[LINK] Indonesia Overtaking Australia with Wireless Internet

[Richard Chirgwin]

On 6/06/11 9:08 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
> Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>> Indonesia is jumping from zero or low access to the Internet ...  People
>> using fixed connections are already habituated to low latency, and 
>> have become demanding about performance. ...
>
> Having limited fixed Internet access may not make much of a difference 
> to mobile users perceptions. I see many people in Australia on buses, 
> in cafes and at meetings with an iPhone or iPad using the Internet. 
> These people did not previously have fixed Internet connections at 
> these locations. I don't think they necessary equate their experience 
> of the hand held device with that of sitting at a desktop computer.
>
> The latency for a fixed line is much higher than wireless, when you are
> sitting on a bus: you have to get off the bus before you can use the
> fixed line. Unless you have a trolley bus, with a pole
> connecting it to an overhead data cable.  ;-)
In Australia, most of these people use both networks. They use the 
mobile network when they're mobile, ADSL accessed over WiFi devices at 
home, and ADSL or fibre when at work.
>
>> For example, ISPs have had to revise their architecture to minimise 
>> backhaul contention. This has been in response to people complaining 
>> about poor peak-time performance. ...
>
> Yes, I suspect the major use for the NBN will be back-haul for wireless.
> Outside small business, few people will spend much time using a device 
> which has a cable plugged into the NBN: most will use a wireless 
> connection for the last few metres.
> Most of the NBN backhaul will be WiFi in homes and small businesses. 
> But the NBN may also be used by carriers to provide micro-cells for 
> mobile networks, over a few tens of metres, in high use areas.
>
>> People aren't actually the same: they are the product of their 
>> experiences as well as their genetics and culture. ...
>
> Motivations for people seems much the same across the world to me: to be
> entertained, fed, clothed, housed, to get on in life, impress their
> friends and have their children do well. These will motivate their use 
> of telecommunications.
Their expectations, however, are based on past experience. What someone 
expects out of the new network is compared to what they've used in the 
past. My point, in comparing the Indonesian cellular Internet user to 
the Australian fixed Internet user is that the two user bases build in 
different expectations about network performance.

Nor do I have some notion about "white man's magic". But let's address 
the points you raise one by one:
>
>>  To a no-net or  dial-up user, I'm sure a widespread wireless network 
>> looks like all the wonders of the universe ...
>
> Many people in developing nations already have mobile phones and know 
> what the Internet is. If you offer them a very high speed fibre
> optic connection they will not shout "White man's magic!" and bow down
> in gratitude. They will say: "How much will it cost? 
...cellular broadband access is more expensive, by a long way, than 
fixed network access. You could add a small premium onto NBN access and 
that statement will still be true.
> What extra features
> will I get? 
...compared to cellular: much lower access link contention (effectively 
zero most of the time).
> How will it work when I am out of the home or office? 
...I'm not offering fibre as a mobile network solution.
> Can I
> choose my carrier? 
Yes.
> Will it work when the power goes off? 
Yes, subject to the same constraints as a mobile network (battery life 
both on the network side and the endpoint).
> Will it work in a flood or earthquake? 
No worse than a mobile network, since the mobile network depends on 
fixed connections that will be similarly affected by flood or earthquake.
> Will the government use this to monitor me?".
The mobile network is somewhat more amenable to monitoring than a fixed 
network: it adds location to other information, and there are fewer 
gateways to monitor.

RC