[LINK] How far the fibre?

[Janet Hawtin]

On 7/2/07, Craig Sanders <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:

> > and not tele-medicine provided via fat broadband?
>
> not very useful for acute appendicitis, or a car crash, or poisoning or
> any of the many other things that require on-the-spot expertise, right
> now...rather than booked days or weeks in advance.
>
> not terribly useful for surgery, either. even if tele-operated devices
> became good enough to be useful for general surgery, it would require a
> huge investment in the required equipment....and that just isn't going
> to happen in a tiny remote community, any more than the govt. is going
> to build a fully equipped hospital in a tiny remote community.
>
> craig

No it isn't as good as on site services but is the solution being used
in many areas already because we choose not to provide on site
infrastructure to regional areas.

We have had railways, railway stations and hospitals to many of the
regional areas which we have chosen not to maintain.

Funding for infrastructure seems to be done on a catalyst basis where
the initial launch of a connection is funded and then the
infrastructure is not supported, this despite how useful it is for
tourists, travelling safely in outback areas, for trade and education.

Karl is right that there does not seem to be even a modest goal which
we do aspire to for the public good it feels very much more oriented
around promotional opportunities and military or multinational groups.
Perhaps there is insufficient bling in national housework.

Janet