[LINK] How fast is the NBN?

[Craig Sanders]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 08:35:56AM +1100, Tom Worthington wrote:
> On 03/03/16 13:57, David Boxall wrote:
> 
> >... Two networks; one all fibre, the other solely wireless. ... 100
> >kilometres for wireless ...
>
> No, the question is, should the last bit, from the street into the
> home, be fiber, copper or wireless? This is only the last tens to
> hundreds of metres on the end of the fibre in a suburban street.

there's no need for this to be treated as anything resembling a serious
question - the answer is self-evident.

fibre is the ONLY rational option. it doesn't require powered nodes in
the street, requires minimal or no maintainence, lasts for decades,
doesn't corrode, isn't affected by water in the pits or electro-magnetic
interference or cross-talk, is upgradable and future-proof *without*
digging trenches and having to replace the cables (upgrades can be
performed simply by upgrading the equipment at the exchange and/or the
premises), and provides upload and download speeds many times greater
than what is possible with either copper or wireless.

if wireless access is needed, that can be done in each individual
premises either by the customer themselves or by NBN or the ISP.

craig

ps: why is it that this government is so obsessed with bullshit about
the capital cost of the NBN and completely ignores the on-going costs?

that is completely contrary to every other government-funded project
ever run - it has always been a problem that getting initial funding
for capital costs is trivially easy compared to the near-impossibility
of getting on-going funding for maintainence or staff or anything else.
many projects have been killed simply because they have obvious and
unavoidable on-going costs. many more have died slowly because of a lack
of on-going funding.


-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>