NBN 1Gbps.???

[kreed]

On Aug 15, 9:16 am, John Tserkezis
<j...@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

keithr wrote:
The problem with how people look at the NBN is that they only consider
home PCs, but business will be the main beneficiary.

 Yes, but the home users are going to be paying for it too, remember?
Once you factor in network contention (not supplimenting the existing
fibre) it's going to run nominally a bit faster that what it is now.

 And I should hope so, after all, we're going to pay a bucketful for it....
--
Depart in pieces ... i.e., Split.

Exactly - so we end up subsidising big business once more.

 

[keithr]

John Tserkezis wrote:

keithr wrote:

The problem with how people look at the NBN is that they only consider
home PCs, but business will be the main beneficiary.

Yes, but the home users are going to be paying for it too, remember?
Once you factor in network contention (not supplimenting the existing
fibre) it's going to run nominally a bit faster that what it is now.

And I should hope so, after all, we're going to pay a bucketful for it...

I pay a bucketful for all sorts of infrastructure that I will never use,
thats the way that society works.

Anyway it is highly likely that the average user will use that bandwidth
in future, for instance, in the US, video stores are becoming an
endangered species, more and more people are downloading their rental
movies from online vendors. Thats just one change, cloud computing and
software as a service are the way that the industry is moving like it or
not. Google's new operating system is probably the way of the future,
just enough mechanism to run the browser and get on the internet.
So,instead of paying Adobe $1000 for a copy of photoshop to edit your
photos, you'll rent it by the hour, the megabyte or whatever, and that
will take more than the 12 furlongs per cubic fortnight that the Monk is
offering.

 

[Rod Speed]

keithr wrote

John Tserkezis wrote
keithr wrote

The problem with how people look at the NBN is that they only
consider home PCs, but business will be the main beneficiary.

Yes, but the home users are going to be paying for it too, remember?
Once you factor in network contention (not supplimenting the existing
fibre) it's going to run nominally a bit faster that what it is now.

And I should hope so, after all, we're going to pay a bucketful for it...

I pay a bucketful for all sorts of infrastructure that I will never use, thats the way that society works.

Doesnt mean that it makes any sense to be spending $50B when most
of us have very decent broadband available when we want to buy it.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense to be spending a hell of a lot less
than that providing broadband for those that cant currently get it for
the price the rest of us pay.

Anyway it is highly likely that the average user will use that bandwidth in future,

Yes, but that doesnt mean that it makes any sense to be spending $50B on
it when there are plenty better things to be spending $50B on, like hospitals etc.

for instance, in the US, video stores are becoming an endangered species, more and more people are downloading their
rental movies from online vendors.

And what matters is whether it makes any sense to be spending $50B to do that.

Thats just one change, cloud computing and software as a service are the way that the industry is moving like it or
not.

Like hell it is for consumers.

Google's new operating system is probably the way of the future,

Nope. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to be spending a hell
of a lot less than the $10K per household on the OS instead.

just enough mechanism to run the browser and get on the internet. So,instead of paying Adobe $1000 for a copy of
photoshop to edit your photos, you'll rent it by the hour, the megabyte or whatever,

And pay $10K per household to be able to do that. Makes absolutely no sense whatever.

and that will take more than the 12 furlongs
per cubic fortnight that the Monk is offering.

Makes absolutely no sense to be spending $10K per household when
there are plenty of things that money can be better spent on instead.

 

[keithr]

On 16/08/2010 6:07 AM, Rod Speed wrote:

Makes absolutely no sense to be spending $10K per household when
there are plenty of things that money can be better spent on instead.

The same can be said for a great many government projects, at least the
NBN has utility that will extend for decades to come.

 

[Rod Speed]

keithr wrote:

Rod Speed wrote

Makes absolutely no sense to be spending $10K per household when
there are plenty of things that money can be better spent on instead.

The same can be said for a great many government projects,

Have fun listing even one that is costing anything like $50B from now on.

at least the NBN has utility that will extend for decades to come.

Just as true of current ways in which broadband is being delivered.

Yes, FTTP is quite a bit faster than the current broadband,
but it makes absolutely no sense to be spending anything
like $50B just so people can download DVDs much quicker.

Thats about all the absolute vast bulk of consumers will ever do with the better speed.

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Yes, FTTP is quite a bit faster than the current broadband,
but it makes absolutely no sense to be spending anything
like $50B just so people can download DVDs much quicker.

I agree, lets go back to gravel road as they are cheaper to maintain.

Wrong, as always.

 

[Arm's Length]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:40:59 +1000
keithr <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

The problem with how people look at the NBN is that they only
consider home PCs, but business will be the main beneficiary.

Some of you may not like what I am about to say and you may violently
disagree with it, this, though, is to be expected as humans grasp to
make sense of life, the world in which they live, move and have their
being and their inevitable outplaying or out-picturing on the stage of
that life but generally in abysmal accord with humanly derived concepts
thereto. Albeit, I speak and do so with a thunderous but benign voice
of plainly reasoned certitude of that which I speak. None are expected
to accept a word of what I say, but are entirely free to accept, to
deny or to place before the alter of their consideration as they see
fit. May, as a natural consequence of this exposition, the bandwidth
and speed of your mind be increased in like measure to that of fast
broadband through fibre optics for the Internet and all users of it.
The problem is in the eyes of the perceiver in this instance, for there
is no problem in and of itself other than that which humanity
collectively or individually want to fabricate on the screens of their
minds and project on life, on human society. I favour the development
of the NBN as a benefit to every level of society and that with a
reasonable sense of equity.

Although, as I stated, people are free to either accept or reject that
which I say in whole or in part at their liberty, even so there will be
those no doubt about it who's only intent is to ridicule and deride
while finding fault where the problem lies in themselves and do so from
a standpoint of small-mindedness derived from a psychology of
abusiveness in a tirade of argumentum ad hominem. Such is their folly,
their immaturity in constitutional character. Consider this posting, if
you will, as a working hypothesis.

The argument pertaining to the ability of the NBN to deliver 1
Gigabyte per second speed in the current time period and environment
may well be a pertinent consideration here and may be correct in its
conclusion, but the distant future and even the near future is
definitely open to this being achievable. The NBN, therefore, should be
viewed as a long-term investment benefit for Australian society that
has to be started in the presnet for the sake of the present as of the
future. For it is what is done in the present that creates the future.
I would like to see, as a matter of principle, for every citizen of
this country to be benefited by the NBN or any reasonable alternative
to it as proposed by whomsoever. My consciousness is that of inclusion,
not exclusion. This, I realise, is to whatever degree difficult to
achieve by a society tied to and conditioned by a monetary system. The
past, however, provides sufficient proof that vast projects like the
NBN are achievable in practice.

While it can be said with a certain measure of certitude that I concur
with your expressed sentiment that the generality of respondents, as
others in the wider community, are or may be looking at the NBN from
the perspective of the home user, I do not wholly agree with your
espoused conclusions following from this assertion. I, therefore,
disagree with you that the main beneficiary will be business. It seems
to me that people have business on the brain in this wacky modern world
where the Thoroughly Modern Millies abide in their bemusing smugness,
inasmuch as it had been so during certain periods in the past history
of genus homo. In my view, the benefit to different sections of the
community averages out over time and in accordance with individual
needs and usages, especially as technology evolves from its still
primitive state in which it is to be found to an increasingly more
advanced state conveying refreshing possibilities for society's
populace. I am an individual and want to be treated as one, not in the
dankness of the preconceived notion that business requirements shall
always outstrip mine as a lowly citizen.

One may well argue, as humans tend to do from the point of human
credulity, that business and government are a part of human society and
that without them society could not function, ergo they are the most
important facets of society we should consider and give priority to. The
principle problem with this outlook is that it often-times is a
dangerous line to adopt, can be misleading and unjust in its proclivity
to always pander to business and governmental interests. For, when all
is said and done, business and government are constituted of the
citizenry, and to emphasise the importance of the collective entities
like business and government is to so often disenfranchise the
citizenry as distinct components in society with as legitimate needs,
desires and functions as the two composite groups already mentioned.
What I am saying here is that neither business or government are to be
considered in absolutist terms, as against the interests, wants and
needs of the citizenry. Life is a two-way street, not a one-way street
like it is unfortunately depicted in the famous Kennedy mantra "...ask
not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your
country." everywhere we turn we hear Kennedy's statement being taken
out of context in the justification of a one-way street societal
paradigm where the citizenry are jumped on for having the audacity to
ask of the country. The country, I notice, doesn't mind asking us to
put our lives on line for it, but we should never ask of the country.
This is nothing other than selfishness and inconsideration to the nth
degree.

What, I hear some assert, has this to do with this newsgroup and the
subject matter of this particular thread? It has everything to do with
it, since the post to which I am responding imparts the pre-eminent
approach and consideration, as false as it is in the human
consciousness, to business and its supposed interests as well as
bandwidth and speed usage and requirements. The presentment to the
human consciousness of this one-way mantra has been taken up by
business and government for their own selfish ends as they ride on the
crest of the wave of self-indulgence and citizen misfortune. As
heartfelt as it may have been for Kennedy, nonetheless it has a
potentially negative context when taken out of context and used in the
extreme as the one-way paradigm in society. A half-truth is as
dangerous and misleading as an outright lie.

The problem, as you designate it to be such in accordance with your
prevailing viewpoint, is a veritable illusion of which is based on
partial leanings and abstruse considerations in the devaluation of the
individual. One could equally say that business as such will not be the
main beneficiaries, instead it would be government and their various
departments along with services provided there-from or connected
thereto in their day-to-day usage of the medium. This itself would be
as equally a false conclusion that's based on a manifestly skewered
viewpoint and stand of assessment of perceived needs as the conclusion
you have obviously arrived at in your musings on the subject. There is
nothing absolute about business, bandwidth, speed and technological
requirements and progress, for it is indeed relative.

Others have given excellent examples of the home-user's increasing
reliance on greater bandwidth, higher speeds and backbone technological
infrastructure with the passage of time and the increase in
technological capabilities, alongside the desire to utilise that
capability. After all, the home-user's requirement are not by any
stretch of the imagination static. Requirements shift up the spectrum
as new possibilities are developed and released into the community for
individual usage. That your requirement may not constitute much, does
not necessarily follow that another person's requirements are similar
to yours. I, for one, do not want to be limited to your estimation,
contentment and restrictiveness.

Online video content to watch as well as downloads of the same and
Internet TV, cloud computing and VoIP are but some of the usages that
will increase with the passage of time for the home-user. Time saved is
not time wasted, as the phrase could be worded, is another benefit of
higher bandwidth and speed capabilities in the underlying technology.
High-speed broadband is imperative.

Online gaming, too, has perforce to be considered in reference to the
hone-user. Although latency is involved to a considerable extent with
gaming, it is also true that bandwidth in all of its diversity comes
into play with online gaming as it does with anything else to do with
the Internet. That some activities require greater bandwidth than
others is a fact of the online life. However, it should be far more
appreciated than it often is that bandwidth is a help maid, so to
speak, to the gamer. This will become more apparent as the new and
upcoming games in the future are developed having greater bandwidth
requirements of the Internet. The gamer will be as much bound to
bandwidth as any other user of the Net.

Just as bandwidth, speed and the volume of software size and complexity
has increased since the early days of computing and the Internet, so
too is that scenario found today and will no doubt be found to be so in
the future. What we were happy with yesterday, we would not be as
nearly content with today. I know for a certainty that I would not like
to return to the abysmal bandwidth, speeds and state of technological
capabilities of yesteryear. Progress is the epitome of evolutionary
development and the benefits it entails in the life of the human race.
In fact, only the other night I was watching a training video that I
had downloaded from the Internet Archives site about the installation
and use of Microsoft Windows 3.1. I definitely wouldn't enjoy returning
to the days of such restrictive computing, even though reminiscing by
watching the video brought to the fore of my mind past experience and
indulgences with not only Windows 3.1 and 3.11 for Workgroups but the
Amiga OS too. Internet bandwidth, computer bandwidth and modem speeds
in those days was nothing like it is today, just so in the future
they'll be completely different to today's offerings.

Taking into consideration the size of a lot of contemporary software
alone, the increased bandwidth and speed of broadband and especially
fast broadband is an advantage and most welcomed by the majority of
Internet users. I remember the frustrations attendant with slow speeds
and less bandwidth when downloading certain software in the days of
yore. I would not like to go through that again and consider it a
viable experience. Online gaming in the future could be vastly
different to that which we are accustomed to now and the bandwidth and
speed must be made to keep up with future requirements. The
infrastructure has to be created at some point in time, for the
bandwidth and speed of today shall not I guarantee you suffice for
the needs of the future. I am not at liberty to make you acquainted
with living networks of biologically living substance, thought
controlled technology as in the example of the field of psychotronics,
nanotechnologically enhanced networks, quantum computers, engramic
neurological networks or cybernetic networks at it applies to computing,
fohatic energy (the forty-nine forms of electricity) and the entire
electro-magnetic spectrum, or any other possible and advanced technology
for the conveyance of interconnectedness that doesn't involve the manual
human systems of which humans to date have been confined to as
self-indulgent prisoners of their own making and that of their infernal
puppet-masters.

I fondly recall the occasion decades ago when I was reading a science
fiction book in primary school while others in my class indulged in a
physical eduction class, I experienced a vision of what would as I
found out in later years be a common factor in the home and in
ordinary usage by the home-user in what is nowadays termed the personal
computer or PC. Few people in those days would have thought of a
computer being so common in the life and in the home of the ordinary
person in society, but I did in that vision when I was an innocent and
visionary child. My point is, I also see the need for greater
bandwidth, much faster speeds and the development of the necessary
infrastructure for this capability to be possible in the community for
the use of every citizen, instead of primarily business and government
oriented. The modern obsession with business is a disturbing trend in
contemporary human thinking and its approach to life.

Whatever is the outcome as political factions fight it out and spill it
over into the larger community, at some point in the future with the
advancement of technology and the progressive requirement of society
as a whole and individually, the updating of the infrastructure to cope
with this will be essential. It is far better to do it now than put it
off to the future when it will be forced by circumstances onto the
national life, because in the future the cost to do it may have
increased substantially. If you complain about the cost of the effort,
then you may as well complain about the cost of having to construct the
electrical and telecommunications networks in the past. If this had not
of been undertaken, then today we would be still using candles and gas
lights, wood stoves and boilers, the old telegraph system or relay
riders on horseback. The only reasonable way, besides the foregoing
and redeveloping the economic system to make things cheaper, is to
relegate the monetary system holus-bolus to the trash-can where it
fundamentally belongs as a complete and utter failure of an effective
societal construct.

The total cost of the NBN can be lessened by adhering to the
fundamental principle of efficiency and a far more realistic appraisal
of the worth in income of the top players as in negating the CEO's
exorbitant income to rational level. No human, irrespective of any
arguments to the contrary elicited from the proponents of the
irrational schemes that to obtain the best person for the job an
exorbitant salary package has to be offered, is worth the amount of
money this guy or most CEOs are being offered and receive while
greedily lapping it up and denying the same consideration for the
ordinary citizen. Greed, selfishness, unbridled ego and an
entirely unnatural exaggeration of worth fuels the over-the-top salaries
and benefits of those at the top of the ladder of societal life. Wastage
contributes to a significant percentage of the total cost of many
projects in the public and private sectors.

I have observed the arguments by certain people against the NBN on the
basis of there are far more important issues that the money can be
spent on. Well, although in a manner of speaking this may appear to be
so, if those who thus speak and argue vociferously were to be privy to
how much money governments really have behind closed doors, then I am
sure at least some of them would agree that many projects can
potentially be funded side-by-side. Besides savings incurred through
proper management and the delivery of efficiency can assist in the
ability to fund multiple projects simultaneously. It should never be
forgotten that as far as the economic state of a nation is concerned,
the public and business rely on the honesty of the government and
regulatory authorities. As we persistently see with business and the
financial sectors, they tend to mislead and lie to us. Health can be
funded, as dentistry and education. Job creation can be undertaken, as
also the funding of public housing for the needy and homeless.

