Subject: [LINK] Considering Fibre to the Home

[George Bray]

George describes himself as a died-in-the-wool finite extrapolist.

On 5/8/07, Richard Chirgwin <rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> George, it's reasonable to ask: "Why should a mass rollout of a consumer
> product be government-supported?" If (say) IP-TV can't compete with
> renting a DVD on price, then why does the government need to help pay
> for it?

Well sure, if you consider the only use for a broadband internet to be
for commercial/consumer activities.  But that's not true. A higher
performance network enables better distribution of video (and future
unforseen applications), and while for many people that means watching
Lost a few hours after it's broadcast in the US, it also enables wider
educational services, better national weather/water monitoring, etc.

Yes, we've all heard the arguments for "telehealth", remote learning
and the like.  I think these are valid national targets that should be
enabled by government & business sponsored infrastructure.

My point is that there are likely to be high-bandwidth applications
that will make use of the next step, 50-100Mbps. Of course, if the
network doesn't exist here they won't be developed here. If Australia
wants to be a country that leverages its existing IT skills on this
higher plane, then the argument for wider, higher, bandwidth sooner is
valid.


> Second: "I want it and I want it now", which is what too much FTTH
> advocacy boils down to, isn't a good reason for government funds.

Agreed. But in the end, isn't the argument that a better national IT
infrastructure gives all sectors of our economy the ability to
participate culturally and commercially with other enabled nations?

I've seen first hand (through GrangeNet and AARNet) the possibilities
for new high-bandwidth applications.  The argument FOR raising the bar
on retail-level bandwidth nationally is that there is an enabled
user-base for advanced applications.

George
UCTV, Tech Trek, Link Alarm