Telstra to offer rural Australia free e-mail
Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:48:39 +1000
> In many cases, it will represent the first chance for remote
> communities to get online, hampered as they often are by the lack of
> a local Internet Service Provider (ISP). Without a local ISP, rural
> users are forced to pay both for internet fees and for the expensive
> STD calls to their nearest ISP.
I guess us city dwellers are used to the fact that a higher percentage
of our calls are likely to be local, and therefore at a flat rate.
But on a related topic, as I'm currently interstate frequently for
work, I'm often connecting via my mobile phone to send and receive
email. And my Nokia mobile with the data card can send and transmit
via the mobile at a claimed speed of about 38k. Or, it could if the
mobile network supported that rate of data transfer. Now, I'm not a
technical person and haven't followed this up carefully, but I'm told
that 9600 is the fastest data transfer rate that the three mobile
If this is not correct, someone on the list with more expertise can
clarify it, I'm sure.
So I'm wondering what is the incentive for a network (like mobiles)
that is exclusively timed call charging to make a priority of
increasing the supported rate of data transfer? For voice calls, I'm
not going to talk four times faster and therefore have shorter phone
calls. But a 400% faster data transfer rate on the mobile network
would directly translate to 75% reduction in my data call costs - or
viewed differently, a 75% reduction in call revenue for the network,
which might or might not be offset by more usage.
Of course, if the network was owned by a public utility that did not
have making a profit as its objective, it would not have a built-in
incentive not to support faster data transfer rates on the
time-charged network. But I'm fantasising again.
Effective Business Applications
61 4 1374 3959