Broadband - Should the government simply buy a satellite?

[limbimtimwim]

I don't like the idea of yet more wireless radiation

You don't really think cell sites cause cancer or effect your health do you?

Your choice of the word 'radiation' suggests confusion with nuclear radiation, which causes cancer for sure.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Death Ray Death Ray... yah

oh no deaf ray

Fibre Optics is more reliable mes think... but Death Ray on that but you could put...

[YellowDog]

You don't really think cell sites cause cancer or effect your health do you?

Your choice of the word 'radiation' suggests confusion with nuclear radiation, which causes cancer for sure.

No confusion from me. Transmitting additional frequencies through the environment in which we live IMO is not a good thing and I'd rather see less rather than more. A lot of the data regarding the potential effect on the human brain has been suppressed. If you can make mice grow brain tumours with concentrated force, there is the potential that such concentrations will affect humans too. Though I must say that the predicted hike in human brain tumours with the mobile phone revolution has not materialised. This is a good thing.

I sometimes use a microwave at home. I don’t go out of my way to put my head against it whilst it is in use and would say the same about any electromagnetic frequency emitting device. If I was on my computer for 10 hours in a day and in direct exposure to satellite enabled broadband frequencies, then I would have concerns and need factual assurances over the potential health risks related to such prolonged exposure (I don’t, some do – and they should get out more).

Back to the answer to the original question: There is no good and reliable satellite based broadband system available that could potentially be an alternative to the present wired broadband system. When there eventually is, maybe this debate can start over.

[chrisso]

I vote for using the death ray on the other side of the Tasman first.

Kill George Gregan with it. And All the Aussie cricket team...../and all the AFL teams

[jrandom]

You don't really think cell sites cause cancer or effect your health do you?

Cell sites? No, indeed. HF stuff doesn't seem to be so much of an issue.

An acquaintance of mine slept for five years in a bedroom 5m from the edge of a very large substation, though.

He subsequently found that he had a brain tumour at the age of 28.

While that may not be statistically significant in the broader picture, barely scraping through that experience alive was pretty fucking statistically significant for him.

I remain unconvinced about EMF health impacts.

[CookMySock]

I sometimes use a microwave at home. I don’t go out of my way to put my head against it whilst it is in use and would say the same about any electromagnetic frequency emitting device.

Nup. Microwave ovens transmits two KILOWATTS. Internet link gear transmits two hundred THOUSANDTHS of ONE watt. 2,000 watts versus 0.2 watts.

They are several orders of magnitude different.. and on top of that, your internet antenna is outside on the roof with a very very highly focussed antenna pointing up and away, while your microwave oven is on yer flamin' fridge, looking closely at your nuts. Yes - TWO KILOWATTS looking at your nuts, yet they still work ok you see..

DB

[Mooch]

Agree with Dangerousbastard.

Did a radio energy servey at work when we were looking into WIFI.

The worst device on the floor was by far the microwave oven and 2/3rds of the maximum level recommended. Makes you think if you are located the otherside of the wall from the work kitchen.

The next was the sky tv transmitter that was 1 km away. Very low

third was the AM radio transmitter 3 KM away. Very low

In terms of enery , Cellphones regisited next and wi fi next. These were something like 1/1000th of 1/5000th the energy of maximum allowable.

Satelite is lower again , hence the need for a large dish to recieve it.

One thing that does make me laugh is the people who get upset with cell sites at schools,yet allow there kids to have cellphones that are normally in a pocket right next to there skin. The cellphone in the pocket has more reative emf to the kid than the cell site. If you move the cellsite further away, the mobile phone will up it's radio power level to communicate with the cellsite. It makes it worse.

With Wifi the standard in it's base form was designed so it could operate in ECU's in hospitals , which i find rather reassuring. Rule of thumb I use , don't sit within 90 cm of your access point for long periods. The energy drop of is substancial the further away you sit. The wifi cards on your PC's and Laptops
and it's attenna gains has very low emf. (they don't worry me)

Power stations / sub stantions in my view are a different matter, if you think about the energy from these (they power suburbs / large buildings) I for one would not live close to those.

[Winston001]

So we are agreed - buy a Death Ray instead, and point it at Parliament just to keep the residents focused on their job.....

The reason I posted was because of an article which said NZ was slipping backwards in the broadband stakes. I'm not convinced that fast internet for everyone is the magic bullet for our economy but we shouldn't ignore it either. In my opinion, instead of concentrating on ADSL2 for the cities, as a nation we should ensure everyone has ADSL1 in the first place.

I'm not a fan of big govenment projects but sometimes it is the only sensible option. Our total population is the size of a large city overseas. We live on narrow mountainous islands. Getting fibre to everyone will be damned expensive but if the government undertook the work, it will get done. There is already a lot of cable laid anyway.

The question is whether the cost is worth it? Despite the very interesting and rational posts here regarding the problems with wireless, and electric cables, technology in 5 years could have solved it.

[Hitcher]

Some people have obviously never heard of the inverse square law.

[jrandom]

the inverse square law

'Gotta be hip'?

[Winston001]

Some people have obviously never heard of the inverse square law.

Quoi?

If you mean the law of diminishing returns in the economic sense (which is what you imply) just say so man.

Can't quite see the relevance unless you mean the exponential drop in wireless signal as one moves away from the transmitter. Speak up, we can't hear you Hitcher....

[Hitcher]

Can't quite see the relevance unless you mean the exponential drop in wireless signal as one moves away from the transmitter. Speak up, we can't hear you Hitcher...

That's exactly what I meant. Apologies for any needless ambiguity.

[Winston001]

Sorry Hitch - is this the 5 minute argument or the full half-hour?

[Mooch]

Death Ray for Parliment ..... I would have a grandstand seat looking out the Window.......

Agree on the adsl 1 comments , I'd also like to see the backhaul oversubscription rate drop. The 2 meg adsl I had in London ment 2 meg downloads. I'd be luckly to get 128k - 512k at best on NZ internet for internation traffic.

kiwibiker.co.nz ran real quick out of London with minimal packet loss. Can't say the same here using xtra as an ISP.

Hitcher , bring on the argument , I need some suitable bed time reading to fall a sleep quickly with ......

[Skyryder]

Some people have obviously never heard of the inverse square law.

I thought that was a Photoshop tool. Leaves a bloody big hole.................like a death ray.

Skyryder