on the matter over many months and to put me to some trouble to provide them 'evidence'. When I raised concerns about maintaining the confidentiality of my private emails, they were brushed aside: Our Way or the Highway was the message.

After too many months, today I finally have a letter saying the matter is 'resolved' and now closed.
I am none the wiser about the facts of my complaints or if ITCRA viewed any/all/some of them as proven.
Did they think I was a reliable witness and weigh my evidence highly or not? I've No Idea.

ITCRA was also unhappy that I should dare to write-up a DEIDENTIFIED version of the story.

As an organisation they seem to have difficulty with the notions of Freedom of Speech, Open and Transparent Governance Processes and Natural Justice.
Nor did anyone have the decency to offer me an apology.
From that, do I infer they found NO FAULT on the part of the Agency and Agent? That I've been a jerk, wasting their time and making a nuisance of myself? I've No Idea.

If anyone has a problem with an ITCRA Member Company, my advice now is:

Don't waste your time.

They'll only jerk you aroud, waste your time and leave you very unsatisfied.

Previous posts on the matter:

http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com/2012/09/recruiting-fail-how-to-foul-up-employee.html

http://stevej-on-it.blogspot.com/2012/09/recruiting-fail-part-3-itcra-complaint.html


DRAFT Complaint: 10-Sept-2012.

Mr. AAA BBB,
ITCRA Member Company Representative
XXX Recruitment
YYY Street
Melbourne VIC 3000

Dear AAA,

I am in receipt of a grievance lodged by a candidate Mr. Steve Jenkin, against a XXX consultant Mr. ZZZ ZZZ. He has certified that the information provided is correct to the best of his knowledge and that he has not provided any false or misleading claims against another company or individual and has provided additional email evidence to support the claims made. In summary the issues are:

Background (commencing in August)

• The issue is focused on a *permanent* position for a senior IT staffer and Mr Jenkin was required to move interstate.
• Agency approached Mr Jenkin, no job application ever made by Mr Jenkin.
• Job never advertised with a start date, no immediacy ever stated. Comment was made that it was expected to take 2 months to fill position [by October]

Grievances

• Misleading statements:
1. Confused an email from consultant (ZZ) to work seeker (SJ) with a written offer from the Client. Insisted this was a "Job Offer ", implying a binding contract.

2. Promised help finding accommodation for relocating interstate and none was provided. Having local accommodation was always a condition of accepting the position.

• Harassment or cyber-stalking:

1. One incident of a dozen calls/texts in 30mins by (ZZ)

2. (SJ) asked, in an email, to desist. (ZZ) repeated again later with more very inappropriate and abusive statements.

• Privacy Act breach.
1. (ZZ) used referee contact details for purposes data not supplied for. When work seeker (SJ) would not answer consultant’s (ZZ) calls, consultant (ZZ) rang referee to complain and spoke inappropriately.

• Additional Issues

1. When SJ had failed to receive a contract 10 days from first proposed start date, informed ZZ of inability to start due to personal circumstances. ZZ then harassed and browbeat SJ and seriously overstepped by continuing to demand exactly what the personal circumstances were. This was justified by saying that there was a need to explain to the Client.

2. Misspelt SJ name on contract.

3. ZZ demanded a written apology from SJ to Client for pointing this out.

4. ZZ Sent 7 emails in 15 minute period informing work SJ of Job Offer. ZZ Kept issuing recall emails for incorrect offers sent.

5. ZZ commented that his manager was continually chasing him to comply with company requirements and document all communications.

6. SJ requested 3 times in email that ZZ ask Client if 9-day fortnight [with RDO] would be acceptable during first 3 months while transitioning to Sydney. ZZ never asked Client [confirmed]. Client was happy to comply when asked by SJ.

7. ZZ deliberately misled SJ by stating the job was full-time only and RDO’s were not possible.

Formal Letter of Response: 19-Dec-2012

Mr Steve Jenkin,

Dear Steve,,

The ITCRA Board of Directors has asked me to write and thank you for raising the professional practice matter against ZZZ ZZZ of XXX Recruitment. The complaints process allows us, as an Association, to address issues and to ensure that recruitment practices achieve best practice benchmarks.

The Conduct Committee reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and asked further questions of XXX Recruitment, as the Member of ITCRA. The findings and recommendations of the Conduct Committee were discussed by the ITRCRA Directors and the following outcomes have resulted:

• XXX Recruitment were required to agree to a number of actions as a result of the Committee's recommendations and these have been committed to, with some already completed and assessed by an external quality auditor.

