[LINK] How far the fibre?

Craig Sanders cas at taz.net.au
Mon Jul 2 11:16:50 AEST 2007


On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 09:37:14AM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 09:02 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > 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.

the statement doesn't make it true.  it is, however, still true.


> I don't consider that expectation absurd. 

yes, well that's obvious.



> > 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. 

so why is broadband so much more important than all these other
services? why is it more important than healthcare? or education?


> 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

rubbish. what use is broadband when there are no other services, no
other infrastructure? installing broadband will not magically fix all
the other problems associated with living in remote, isolated areas. it
doesn't even contribute to solving the problems.

if you asked the people living out there, they'd say they'd rather have
a hospital or a doctor. even a nurse would be an improvement over the
nothing they have now.

there are far more important things that should be provided before
broadband.

> 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.

broadband is not a magic wand.

no amount of broadband is going to encourage large numbers of tech &
other skilled workers to move to the middle of nowhere, with no doctors,
no hospitals, no cafes, no restaurants, no cinema, no shops, and NO
JOBS! - in short, nothing but desert and rocks and the occasional tree.

regional cities & towns, sure. people might move there. and there's the
population density to justify broadband (and, more importantly, many
other services).

rather than waste millions getting fibre-optic cable to a community of
half a dozen people, spend it on upgrading infrastructure in regional
towns and cities to make them more attractive places to live for those
in the capital 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.

far less valuable only if you live in some alternative universe where
goods and people and real physical world (i.e. not just information)
services can be transported over fibre optic cables.


> > > 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.

and no people, either.  there's a lot of empty road in this country.

we will NEVER have the kind of decentralised small-town society that
america has. partly because of geography (heading off into the unknown
would see you dying of thirst), and partly due to history (we were
settled several hundred years AFTER america)

australian geography is not like, e.g., america. the majority of the
land is pretty much uninhabitable desert. most of the rest is just this
side of arid wasteland (where long-standing govt programs do lunatic
things like irrigating to grow cotton and rice. rice! FFS! in the
desert! originally vote-buying welfare for the farmers, now corporate
welfare for giant agribusiness companies). there's only a narrow strip
around most of the coast that is actually pleasant to live in.



> > 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...?

it should be obvious.  it would be obvious if you didn't filter out any
information that has the potential to undermine your
broadband-is-the-magic-cure-for-everything viewpoint.

but here it is for you:

the fact that there are dirt roads (and other infrastructure/service
levels way below city standards) even 60km from a major city....because
there isn't the population density to justify the kind of spending it
would take to provide the same level of service. and that's with a
population density 10s or 100s of times greater than in really remote
communities.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>



More information about the Link mailing list