[LINK] Congestion (was Re: NBN to cost 24 times South Korea's faster network, says research body)

[David Boxall]

On 11/02/2011 5:33 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:47 AM, David Boxall
> <david.boxall at hunterlink.net.au>  wrote:
>> As far as I know, for broadcast substitution, they're not suggesting IP.
>>
>> Bear in mind that DTV performs poorly in the regions. Where fibre is
>> available, it will be far more cost-effective than the subsidised
>> satellite we (taxpayers) will otherwise be paying for.
>
> I´m still confused. "broadcast substitution" means doing the "last
> mile" to the TV viewer over fibre, rather than air? (DTT, UHF)?.
...
Why confused? Hasn't part of the logic of the NBN always been to provide 
an alternative transmission medium, so that spectrum may be freed for 
other uses? After all, we can lay more fibre, but we can't make more 
spectrum.

> I
> thought Australia had digital terrestrial TV working for several years
> now, using the European DVB standard?
> ...
Depends how you define "working". As with most things digital, you get 
either good quality or crap. Where I am, many of us who receive usable 
AM TV signals get nothing or garbage from the digital transmitters.

I'm told the situation is similar in parts of Sydney. That's just one 
area where the NBN will solve a problem that isn't getting a lot of 
attention.

For premises in the regions, where DTV doesn't work and they'll never 
get fibre, the taxpayer will be subsidising quite a lot of satellite gear.

-- 
David Boxall                    |  I have seen the past
                                |  And it worked.
http://david.boxall.id.au       |               --TJ Hooker