• The ITCRA Directors accepted the Committee's findings and the undertakings by XXX with respect to process review and consultant training.

• The ITCRA Directors raised concerns with respect to the discussions of this matter in the public domain via your blog as this could have jeopardized the process if the Member company felt the Committee had been unduly influenced prior to the matter being heard.

The purpose of the ITCR's Code of Conduct to provide a channel for complaints to be addressed and to provide improvement strategies for professional and business conduct of Members.

As explained to yo, the resolution of the matter was between ITRCA and the Member company and, as such, is confidential and cannot be made public - although the content can be used as a case study, with anonymity, for industry improvement. You would have the right to review any such case study as protection of your rights is also a priority.

The Directors wish you well in your future endeavours and hope that your experience with recruiters, in the future, is not as frustrating.

Have an excellent festive season,

Yours sincerely,
.... CEO

Email to President of ITCRA on their unsatisfactory response.

To: Russell MacDonald, President ITCRA
Subject: ITRCA complaint against XXX
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:10:36 +1100

Russell,

After many months of waiting, today I finally received a letter telling me my complaint against XXX Recruiting on multiple grounds had been resolved.

The letter is best described as "content free".

How was my complaint resolved? I've no idea, just that you've closed the book on it.

Nothing in this process has answered my complaints, nor told me what, if anything, XXX had done wrong, or if any of their malfeasance *I* perceived was supported or not.

All I can gather is they were given a good talking to and they promised not to get caught doing "it" again.

I'm a party to these proceedings, not a third party or 'the public':
  these actions were visited *upon me* and were personally quite devastating and financially disastrous for me AND I personally raised the issue to get some satisfaction from you.

Releasing to me matters that *I* raised, even under a Confidentiality Agreement, doesn't involve any abuse of process or publicly exposes anyone. I already know the names of the players, I was one of them.

If you knew *all along* that I would never be told the outcome of my complaint WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT in September???
That would have been reasonable, but your organisation has jerked me around for months on end...

That's beyond inconsiderate: it's deliberate and intentional misleading behaviour.

At the very least, I would've expected a response to the complaint I raised that comprised two parts:

 - the findings of fact on each individual issue/point raised.
    i.e. "we found a breach of the privacy act, but not harassment"
    Note: I am NOT party to the internal actions, remedies and disciplinary process.

 - if the Agency, or their agent, was found to have acted in Bad Faith or outside acceptable limits in your Professional Code, then an apology to me, at least, is in order.

Where is a letter to me from the management of XXX Recruiting saying "We're sorry, we've looked to fixing things"?????

I'm not just disappointed in the process and this unsatisfactory result, but that you don't understand the concepts behind of Natural Justice. If you asked me to provide a *lot* of personal information as evidence as part of your process, so why cannot I know the determinations you made?

*That* is the reason I approached you with a complaint: to have you make a determination and tell me what it was.

I wish that you:
 - write me a response detailed the determination, not actions taken, on each point of complaint I made.
 - direct XXX Recruitment to write (or phone) an appropriate formal apology to me.

regards
steve jenkin

Security: The Massive hole in the PCEHR system

In the last few days, three computer security stories have hit the news:

• At ADFA, hacking of 10,000 staff and student identity details.
• Credit-Card hacking of small Australian retailers by a Romanian ring [Radio National B'fast with AusCERT]
• A Gold Coast Medical Centre had its data encrypted and held to ransom by 'Russians' [Radio National B'fast]

These may seem small, incidental stories, but they are signs of something much darker. At the end of 2004 the Hackers Turned Pro [and a 2007 piece]: now they're after the money, not publicity nor headlines. In fact, rather the reverse, like special tactical units, military or police, they now want to go completely undetected - to avoid detection, to be completely stealthy.

NBN: The Economics of FTTH vs FTTN

Do you know a Bargain when you see one??
Is either NBN Policy proposal offering a bargain or the opposite, a "lemon"?

NBN: After CommsDay, Questions for Mr Turnbull

In his CommsDay Conference 2012 address, Mr Turnbull came as close as ever to detailing the Coalition NBN plan, seemingly centred around a 25Mbps fixed-line FTTN.

