[LINK] fibre distance issues?
david.boxall at hunterlink.net.au
Tue Nov 6 08:19:37 AEDT 2007
At 25/10/2007 7:37 AM Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> Without trying to pick a row with the entire world... IMO we can't
> sensibly debate "what should be" without an accurate view of how
> things stand today. And today, the "people who thought running copper
> to peoples' farms was out of the question" were right.
> Lots of farms don't have copper now. They're served by VHF / UHF radio
> links, which are held by Telstra and can be viewed on the ACMA
> register of radio licenses. ( I suppose this replaced, in some cases,
> the single-wire-earth-return party line phones that used the top wire
> of a fence to carry the calls!) I would guess that these support
> dial-up access to the Internet and that's about it.
Some surprising places do have copper lines. In the early 1950s, I
holidayed on a farm outside Braidwood and at Enngonia, 100 miles back o'
Bourke. Both had copper phone lines, even then. Some places don't,
that's true, but a lot do.
My point is that there's little difference between trenching in copper
and doing the same with fibre. I'd say that, if we're digging a trench,
we're wasting an opportunity by failing to put in fibre.
Shouldn't our aim be to run fibre wherever there's currently copper?
Shouldn't all network expansion use fibre in preference to copper?
David Boxall | When a distinguished but elderly
| scientist states that something is
| possible, he is almost certainly
| right. When he states that
| something is impossible, he is
| very probably wrong.
--Arthur C. Clarke
More information about the Link