What holds humanity back, aside from the universally operating natural
law, are its preconceived ideas, its assumptions, its blinkered
thinking and its overall extraordinarily limited mentality coupled to
its preponderance to stupidity. If I may repeat myself here, one such
stupidity is the almost fanatical manner in which humanity hold on to a
monetary system in a money-oriented societal construct. All this does
is to further the experience of limitation, restriction and
artificially contrived barriers in the life of humanity. If the world
would let go of the monetary system and get rid of it, I would venture
to say that a lot of the human problems created solely by the existence
of a monetary system would begin to disappear from the world scene.
Computing, as a classic example for such as the subscribers to this
newsgroup, would be set free to develop exponentially to the naturally
abiding limits of the technology and compatible system put in place.
The monetary system stifles humanity and retards any real progress
along superior lines it could achieve this nonsensical parasitical
contrivance of which humanity bows down to and worships in a place of
undeserving honour in their hearts. Throughout human history, though,
the monetary system has proven itself to be unworkable and inherently
flawed as a system. If only humanity possessed the eyes to see this
fact, for fact it is to those in possession of the requisite sight and
mental acuity. For what it is worth in saying and to the degree this
thought-form impinges itself on the dim consciousness of humanity, the
academic economists place humanity's feet firmly on the precipice from
which it falls in the failing of the understanding of the academics and
the world's economists as to a true sense of the economy, economics and
the Law of Economy of which it knows so little and understands even
less.

That humanity, generally speaking, is not willing to consider the
alternative paradigm is to its unparalleled detriment and total
disadvantage as a supposedly evolving species on a world under the
aegis of the Law of Evolution. Popular culture more or less trivialises
life and creates limitation in its wake, retarding effectual
evolutionary gain to the seemingly unending cycle of the repetition of
experiences, systems and single-minded thought as a blinker on
humanity driving it along familiar routes. Meanwhile, humans continue to
whine and moan about the cost of this, that or the other but are
unwilling to try a non-monetary societal construct.

I go under the pseudonyms Arm's Length and A-Long-Stretch indicating my
stand against human conceptual viewpoints in staying at arm's length
from them.

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:48:59 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Yes, FTTP is quite a bit faster than the current broadband, but it makes
absolutely no sense to be spending anything like $50B just so people can
download DVDs much quicker.

I agree, lets go back to gravel road as they are cheaper to maintain.

 

[Rod Speed]

terryc wrote

Rod Speed wrote
terryc wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yes, FTTP is quite a bit faster than the current broadband,
but it makes absolutely no sense to be spending anything
like $50B just so people can download DVDs much quicker.

I agree, lets go back to gravel road as they are cheaper to maintain.

Wrong, as always.

Yes, you were and are wrong, as always Roddles.

You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that you are completely unemployable.

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:01:28 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

terryc wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yes, FTTP is quite a bit faster than the current broadband, but it
makes absolutely no sense to be spending anything like $50B just so
people can download DVDs much quicker.

I agree, lets go back to gravel road as they are cheaper to maintain.

Wrong, as always.

Yes, you were and are wrong, as always Roddles. OTOH, you are probably
just ignorant of this and many other factors in the real world.

 

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:8cjaj0F45dU1@mid.individual.net...

* Your local video store will U/L the video you want in a few seconds. No
need to drive down the road to collect what you want, subscribe to Foxtel
and wait for their programming department or wait hours to obtain it via a
torrent source.
* Home video communication will be a reality.
* Video conferencing will alter business.

At a cost of $43Billion, I think we could happily live without any of that.
When we have no food or water, I guess it will give us a distraction. But
when we have no electricity, how will we power our computers?

MrT.

