On 26/02/2016 8:30 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
On 24/02/16 23:11, Glen Turner wrote:
... The Australian Government estimates that "... a typical distance
education student will download 15 to 20 gigabytes (GB) of data in a
month" (Fletcher, 2015):
http://www.minister.communications.gov.au/paul_fletcher/speeches/commsday_satellite_summit_putting_satellite_to_its_highest_value_uses
That 15 GB is an overestimate...
No, it isn't. Rural, regional and remote students typically exceed it.
For evidence, just pay attention to sites like BIRRR and ICPA. Why do
you think education departments are going for (from memory) 50 GB per
student per month on the LTSS?
Conservative spin notwithstanding, fibre is cheap. Its durability makes
it so. I've heard it said that, over the potential service life, the
cost of implementing fibre to every premises on the mainland would
average out to less than $1 per premises per week. Over the same period,
wireless would need so much maintenance, need replacing so many times
and consume so much extra power that it would be ludicrously expensive.
Which isn't to say that it doesn't have a place, just that there are
more efficient and cost-effective options in most circumstances.
No extreme of bluster and denial will change physics. For example, I
doubt that any development of wireless will carry multiple 8k video
streams. Even if the density of transmitters was such that you could
cook your lunch on the street. I also doubt that video will halt at 8k.
Wireless has its place, but it's not a universal solution, any more than
fibre is.
--
David Boxall | Perfection is achieved, not when
| there is nothing more to add, but
http://david.boxall.id.au | when there is nothing left to take
| away.
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
