[LINK] How many Newspapers does it take to build Ayers Rock?
tomk at unwired.com.au
Wed May 13 09:41:57 AEST 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Ivan Trundle
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 May 2009 8:56 AM
> To: Richard Chirgwin
> Cc: Link
> Subject: Re: [LINK] How many Newspapers does it take to build
> Ayers Rock?
> >> Therefore if we can assume that the digital audience is as large as
> >> the
> >> traditional paper audience, (and Rupert Murdoch's recent
> >> would suggest that it is larger); we can safely deduce that digital
> >> delivery is 95.86% less harmful to the environment.
> I suspect that the figures show that the EXISTING traditional
> audience is waning, and the digital *non-paying* audience is rising.
> The potential traditional audience is far greater than the potential
> digital audience. But I won't quibble over this one.
> But if we're talking *delivery* - then this is a very narrow focus,
> and I say 'bollocks' to the 95.86% figure...
> The entire consumption chain involves a good deal of
> electronics, all
> of which come at a cost, at all levels. You can't discount these any
> more than you can discount the environmental cost of vehicles
> used to
> transfer the physical newspaper to the consumer.
> The suggestion that digital delivery of any data is at no or little
> cost to the environment, whilst discounting the infrastructure
> required to support the distribution and resultant action, is
In other words, we are saying that :
A) Koltai cant write a Blog piece worth reading.
B) His facts are not backed by hard numbers.
C) Lack of coverage of extraneous elements - supply chain delivery.
Gentlemen (and ladies) on A - I concur - I'm new at blogging.
On B - I beg to differ, the readership of News Digital Media is Growing
very rapidly in comparison to the dying readership of the UK Newspapers
- I would estimate that News Digital Readership is in the order of 2-3
million whereas News UK Newspapers is down to 5-6 million so yes - the
98% comparative figure is "newspeak" and not a really useable analysis.
On C - you have me dead to rights. The supply chain involves an evolving
myriad of devices all of which consume electricity.
I have noticed recently the growing scarcity of laptops at most "Geek"
meetings I have attended. It would appear that the new crop of techno
capables are utilising mobile phone devices more frequently for their
email, Google searches and connectivity options.
I myself now prefer to read the "Paper" on a Nokia E62 in the Garden
rather than on the big screen PC. The big bonus is that I can take the
Nokia to the loo.
If we accept that there are now more internet connected mobiles than
internet connected PC's, Ivan's concern would come down to the power
draw on recharge - on the E62, 350ma @ 5 v for approximately 2 hours for
a full charge that gives me all of the following days utilisation.
As to the digital supply chain, that's a hard one. I have experience of
building and running ISP's, Co-location premises and Internet exchanges.
But have never correlated the total viewing access audience with
electricity consumption across the path from provision to subscription.
Also - I have never computed the backhaul electrical costs on Cell
coverage compared to the population reach in the cell radius.
So at best my Blog article was one of series of articles (lacking hard
facts) showing that ICT is replacing traditional media forms but that
industry is now getting behind the necessity of offsetting the carbon
emissions from the production and distribution.
But Thanks Richard - I ddn't do enough research on the story and my
facts were wrong - I shall correct the asusmptions and alter my
conclusions. Shame - the 95% model does sound nice.......
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 22.214.171.124
More information about the Link