It's frustrating when people respond to a single quote without looking at the entirety of the info presented.
As I said, "there is a plethora of information shooting the wireless option down as a national broadband network option. They are unequivocal."
Form an opinion beyond your own personal experience and knowledge.
“To get a committed rate of 5 Mbps, you would need 80,000 cell sites,” Quigley said.
“We have 16,000 today so we’d need to multiply today’s wireless networks by five to get a committed information rate of 5 Mbps to 60 percent of premises.
there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the World that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.
With mobile wireless the number of users in a cell can vary widely, and the strength of the signal change as you move closer or further away from base station.
There are two reasons the opposition is such a fan of wireless broadband. One is political: fibre equals National Broadband Network equals Labor equals something to destroy. The other is that the Liberals are being sucked in by the wireless vendors’ glossy brochures.
As a small business owner specialising in Information Technology I can see the benefits the fibre NBN will have for everyone.
I hold faith though that Parkes will eventually get fibre connections, having only the wireless NBN will just not work.
It is a subpar solution to the countries slow broadband infrastructure.
