Telstra and Optus will delay the planned closure of their 3G networks in order to conduct a final public safety awareness campaign amid concerns that emergency services calls and medical devices could be affected.
get it. I dont think we should dismiss using more bandwith as pointless.
I also think its unreasonable to expect a private company maintain an unprofitable portion of the network. If we wanted coverage like that, it should be part of their licence to ensure its like for like. I dont know stats in Australia but I known in the USA which is more deregulated than here, they are building .ore towers to maintain coverage.
We are a big country, but as much as the stereotyoe is bush, we have more people in urban areas. That doesn’t make us smaller to provide coverage but I’d be surprised if we aren’t building more towers too. Anybtine there ISNA switch in tech, there will be winners and losers. We need to ensure more winners than losers.
Dismissing the improvements as unnecessary or unhelpful doesn’t lead to constructive discussion.
While I agree that increased bandwidth is crucial, I’m not so sure about leaving so many people and remote areas cut off over this. Especially as each generation of technology has shorter range (and therefore more expensive to service). Each generation of technology will have more people cut off, and I think there are implicit fears that one day, it will be them.
Maybe those fears are wrong, but it seems you’re just as dismissive of these fears as people that dismiss future benefits from greater bandwidth.
Also, I don’t know about looking to the US for inspiration, they also have a very large digital divide, largely based on the wealth of the local area.
No, I think those feats are real and grounded too. I dont dismiss them. However, I look at the evidence and it says that more towers are needed and more are bing built.
We also now use WiFi for calling as a backup for phones. Reallocating spectrum leads to increased distance (even if less than 3g).
The reality is that remote towns will still be covered. Truly remote areas never were and will remain that way. We have in increasing amount of satellite coverage options opening up. Is it cheaper and more energy efficient tonusr that in the bush? Are repeaters rather than handsets viabke?
I’m not dismissing the points. I’m pointing out that there are two sides and that by saying one side is pointless, if it isn’t, is not arguing in good faith.
get it. I dont think we should dismiss using more bandwith as pointless.
I also think its unreasonable to expect a private company maintain an unprofitable portion of the network. If we wanted coverage like that, it should be part of their licence to ensure its like for like. I dont know stats in Australia but I known in the USA which is more deregulated than here, they are building .ore towers to maintain coverage.
We are a big country, but as much as the stereotyoe is bush, we have more people in urban areas. That doesn’t make us smaller to provide coverage but I’d be surprised if we aren’t building more towers too. Anybtine there ISNA switch in tech, there will be winners and losers. We need to ensure more winners than losers.
Dismissing the improvements as unnecessary or unhelpful doesn’t lead to constructive discussion.
While I agree that increased bandwidth is crucial, I’m not so sure about leaving so many people and remote areas cut off over this. Especially as each generation of technology has shorter range (and therefore more expensive to service). Each generation of technology will have more people cut off, and I think there are implicit fears that one day, it will be them.
Maybe those fears are wrong, but it seems you’re just as dismissive of these fears as people that dismiss future benefits from greater bandwidth.
Also, I don’t know about looking to the US for inspiration, they also have a very large digital divide, largely based on the wealth of the local area.
No, I think those feats are real and grounded too. I dont dismiss them. However, I look at the evidence and it says that more towers are needed and more are bing built.
We also now use WiFi for calling as a backup for phones. Reallocating spectrum leads to increased distance (even if less than 3g).
The reality is that remote towns will still be covered. Truly remote areas never were and will remain that way. We have in increasing amount of satellite coverage options opening up. Is it cheaper and more energy efficient tonusr that in the bush? Are repeaters rather than handsets viabke?
I’m not dismissing the points. I’m pointing out that there are two sides and that by saying one side is pointless, if it isn’t, is not arguing in good faith.
Ah, I must have misunderstood, sorry. Rereading your first reply to TinyBreak I see that now.
So you’re not an Aussie? Cool ok so you’ve got no idea what this country is like. That makes sense.
Lol, no. Like most if this country, I live in a metro area.
Unlike the USA which has a higher percent living rural or in low population density areas. Its juatbthat we alsonhave a lot of empty space.
Even if I wasnt Australian, my point would still stand, so all youre doing is showing the weakness of yours.
deleted by creator