These are some reasonable questions Mr Turnbull should answer to inform the electorate of the Coalition NBN Policy he is prosecuting. I can't see how he can meet any, let alone all, of the Coalition NBN promises - Cheaper, Sooner, More Affordable:

1. Given it took until early this year, 15 years since the start of the Domestic Internet Revolution, for the Coalition to grudgingly adopt a Fast Broadband Policy, What guarantee do we, the electorate, have that the Coalition will fulfil its promises, not revert to its previous position and nationally deliver everyone The Gungahlin Experience?

2. The exact details matter in Technology Projects like the NBN and Mr Turnbull has shown his poor grasp of critical details, or willingness to disingenuously spin the facts. Sanity checks against previous deployments (Transact) and FTTN proposals (Telstra 2005) of Coalition claims of lower FTTN costs  and comparing FTTN and Fibre construction costs suggests that in achieving the Coalition promise "Better Broadband, Cheaper, Sooner and More Affordable", something different, and not yet disclosed, will need to be deployed:
1. Does the Coalition guarantee to match the current fixed-line coverage of 93% premises?
2. The Coalition demanded detailed, precise costings for the current NBN, it is their turn to provide them well, the sooner the better to allow a full discussion. Will Mr Turnbull release costings to the nearest $100MM in the near future?
3. The GPON NBN has a design life of 30 years starting with new cable and equipment, while the FTTN is End-of-Lifecycle technology using End-of-Life cables: Will Mr Turnbull release detailed comparisons of the Total Cost of Ownership of both proposals?
4. Mr Turnbull has implied the Coalition FTTN equipment will be field upgradable to Fibre.
1. Won't building a copper network to throw away be more expensive?
2. If the Coalition intends to deploy a Fibre solution, why not start with it?
3. Isn't adhoc, on-demand laying of fibre and digging trenches the most expensive and inefficient method of rolling out Fibre?

3. FTTN technology is a very poor fit for low-population density areas, such as the regional towns and rural areas. Costs escalate exponentially: copper-run distances increase, pushing down access rates and ports per node decrease geometrically, raising the per port costs. Will Mr Turnbull release early the detail of how he will guarantee metropolitan access rates for Country users of the Coalition NBN? Will he guarantee not to rely on expensive, congestion-prone Fixed Wireless (3/4G) for country areas?

For some Party Political questions, I've included two recent sets included in Ministerial media releases. Duplicated questions are coloured. While detailed, they didn't address many questions that I, as a voter, wanted answered.

---

Senator Conroy: Questions for Mr Turnbull, 4-Sep-2012

POLICY (OWNERSHIP)

1. Does he accept that his FTTN network is a government monopoly network?
2. Will Mr Turnbull’s network be on budget or off budget? How much will his policy cost the budget?
3. Is Mr Turnbull really going to buy back the deteriorating copper network and its expensive maintenance costs? Will he also buy the Telstra ducts? Does he stand by his media release of 17 May 2011 that acquiring use of the copper would be “more billions out the door”?
4. Will he guarantee the structural separation of Telstra? Has it been agreed by shadow cabinet?

CAPACITY AND TECHNOLOGY

1. What upload and download capacity will Mr Turnbull guarantee?
2. Which of his previous statements does Mr Turnbull stand by when it comes to what speeds Australians need:
1. In August 2010, he said he could do everything he needed with 3.5 Mbps download[iv]
2. In October 2010, he said 12 Mbps is enough for anybody[v], and
3. In May 2012 he said residential customers need no more than 25 Mbps.[vi]
3. Will FTTN be built in areas where there is HFC? Who will pay to make the HFC open access, enter multi-dwelling units or provide a business grade service? Does Mr Turnbull accept that the upload capacity of HFC is limited to 2 Mbps? Will Telstra be required to divest the HFC assets?
4. How many FTTN nodes does he plan to build? What percentage of premises connected to each cabinet will be able to benefit from speeds of 80 Mbps?
5. How many more premises will be connected using wireless than under the Government’s NBN plans?

PRICES

1. What price will be charged in country areas without the cross subsidy? What will regional users be charged before Mr Turnbull’s on budget “vouchers”? How much will the vouchers be and how many will be issued?
2. Has shadow cabinet formally rejected the National Party policy that fibre to the home should be built to at least 50% of premises in regional Australia?
3. Does Mr Turnbull stand by his claim that his FTTN network will be required to generate a 7% return as claimed in his Op Ed in the Tele on 23 August?

HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE

1. How will he select the private network providers for the few areas he plans to build any new infrastructure?
2. Will he guarantee his new broadband policy will start within 12 months, despite his promise of a Productivity Committee review and tender for a private sector network provider?

