[LINK] Re: Link Digest, Vol 175, Issue 41

[Stewart Fist]

David writes
> 
> Let's say the proposal is to replace all existing copper subscriber
> connections with fibre of some sort.  All sorts of potential uses might be
> identified, but the main use would probably be TV (*).  That's fine, but
> vision then requires us to ask why we don't phase out broadcast TV entirely
> instead of spending enormous amounts phasing in digital TV and requiring
> everyone in the country to buy a digital TV set or adapter?  I suspect these
> questions are not asked because they in turn raise ugly issues of
> access-control, copyright, monoply content provision, compensation, and so on.


And that is getting down to the crux of the problem.

It makes absolutely no sense to occupy so much of the most valuable part of
the radio spectrum in the cities, when it can all be done better by cable
systems of any sort -- coaxial, copper or fibre.

With a coax system, all you need do is make Free-to-air transmissions
compulsory on all cables, and have a basic non-encrypted service package for
these channels -- then you could junk the whole TV use of the VHF and UHF
spectrum (while keeping FM radio for mobility).  This would then free up
dozens of channels for other use.

In the outback, however, it might be better to go the other way, and begin
making much more of the VHF and UHF available for digital data
communications (its better than satellite).

However I still think fibre direct to the home is only a few years away
which ever company gets to do it. Deutche Telekom will certainly want a
piece of the action in the cities, and they won't go with half-measures.


Neither of the major political parties have any long-term vision of
broadband developments quite obviously.  However it is doubtful that they
could  afford to have plans for projected changes of this order without the
risk of alienating the corporations and others with vested interests -- it
is an election year after all.  From their viewpoint it is best just to play
to the gallery, and wait for things to change.

Mind you, I don't see the economic value of running fibre out too far into
the wide-brown land past, say, 20 to 50kms outside of towns.  The reduction
in lightning damage is probably a key factor here in reducing country costs
-- and this is possibly even more important that giving them gigabit data
rates.  But there's a limit to this also: after 50kms you've got to start
introducing optical amplifiers or repeater/regenerators.

Bot once fibre-to-the-home is in place in the cities, we have come to the
end of the evolutionary process in broadband -- except for some upgrading of
terminal equipment on occasions.

The technology and manufacturing price-equation has reached the viable stage
of having single fibre all the way, so fibre to the node looks almost
obsolete already.  So we now have the opportunity to jump directly to this
single-fibre-all-the-way- stage -- in most parts of the country, anyway.




-- 
Stewart Fist, writer, journalist, film-maker
70 Middle Harbour Road, LINDFIELD, 2070, NSW, Australia
Ph +61 (2) 9416 7458