[LINK] NBN to cost 24 times South Korea's faster network, says research body

[David Boxall]

On 11/02/2011 9:33 AM, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
> ... This is the misinformation that I
> find irksome about the we have to have fibre camp!
>
Is anyone saying that "we have to have fibre"? Isn't is common knowledge 
that, in some circumstances, we can't have fibre?

As I understand it, fibre is the most efficient and cost-effective way 
of meeting out needs, particularly in the longer term. All proposed 
alternatives would be more quickly obsolete and thus more expensive.

The capacity of a fixed wireless link is far less than even a single 
fibre. (As far as I know, there's no proposal to lay single fibres.) The 
capacity of a wireless link will therefore be filled far more quickly 
than a fibre link. Others more knowledgeable than I will be able to 
provide figures and explain the physics, but I believe the practical 
differences can be measured in orders of magnitude.

Wireless delivers far less bandwidth per watt that fibre. I'd say it 
should be avoided, if only on environmental grounds.

-- 
David Boxall                    |  When a distinguished but elderly
                                |  scientist states that something is
http://david.boxall.id.au       |  possible, he is almost certainly
                                |  right. When he states that
                                |  something is impossible, he is
                                |  very probably wrong.
                                                  --Arthur C. Clarke