[LINK] How far the fibre?

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Karl Auer wrote:
> 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 mine iron ore there.

WA is a special case....there is probably a good connection to the Pilbara 
(where there is iron ore mining)  but not as good access to the Kimberleys 
further north, where I think the Ord river Dam supports cotton farming and they 
are promoting tourism.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the mining companies fly people in and
out. These people live in Perth and work in Kalgoorlie and Tom Price. The
statistic for WA is 1million people in 1million sq miles or sq kms, who all live
in Perth.

> 
>> 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.

But presumeably we do need and have cables to be able to have a realtime 
telephone conversation between sydney and perth or Melbourne and Mt Tom Price on 
a mobile or a fixed line.

> 
>> 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.
> 

It is needed, but where should we apply it?

I have now had two conversations with inner city dwellers who say they have 
given up trying to get their cable broadband to work! Both were sick of dealing 
with the techos...

What is support going to be like in remote locations.

>> 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.
> 
> 


-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: 0414 869202