PDA

View Full Version : High-speed broadband 'not necessary for most homes'



Sand & Mercury
July 20th, 2009, 12:31 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/20/2630917.htm


A Senate committee has heard that most Australian households will not want broadband speeds as fast as the Government wants to deliver.

In April the Government announced a $43 billion plan to build a broadband network at 100 megabits per second to 90 per cent of homes, which was dramatically faster and more expensive than its previous plan.

Today a Senate committee has heard from two experts who say many householders do not want such speeds and are unlikely to be prepared to pay for them.

Communications expert Dr Rowan Gilmore has told the committee it is a risky investment to try to deliver such speeds to houses.

"The demand for 100-megabit services to most homes is not necessary and would be throttled down in most instances anyway," he said.

"Certainly there would be business and premises that would benefit from 100-megabits per second connectivity.

"Without having seen market data, my experience would indicate that that is not necessary in the great bulk of circumstances."

Dr Gilmore says about 10 megabits per second would be enough to deliver high definition television pictures, and only some users such as universities or small businesses would want and be able to afford the super high speeds.

Dr John Ness agrees most houses will not need the speed, adding, "your brain can only take in so much data".

But another group, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, has told the committee that delivering the super high-speed service to most houses would boost productivity.

Investment bank Deutsche Bank told the Senate inquiry the Government's plan to develop the network is likely to cost about $28 billion.

But Deutsche Bank also estimates the cost of providing high speed internet could blow out to $42 billion.

The $42 billion figure fits with the outer limit set by the Government when it announced the project earlier this year.

Deutsche Bank analyst Sameer Chopra told the inquiry the $42 billion figure would only be reached if a series of assumptions are incorrect.

"The first [assumption] is the cost of debt, so if the cost of debt goes from 5 to 7 per cent [then the figure would be $42 billion]," he said.

"The second one is take-up rate, the third one is a capital construction cost and the last one is the access price.

"If all four of those are adversely impacted then you go from $28 billion up to $42 billion."
Way to keep the aussies in the dark ages. :lol: *Sigh* Maybe one day we'll have decent speeds that we don't pay through the teeth for with a 10GB cap...

4th guy
July 20th, 2009, 12:37 PM
That's one way to control adult material like porn or excessive violence from entering your country.:)

t0p
July 20th, 2009, 12:45 PM
That's a bogus argument if ever I saw one! "People wouldn't be prepared to pay for a high-speed connection" huh? So don't make it expensive!

Every country should aspire to a universal high-speed network. I reckon streaming video over ip will become the standard medium for transmission of television in the future. This will enable true interactivity, a reliable "pay-per-view" system, and it will allow governments to get up to all sorts of nefarious shenanigans with the computer/tv in every home.

But it will happen only if it is relatively inexpensive. Ideally, it should be standard on every telephone landline - you get a phone line in your home, it'll come with high-speed internet by default, with no added cost. And this isn't a pie-in-the-sky idea. A government could get unemployed people to work on installment, digging up the roads and so forth, as a precondition to receiving unemployment benefits. Bulk-buying the equipment required for this network would push the per-item costs right down. I'm sure everyone here can think of other factors that will make this affordable.

The internet is the future - I think that's undeniable. So every goverment will need mass interconnectivity to make the most of that future.

pelle.k
July 20th, 2009, 01:40 PM
You know, i've been thinking of moving abroad (to australia among other countries), but it disturbs me that so many countries charge an arm and a leg for a capped internet connection :(
I've never heard of anyone that has a capped internet connection here in sweden. I'm sure there are, i have just not heard about it.
I hope things will improve over time...

SunnyRabbiera
July 20th, 2009, 01:53 PM
Well even though yes not everyone necessarily needs high speed broadband its something good to have for those who can afford it.
But this age of bad economies broadband is becoming something too expensive for most.
The taxing of internet in general has become too bloated, most of these rotten services get on your case if you go over a certain limit on their services.
The internet capping BS is out of control, the internet companies are out of control.
There needs to be something done

Sand & Mercury
July 20th, 2009, 02:11 PM
You know, i've been thinking of moving abroad (to australia among other countries), but it disturbs me that so many countries charge an arm and a leg for a capped internet connection :(
I've never heard of anyone that has a capped internet connection here in sweden. I'm sure there are, i have just not heard about it.
I hope things will improve over time...

