[LINK] How far the fibre?

[Karl Auer]

On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 18:39 +1000, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> In another thread, Karl wrote:
> ...So like I said, I did some research. Looking at WA, there are places 
> whose distance to the nearest telephone exchange is measured in 
> *hundreds* of kilometres

Yes - still waiting for the point here...

> And leave lots of electronics in places that electronics don't 
> particularly suit

Harden them. After doing that for a couple of years we'll know what
works (if we don't already), and the same hardening can then be applied
to make urban networks require less maintenance. The savings there will
more than offset the initial cost.

> of civilisation for the techs that have to go out and fix things when 
> the cables get rat-bitten or whatever (yes, it happens).

Fibre-optics need, in general, a great deal less maintenance than
conductive media. And if they do need maintenance once in a while, well,
we go maintain them.

> I don't think it will ever happen. Moreover, someone is going to have to 
> answer the question "what's the distance limit to public funding for 
> fibre-to-the-whatever?"

Not a question that needs to be put if you take the simple (not
simplistic) approach that where humans see fit to go on this continent.
there goes the fibre too.

> The problem is, in an air-travel and 4WD age, people really do 
> under-estimate the scale of Australia.

I don't.

> Who decides that some place on the edge of the Simpson Desert
> just isn't worth the effort?

People just love to find extreme cases and then use them to denigrate
the value of the whole.

If some dill-pickle decides to set up camp in the middle of the Simpson,
I am not advocating that the whole of our civilisation instantly
mobilise to supply the fellow with broadband connectivity. I limit my
argument to "hamlets" - perhaps "settlements" would be a better word.
That is, places that have endured, places with permanence, even if
small.

Back in the days when rail was happening, the coming of the Iron Horse
converted more than one little no'ccount townlet into a place of some
significance. Expect the same to happen with broadband, just without the
limitations of geography.

Who knows what great things may arise on the edge of the Simpson Desert?

> So the fibre's going to stop somewhere.

Only if the small of vision stop it. Replace every instance of "fibre"
with "rail" in your message, and imagine yourself back at the start of
the 19th century. The problems facing the builders and maintainers of
rail included actively hostile native inhabitants, actively hostile
farmers (by "actively hostile" I mean arrows and bullets), primitive
tools, and distances that in an age *without* air travel and 4WD really
were extremely daunting. Yet somehow a rail system was built that
literally and figuratively changed the face of a nation. Was it worth
it?

The economics of rail (at least in the US) were those of robber barons.
That was bad. It would be nice if we could avoid that. We can. Have the
Government do it. Outsource it by all means, but *do it* and make sure
that afterwards *we own it*. Because if we don't do this, the robber
barons will, and we will be paying far, far more for it in the future
than we ever dreamed possible.

Regards, K.

PS: Roads costs a *great deal more* than fibre per metre laid, yet
hardly anyone ever questions the utility of roads, even to the smallest
of outlying settlements.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/                  +61-428-957160 (mob)