Fortunately you have a good internet connection, 22Mb/s is great and will be sufficient for years to come. You may not be able to download a movie in under 2 minutes but heck, can do anything in an instant..
I would appreciate to see how your farm and others can justify expanding a fibre network that can cost 6-7 figures per single KM with your economic contributions. Just just based on internet usage are you going to pay back that investment? Tell me more about how you guys contribute sooooo much more for your worth than others...
As I said, I am happy with my current service. However, if fibre like capacities became an economic or social normalcy I would want it. You would probably struggle to justify the cost of fibre to an urban address. Almost all of the capacity is used for leisure consumption, but it is seen by the government as an investment in future growth and just an expectation of modern life.
I have a small horticultural property. About a million dollars of export product goes to Europe and Asia each year. Rural properties are often businesses and, as automation increases, are likely to need increased capacity for things like remote monitoring of processes.
Glad to hear you are happy with a really fantastic xDSL service you are currently getting. A lot of people are not for unreasonable reasons. It would not be hard to justify Fibre to an urban address, you can service 100's of people for the same cost as you. Technology naturally gets deployed in high concentrated areas then trickled down so your point of trying to justify that is really moot. Remote capabilities for a horticulture farm would not use much, RBI would do this perfectly fine. Unless you want to stream 1080P video off site then I cannot think of a use case as an ex horticulturalist myself.
If you also had an idea of how a network is built, you would probably not expect to get fibre to farms and say RBI is free lunch. The infrastructure being added to existing sites expanding range and frequencies is huge. You will never cover the entire country with any form of wireless network due to our geographical challenges so its only ever going to be best effort. So it swings back around to don't live somewhere where you are dependent on something and can't get it there.
Again, people on these threads tend to lump all non-urban properties as remote and therefore uneconomic to service. The distribution of properties away from cities and towns is closer to a normal distribution than a straight line. The majority of rural properties are close to urban areas with existing fibre nearby and a relatively high population density. Possibly not much more expensive to service than urban.
I believe those that are most remote areas have realistic expectations about what services they might expect, and in many cases, seek their own wireless solutions.
I have seen "rural" properties across the road fro "urban" ones, Take lonely track road in Albany for an example... Everything is case to case, but we are talking extending a network, not slinging a cable over a boundary here. I think you are on the same page as everyone with that now. Just no need to carry the argument on by suggesting rural properties in a stones throw of urban.. But at the end of the day, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and where it is drawn there will be someone who wins and loses....
ID Verified
Trusted
Lizard Networks