---

Senator Conroy: Questions for Mr Turnbull, 10-Oct-2012

COST

1. Will MrTurnbull's network be on budget or off budget? How much will his policy cost the budget?
2. Is Mr Turnbull really going to buy back the deteriorating copper network and its expensive maintenance costs? Will he also buy the Telstra ducts? Does he stand by his media release of 17 May 2011 that acquiring use of the copper would be "more billions out the door"?
3. Will he guarantee the structural separation of Telstra? Has it been agreed by shadow cabinet?

CAPACITY AND TECHNOLOGY

1. What upload and download capacity will Mr Turnbull guarantee?
2. Does he accept that his policy only commits to providing a 25 Mbps service?[iii]
3. Has shadow cabinet formally rejected the National Party policy that fibre to the home should be built to at least 50% of premises in regional Australia?
4. Will FTTN be built in areas where there is HFC? Who will pay to make the HFC open access, enter multi-dwelling units or provide a business grade service? Does Mr Turnbull accept that the upload capacity of HFC is limited to 2 Mbps? Will Telstra be required to divest the HFC assets?
5. How many FTTN nodes does he plan to build?

PRICES

1. What price will be charged in country areas without the cross subsidy? What will regional users be charged before Mr Turnbull's on budget "vouchers"? How much will the vouchers be and how many will be issued?
2. Does Mr Turnbull stand by his claim that his FTTN network will be required to generate a 7% return as claimed in his Op Ed in the Tele on 23 August?

HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE

1. When would his FTTN plan be finished?
2. How will he select the private network providers for the few areas he plans to build any new infrastructure?
3. Will he guarantee his new broadband policy will start within 12 months, despite his promise of a Productivity Committee review and tender for a private sector network provider? Will his "thorough inquiry into the management and governance of the NBN Co" be conducted at the same time as the Productivity Commission review of the project?

OWNERSHIP/POLICY

1. Does he accept that his FTTN network is a government monopoly network?
2. Will he commit to maintaining the network in government ownership till it is fully built?

NBN: FTTN in Australia - the Gungahlin Experiment

In 1995, Telstra announced that the new Town Centre in Northern Canberra, Gungahlin, would be a testbed for "broadband", with a $20-$30MM project announced laying "Fibre to the Kerb", which many people like me interpreted as "Fibre to the Home".

What Telstra deployed was RIM's, Remote Integrated Multiplexors, designed initially as an 'integrated' extension of the local Telephone Exchange. ADSL broadband was not supported. Instead of a world-class demonstration of the application and utility of fast broadband, Gungahlin residents were locked in a battle for even minimal access speeds.

For the rest of Australia, we have very clear demonstration of two things from this nearly two decade 'experiment':

• Fibre-to-the-Node, even 15 years ago when it was a much, much cheaper technology than Fibre-to-the-Premises, is fraught for consumers.
• Even when the subscribers thought they were out of the woods with high-speed ADSL 2+ available, the sting-in-the-tail of FTTN became apparent: congestion on the node "backhaul" makes line access rate irrelevant.
• The Coalition, during the Howard government from 1996 to 2007, did not prioritise, nor apparently see the need for, a National Broadband Network.
• It is only since the Telstra SSU agreements early 2012 that the Coalition has become committed to an NBN of any flavour.

NBN: Costing the Coalition FTTN. It's not Good News.

Mr Turnbull, in his CommsDay address, seemed to be proposing the Paul Fletcher, "Wired Brown Land" FTTN:

• 25Mbps guaranteed, VDSL2
• 800m max wiring (approx. 500m road distance)
• we can infer 40-60 subs per node, consistent with the 160 subs/node of the first Telstra FTTN.
• The "golden screwdriver" is "Multi-Service Nodes": field upgradable from copper to Fibre.

So, what's it going to cost to roll this out to 12M subs, the 93% of premises addressed by NBN Co?

Will Mr Turnbull achieve the Coalition tagline, "Better Broadband, Cheaper, Sooner, More Affordable"?

MSFT: The 'Surface' may be irrelevant, but is this the Beginning of the End for Microsoft?

Is the Microsoft Surface "too little, too late" or another Big Play that will crush the competition?
It is only, as Android devices are, similar to the iPad in design, features, construction and price, not a "must have" device.

Security: The Desktop Wars are over

Comments back from a friend on an idea I was toying with for security on PC's.

It seems the Desktop Wars are over and I need to embrace the New World Order:
 Smartphones, Tablets, Mobile-Devices have changed the problems and our thinking.