[Chapter-delegates] Geoff Huston on Wired vs. Wireless

[Franck Martin]

Anyhow, the points could be moot, as Australia is slowly replacing unlimited by limited (ie capped) connectivity to the home...

When you see that ARNET sells connectivity based on volume, and not bandwidth, you know something is fundamentally wrong.

Franck Martin 
http://www.avonsys.com/ 
http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys 
twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys 

Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o 


----- Original Message -----
From: "Narelle" <narellec at gmail.com>
To: "Joly MacFie" <joly at punkcast.com>
Cc: "ISOC Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Sent: Thursday, 26 August, 2010 1:59:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Geoff Huston on Wired vs. Wireless

A little more background on this as an fyi...

You may have heard that Australia just had a Federal election. The
Labor government had started an ambitious plan to roll out a national
broadband network based on fibre to the home. The conservative
opposition opposed this on economic grounds and that upgrades to DSL,
cable and wireless would be good enough.

The election result is not yet known, other than a hung parliament,
and the handful of rural independents holding the balance of power are
keen to see considerable improvements to broadband... so indeed the
government may be decided on the basis of who has the better
broadband.

It isn't strictly a wireless vs wired question, though it has in part
been portrayed as such.


On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
> http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1177
>
> Geoff Huston’s latest Internet Society ISP Column examines the Australian
> scenario where, in the recent election, the vying parties plumped down on
> either side of the wired vs wireless question. He concludes that, just like
> the election, there is no outright winner.
>
> He notes the reality that while wireless IP service often actually costs
> less to provide, users are prepared to pay more for it, giving providers
> little incentive to invest in wire. But wireless bandwidth scalability is,
> ultimately, limited. What’s more its inherent unreliability is TCP hostile.
> However ubiquitous wireless service would be a lot cheaper to implement: $6B
> (AUS) vs $43B (AUS) for wired.




-- 


Narelle
vice-president at isoc-au.org.au
_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates