[LINK] How far the fibre?

[Karl Auer]

On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 09:02 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> the point, since you seem so unwilling to see it on your own, is that
> it is absurd to spend millions (or tens of millions) running fibre
> optic lines to an extremely remote community of, at most, a few tens of
> people.

Craig (and others), this is the point on which we disagree. Disagreement
is not the same as failing to understand an argument. I do see, most
clearly, that some people regard distance (and distance=cost) as a
knock-down, I-win, -we-can-all-go-home argument. I don't.

I think that the eventual benefits will almost certainly (yes, *almost*
certainly) outweigh the disadvantages and the recoup the initial costs
many, many times over. I base this belief on the experience of the
railroad, the telephone, the roads system.

> it is absurd to expect that extremely remote communities should, or even
> CAN, have exactly the same telecommunications service as those in cities
> and towns.

You can state this as often as you want, Craig. It doesn't make it true.
I don't consider that expectation absurd. Certainly they *can*, the only
remaining point is the "should" bit.

> and it goes way beyond absurd, to mind-boggling lunacy, to not only
> expect it but to demand it.

Again, saying it doesn't make it true. I've already given examples of
extremely cost effective (in the long run) projects that faced much
higher real costs and far more onerous obstacles. They had people
shouting about how absurd they were, too.

> perhaps you think that every tiny remote community should also have it's
> own opera house, multi-million dollar art gallery, library and museum
> (of the same standard as those in Melbourne or Sydney, of course), cafe
> & restaurant district, train, bus & tram network etc etc etc just so
> that they have exactly the same level of service as city-dwellers?

Not at all. But putting good broadband into those communities may well
the very basis for changes, markets and economic growth in those areas
that lead one day to those areas having such things. Who knows? What I
do maintain, very strongly, is that at very least getting broadband into
remote areas will change our cities for the better by encouraging
skilled, non-agricultural development to move out of the cities.

> would it surprise you to know that not every tiny remote community has its
> own train station?

Of course not. At some point every analogy breaks down. Rail is WAY more
expensive than fibre. And these days, way less valuable.

> > 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.
> 
> most don't have what we in the city would call "roads".  they have dirt
> tracks.

Plenty of places have very nice asphalt roads, 100kph speed limits etc,
but no broadband at all. Get fibre to everywhere that has a 100kph speed
limited road running to it, that would be a good start.

> hell, i own a bush block about 60km from Melbourne. [etc]

Good for you. Enjoy the isolation. This has exactly what relevance to
the discussion...?

Regards, K.

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