[LINK] Wireless Broadband for Regional Australia

[Richard]

On 26/12/13 9:12 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
> On 23/12/13 10:39, Paul Brooks wrote:
>
>> ... Mobile wireless broadband stats are counting USB dongles, pocket
>>   cellular/Wifi routers, and dedicated data-only SIMs ... It is not
>> valid to intercompare the mobile broadband and fixed broadband stats
>> in a meaningful way ...
> If we want to make rational resource decisions, then comparisons need to
> be made. The mobile wireless broadband statistics could be scaled down
> by the average number of people per Australian household, for comparison
> with household connections. In 2011, there were 2.6 people per household
> in Australia:
> http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0
Fine. There is a comparison available in the 8153 series, in which 
mobile broadband downloads represent a trivial portion of total 
downloads. Of course, part of this is telcos using price signals to 
minimise downloads, but there isn't any special fu just around the 
corner to change the constraints of mobile architecture: the base 
stations are a choke-point now and will remain so forever.
> The number of people per household in Australia is falling. With only
> two or three people per household, is it worth planning a roll-out of
> broadband to homes?  If each home is to have a fixed connection, then
> that comes at a cost. I don't use a fixed connection at my home, so why
> should I subsidise yours?
What subsidy are you referring to, Tom? The fibre rollout was intended 
to be recovered from its customers.
> Perhaps in telecommunications terms there is "no such thing as a
> household". Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have said "no such thing as
> society": http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
>
> Instead of a cable and wireless router for each house, one picocell in
> the street could be shared by about six homes. This would provide a
> service for about 16 people (plus those out and about in the street).
This eliminates only one aspect of the fibre rollout - the last hundred 
feet. It's hardly a financial killer-punch to fibre, given that FTTN is 
costing way more than the optimistic predictions given by the opposition 
prior to the election.

The limits on wireless capacity aren't merely an arbitrary impost on 
consumers. They're an attempt to manage the sharing of a limited 
resource. That resource doesn't become unlimited merely because someone 
believes it should be so.

RC
>
>> Are you telling me you have never 'shared' a printer connected to one
>> computer so the other devices in your home could print to it?
> No, I have never shared a printer connected to on computer to others in
> my home. I rarely print anything. When I need to print, I carry the
> laptop to where the printer is and plug it in. Having a shared printer
> is a way to waste a lot of paper and ink.
>
>> You've never shared a drive so you can access the files from another
>>   computer in your house?
> No, I have never shared a drive at home. The people I share data with
> are usually not in the same place I am, so a local network is not much use.
>
>> Not if they have a low-quota broadband service, or a low-speed
>> broadband service. ...
> The low quotas on mobile wireless services are arbitrary limits set by
> the telcos to maximise revenue. The speed could be increased by using
> smaller cells. But the apparent shortage of bandwidth suits the telcos
> who can then charge a premium for the mobile service.
>
>> ... not if you have tens to hundreds of gigabytes of photos ...
> The clinical condition "Hoarding disorder" is a problem in
> our consumer society. High capacity storage devices allow the digital
> manifestation of this to remain hidden for far longer that with physical
> hoarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsive_hoarding
>
>