For living conditions in general, Sweden is THE place to be at the moment, imo.

Arup
July 20th, 2009, 02:16 PM
Nonsense, in India all we get is 512kbps for unlimited one, its slow by any standards, takes me hours to download distros. Not all need high speed for porn, I like to try out new distros from time to time and its a real pain. Would rather be in South Korea and use the superb bandwidth there. New York where I live from time to time isn't bad either so when I am back in India, I feel the pain of slow fraudband.

HavocXphere
July 20th, 2009, 02:21 PM
Dr Gilmore says about 10 megabits per second would be enough to deliver high definition television pictures
More like 12 mBps if you want the picture to look reasonable. Additionally, you don't want the picture to die if you've got an incoming email, so one would need some spare capacity.

By comparison: The Discovery Channel HD Europe runs at ~20mBps.

Also, the two are not really linked. i.e. you can reduce the bitrate and still maintain the HD tag. The result is that the resolution is as required and the quality is crap.

Like our local HD broadcaster recently did (http://rlhwzw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pnqP8dwtFxbZaP2aaDv5MUPkMfLJCcd2Kg5eC0JzKfO7oY3M MAAPKr1axiDNvLaNrUlzEHdOUp7daca2Yhoetw-wTR9ebB_ZX/MntHD_Bitrate.jpeg). And thats the only HD channel they broadcast.


Dr John Ness agrees most houses will not need the speed, adding, "your brain can only take in so much data".
Some people should crawl back under their rock.

wersdaluv
July 20th, 2009, 02:27 PM
I agree. My home is not "most homes", though. Also, "high-speed" in the article is defined as 100mbps. I suppose, (true) 1mbps is more than enough for most homes.

jeyaganesh
July 20th, 2009, 02:30 PM
Nonsense, in India all we get is 512kbps for unlimited one, its slow by any standards, takes me hours to download distros. New York where I live from time to time isn't bad either so when I am back in India, I feel the pain of slow fraudband.

Yes, browsing experience in India is quite irritating. Despite India produce lot of IT professionals, it is shame to have such a very low grade internet speed. Now only they are spreading broadband connections here and there.

They also introducing 3G service in mobiles now.

Another news I want to share here is, a internet cafe in Madurai (Tamilnadu, South India)has few systems with Edubuntu installed for public usage :) I was surprised to see Linux OS in a public internet cafe in my city :)

zekopeko
July 20th, 2009, 02:36 PM
More like 12 mBps if you want the picture to look reasonable. Additionally, you don't want the picture to die if you've got an incoming email, so one would need some spare capacity.

By comparison: The Discovery Channel HD Europe runs at ~20mBps.

Also, the two are not really linked. i.e. you can reduce the bitrate and still maintain the HD tag. The result is that the resolution is as required and the quality is crap.

Not true. By using h.264 you can compress the stream to around 8mbps without (human discernible) loss of quality.

And saying that people don't need it is flawed. Once people try it they get hooked. I can't imagine going back to a 56kbps modem or even 1mbps link again. People might think they don't need fast broadband but that is true only until they tried it. I wonder how many people said that about cell phones.



Some people should crawl back under their rock.

Agreed.

HavocXphere
July 20th, 2009, 03:33 PM
Not true. By using h.264 you can compress the stream to around 8mbps without (human discernible) loss of quality.
Yeah you're probably right on that count.

There is also another mistake in my post. mBps should read Mbps.

MaxIBoy
July 20th, 2009, 03:50 PM
I wish mine was 10 megabits. (My link is 6 megabits, although I have "bursted" as high as 15... at three in the morning when no one else is on.)

days_of_ruin
July 20th, 2009, 04:43 PM
He does have a point, even if he sounds like an idiot.
Why should the government pay for 100m bit when 20 mbit or lower is fast enough?

armandh
July 20th, 2009, 04:54 PM
another chicken or egg problem

when computers cost millions and took up rooms of space no one thought homes would "need" any.

JillSwift
July 20th, 2009, 05:01 PM
another chicken or egg problem

when computers cost millions and took up rooms of space no one thought homes would "need" any.
I was just thinking that very thing.

We always pay for our politician's lack of vision.