kreed wrote
That is true. I would be quite happy if it was practical to get 1.5Mb
where I am without high cost and ridiculously small download limits.
Thats perfectly possible for most.
It would allow for things like use of internet at a better speed while being on a VOIP phone call,
You dont need 1.5Mb for that.
the use of skype video calling etc for example.
Or that.
Not at all. Even if it takes a few hours to download a DVD size content
its more practical than dumping that much money into this scheme.
Alternatives would be to find a VCD quality or similar file (much smaller - faster) for download.
Which is what most do right now.
It's probably a lot more feasible for a lot of people to wait or get a lower sized
download than the hassle of driving to the video store, time spent parking, going in,
finding the vid, paying, driving home etc, then doing it again to return it (if a rental).
I believe all that is grossly overstated.
That has been happening in parts of where I live
Not to individual houses it hasnt.
In that case the telephone system in that area (most likely
copper) is not going to cope with the extra connections,
Wrong, that works fine with RIMs and CMUXes.
and would need an upgrade to cope with the extra population density from these developments.
Only in the sense of more RIMs and CMUXes.
Most of those developments are too small to warrant individual RIMs and CMUXes in each building etc.
When you are looking at major works for this that is the time
to start upgrading the area of the works to fibre service.
No it isnt with FTTP.
If you have to lay from scratch or do a major upgrade to lines,
its probably not going to be a huge difference in cost of laying
copper cable or laying fibre ?
The big difference in cost is at each house.
Would probably need a lot of work in that sort of growing area
with upgrades to electrical services, water, sewerage, gas etc.
That doesnt happen much with individual houses replaced by blocks of units.
Could prioritize suburbs that are due for upgrades, ageing infrastructure,
Thats what we have been doing with RIMs and CMUXes.
have lots of development happening (see above), or ones
with high rates of ADSL usage that would very likely use these
new faster services compared to areas where there were groups
that didnt use much internet, or only cheap, slow plans who aren't
likely to change for cost reasons. (ie: pensioners, low income areas etc)
Still makes no sense to be going for FTTP.
That is true. There are plenty of other public services that need funds.
As I see it, getting as many across Australia as possible up to at least a
reasonably priced ADSL 1 / 2 standard should be what we need to look at.
We've already got that.
Would BPL (power line broadband) work in rural areas ?
Nope. Wireless makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Relatively few users per sq KM, therefore not much clutter or overload of the bandwidth ?
Perfect for wireless. We do that right now with voice comms.
Not as many issues with possible radio interference
compared to using it in an urban area ?,
There is no problem with those in urban areas. 3G works fine.
Gives coverage over a wide area without needing any extra cabling ?
So does wireless and has the advantage of location being completely flexible.
Works from any power socket ?
Fast enough ?
Nope.
AFAIK a majority of rural properties have mains electricity,
Yes.
though probably a lot of SWER systems - do they work with BPL ?
Nope.
Ones that were very isolated would have to use satellite.
They dont have to be very isolated for that to be practical.
Don't see much other option.
Correct.
True. He is gone but his legacy lives on.
Specially with Gillard being stupid enough to continue with it.
But she's gone now too. Good riddance.
I hope to god you are right on that one.
I cant see it ever happening with both majors opposing it.
Even Gillard wasnt that stupid.
