Comments on: Build the use case – coverage or speed?

By: iJump.co.nz » Audiopodcast » (Audio) Jump In #33: The Broadband Debate

iJump.co.nz » Audiopodcast » (Audio) Jump In #33: The Broadband Debate — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:33:44 +0000

[...] More here . [...]

By: iJump.co.nz » Video podcast » Jump In #33: The Broadband Debate

iJump.co.nz » Video podcast » Jump In #33: The Broadband Debate — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:34:56 +0000

[...] More here . [...]

By: Nic Wise

Nic Wise — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:24:42 +0000

My response to:

“Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for better connectivity but we need to separate the coverage versus speed discussion – my contention is that widespread coverage is a much more important issue than higher speed”

is a solid F’IN AYE! Having seamless access to the ‘net is incredibly valuable, as long as it’s faster than a given point – and I’d put that point at around half a meg – 50K/s – for a home connection with 2-3 adults.

This is pretty much what I have at home (in the UK), tho I’m ment to have 250K/s. On this connection, I can browse, get music and videos down from itunes, use BT, use VOIP, etc. Streaming of video (eg iplayer) is the only thing I _can’t_ do.

So for me, it’s always been the access. Sit down, turn the monitor on, open up email, use it. Dialup, and the action of “connecting to the internet” is where the problem lies. Broadband etc makes that seamless – your PC is the network, or so the Sun tagline went.

I’ve gotten used to a always on connection tho – we had a always on 56K modem when I first got the ‘net (thanks to ICONZ, who I was working for), the moved to IHUG’s satilite with an ondemand connection, and finally DSL. It’s been a long time since I’d had to dial a modem (or had one)

I think NZ could do a lot to get people onto broadband – cheap, slower plans (512K/256K DSL) in line with dialup pricing, with free hardware, which most of them do anyway. This is basicly what they do in the UK, and the broadband uptake is about 80%.

By: NZRob

NZRob — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:16:05 +0000

I call coverage, but more in the accessibility sense. Most of NZ can get ‘broadband’ but they don’t want it at the current rate. Dial-up then becomes the default option for those who want access – the problem with this is it tie up the phone line. The other option is then xDSL where, as noted, most of the potential pipe is under utilised. This ties up cards in the roadside cabinets, increases crosstalk between the operating connections and, in many areas favors the first in, over the customer which an actual need for the bandwidth.
One solution would be to push neighborhood mesh networks out into New Zealand – only a few backhaul nodes are needed, most general email and websurfing needs are met and, as users want more bandwidth than the mesh can provide, then either a direct DSL line is deployed to the user (who then becomes a new backhaul node) or the content being sourced is brought closer to the edge where it is being consumed.

Standard disclaimer: The above is my personal opinion.

By: ninefish

ninefish — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:44:37 +0000

hear, hear Ben. A good dissection of a poor argument. Thanks for the blow by blow bullshit detector.

There’s nothing like self interest, nor the thought that nothing can be done without the full blown speed of city broadband.

There’s a direct optical link to a pipe in the basement at work and believe me it’s just as slow as my weak link out here in Brighton at times. Everything is relative.