T
Trevor Wilson
Guest
On 15/07/2013 8:08 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:
people are politically motivated to dismiss fibre, when it's true
capacity is decades away from being reached. Wireless will get better,
but can never reach the capacity of a single fibre. Further: Any
compression schemes that can be used with wireless to increase
bandwidth, can also be used with fibre. If people could remove their
political thinking from the issue, most technologically savvy people
will acknowledge that fibre is far superior to wireless. Less visually
intrusive, no arguments about radiation issues, too.
AND, I have already stated that wireless is very useful and will become
more useful in the future. It is, however, not a panacea. I live 25km
from the centre of the largest city in Australia. Wireless speeds are
pitifully inadequate and extremely variable. The best ADSL 2+ speeds
hover around 8 Mb/s. I look forward to fibre. I won't hold my breath
waiting for Telstra (or anyone else) to improve my wireless capability.
I know that the NBN will eventually arrive (provided enough people don't
vote for that technologically illiterate moron, Abbott).
in all respects, save portability. And, possibly, cost (though I don't
have the data for this area).
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
**I do have an open mind on new technology. It is sad that so manyOn 14-Jul-13 3:57 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 14/07/2013 9:31 AM, Don McKenzie wrote:
On 13-Jul-13 2:45 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
**You're kidding, right?
According to Nyquist, fibre has a maximum capacity somewhere around
150Tbs. And, unlike wireless, it is not affected by
the number of users (yet). Best of all, when (if) humans can tap the
maximum capacity of a single fibre (which no one
has yet managed to do), then another fibre can be dropped into the
hole. Presto: Bandwidth doubled.
Fibre has a maximum capacity?
Japan's incumbent telecommunications carrier, NTT, is claiming a
telecommunications speed record, demonstrating a fibre technology able
to carry 1 Petabit-per-second - a million gigabits - over a distance of
50 kilometers, using a single fibre.
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/09/26/3598036.htm
There are many Dr Google hits that refer to faster fibre methods.
Don...
**Every medium MUST have some kind of limit. Fibre's is so damned high
that we are unlikely to reach it for several
decades. Wireless is, of course, limited.
What I am saying Trevor is that you have to keep an open mind on new
technology. Doesn't matter if it is cable or wireless.
people are politically motivated to dismiss fibre, when it's true
capacity is decades away from being reached. Wireless will get better,
but can never reach the capacity of a single fibre. Further: Any
compression schemes that can be used with wireless to increase
bandwidth, can also be used with fibre. If people could remove their
political thinking from the issue, most technologically savvy people
will acknowledge that fibre is far superior to wireless. Less visually
intrusive, no arguments about radiation issues, too.
AND, I have already stated that wireless is very useful and will become
more useful in the future. It is, however, not a panacea. I live 25km
from the centre of the largest city in Australia. Wireless speeds are
pitifully inadequate and extremely variable. The best ADSL 2+ speeds
hover around 8 Mb/s. I look forward to fibre. I won't hold my breath
waiting for Telstra (or anyone else) to improve my wireless capability.
I know that the NBN will eventually arrive (provided enough people don't
vote for that technologically illiterate moron, Abbott).
**No question, wireless is nifty. Fibre is and always will be, superiorAgain Dr Google will find some interesting results today:
http://gizmodo.com/5954407/scientists-promise-ten-times-more-bandwidth-with-no-new-hardware
In 5 to 20 years time, the rules will change again.
in all respects, save portability. And, possibly, cost (though I don't
have the data for this area).
--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au