Comments on: Are you joining the digital revolution?

By: digital cameras for sale

digital cameras for sale — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:17:02 +0000

Commenting usually isnt my thing, but ive spent an hour on the site, so thanks for the info

By: StevenL

StevenL — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:26:23 +0000

Perhaps the government could initally fund the installation cost whilst it’s cheap to borrow and sell the right to charge service providers for data traffic on the free market?

We could get all these out of work investment bankers to package rural fibre optic up with inner city fibre optic into financial securities, then make markets to trade them on, first of all encourage the pension fund to buy them, then set up a market for future delivery of megabytes, next make retail markets and derivatives of the both the spot and the futures contracts and get the spread betters and speculative day traders involved.

We could move towards a ‘data owning ‘ democracy!

By: no one

no one — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:14:36 +0000

re “most high-speed data cabling” actually the vast majority is OPTICAL FIBRE

By: alastair

alastair — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:50:43 +0000

I don’t think co-ax would be a very good idea, actually. There are a number of problems with co-axial cabling, both in terms of grounding of the shield (which becomes a real issue if a cable run of any length is in use) and also in terms of the electrical effects of the shield, which are detrimental to high-speed data signalling.

That’s why most high-speed data cabling these days is based around twisted pairs, and is very often (as in the case of standard Ethernet cabling) unshielded.

By: Alan Wheatley

Alan Wheatley — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 10:39:42 +0000

Digital Britain at Andy Burnham speed is a pathetic joke. It demonstrates a lack of understanding, a lack of vision and a lack of ambition for the Country.

Something at least ten times as fast is required everywhere, and if tax payer’s money is to be spent on capital infrastructure projects then this has to be a valid contender.

As for low population density rural areas I would have thought co-ax would be more cost effective than fibre.

Wireless is irrelevant, other than in certain, specific applications, as it can not possible provide the bandwidth required.

By: Adrian Peirson

Adrian Peirson — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 02:09:53 +0000

Did someone say Internet radio.

http://www.infowars.com/infowars.asx

By: TalkRhubarb » Blog Archive » Why isn’t anyone talking about internet radio?

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:55:05 +0000

[...] John Redwood is it least talking some sense on the issue, but even he’s not talking about internet radio. [...]

By: alastair

alastair — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:32:59 +0000

I don’t believe that. Fibre enables all kinds of new services, including various two-way things like movies-on-demand (OK, you can do this today via DSL, provided your connection is fast enough, but the thing is that rural connections rarely are due to the length of copper involved).

Furthermore, the in-service life of a fibre would be quite long, so the cost could be amortised over many years.

So I don’t buy the argument that there’s no cost/benefit for telcos who do this — there most certainly is. The question is whether they are prepared to or are able to fund the up-front cost of doing it.

By: Acorn

Acorn — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:10:58 +0000

You haven’t mentioned the wireless alternatives”MMDS Wireless Broadband”; WiMax and BPL. Have a look at:-

http://www.hometoys.com/htinews/jun07/articles/parks/rural.htm

The rural broadband problem is much bigger in the US and Canada; that is where most of the lab work is done.

By: StevenL

StevenL — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:12:45 +0000

The idea of the umeployed lagging everyones lofts conjures up the paradox of both ‘casino capitalism’ and ‘socialism’ devouring themselves in tandem in my mind.