 

[terryc]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:22:06 +1000, Arm's Length wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 08:40:59 +1000
keithr <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote:

The problem with how people look at the NBN is that they only consider
home PCs, but business will be the main beneficiary.

Some of you may not like what I am about to say

Just give it in a nutshell please.
My eyes are tired as we have just been junked and it was loaded with
election flyers promising sodom and gommerah and that was just the main
parties, let alone the god bothers and bible bashers.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i4259s$o78$2@speranza.aioe.org...

A video farm?
1 customer at 1Gbps?
100+ customers at 1Gbps?
1000+ customers at 1Gbps?
More?

This may be a big ask in the foreseeable future.

Look at it from the customers viewpoint. Do they really require delivery
at that speed? IMU current highest quality movies require 8Gb which will
take eight seconds to deliver. So allowing 10secs per movie, roughly 720
customers could receive the movie in the two hour time it takes to play
on a 1GBps pipe from the supplier.

Or could still supply those same customers with real time viewing at 1/720th
of the download rate per customer.
Or simply borrow a Blu-Ray disc from your local video shop and save
$43BILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c65c9fd$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

The company that I work for make big storage servers. By big I mean
hundred to thousands of drives in a box. The drives can range from SSDs,
to 15K rpm fibre channel, to 7.2K rpm SATA drives depending on the the
required speed of access to the data. Each box is capable of servicing
up to 64 1 gig ethernet or 4 gig fibre channel connections
simultaneously.

Somehow I feel the cost to provide 64 simultaneous customers is quite high
though. And that's ON TOP of the $43BILLION NBN.

The question remains why you need to download a movie in seconds, that takes
hours to watch anyway?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"kreed" <kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74dbf3fd-1fff-4ffb-b8c3-e742cf828222@p12g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

Exactly - so we end up subsidising big business once more.

Yep, which is amazing that it's a Labor plan opposed by the Liberals, rather
than the other way around. Liberals are the party who usually give taxpayers
money to big business. Don't the mining companies want an NBN I wonder?

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keith@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c67c99f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

I pay a bucketful for all sorts of infrastructure that I will never use,
thats the way that society works.

Yep, and *shouldn't* for NON-essential services, when we can't even get
decent essential ones like electricity and water!

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"keithr" <keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c68beaf$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

The same can be said for a great many government projects, at least the
NBN has utility that will extend for decades to come.

Nope, it will probably be outdated long before then. People already want
high speed *wireless* services, NOT be fixed to a cable.

MrT.

 

[Mr.T]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i4b0n5$61s$1@speranza.aioe.org...

Yes, FTTP is quite a bit faster than the current broadband, but it makes
absolutely no sense to be spending anything like $50B just so people can
download DVDs much quicker.

I agree, lets go back to gravel road as they are cheaper to maintain.

Would be funny IF they weren't proposing to lay fibre cables along side
gravel roads!!!!

MrT.

 

[SG1]

"terryc" <newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:i4b0n5$61s$1@speranza.aioe.org...

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:48:59 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:


Yes, FTTP is quite a bit faster than the current broadband, but it makes
absolutely no sense to be spending anything like $50B just so people can
download DVDs much quicker.

I agree, lets go back to gravel road as they are cheaper to maintain.

What do you mean go back to???? I live in a state of Anna Blight.....

 

[atec77]

On 17/08/2010 6:11 PM, terryc wrote:

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:03:53 +1000, Mr.T wrote:

"keithr"<keithr@nowhere.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c68beaf$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
The same can be said for a great many government projects, at least the
NBN has utility that will extend for decades to come.

Nope, it will probably be outdated long before then. People already want
high speed *wireless* services, NOT be fixed to a cable.

Some people think they want it and that is all that is needed. the rest
of us know that those wireless towers are going to need enormous bundles
of fibre and that it is easier and better to just get another fibre put
to them with better bandwidth/signal/picture/more/super/delux/platinum/
another superlative/etc service.

Wireless the last mile if far cheaper and more efficient , or

alternately use the existing copper also mush more logical

--
X-No-Archive: Yes