longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Actually, I don't pretend to know enough to think that. Besides, didn't Turnbull say it will cost several trillion?
longweekend58 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 5:08pm:

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all.

Anyway, over dinner we've been having a little fun with your silly question.

Our first hypothetical builds on your Jetsons reference, I call it "When bmus:// replaces http://". "http://" refers to the protocol by which web pages are transmitted; "bmus://" is an initialism for "Beam me up, Scotty". OK, that's Star Trek, not The Jetsons, but close enough.

The Star Trek transporter supposedly converted matter into energy, beamed the energy to another location, then converted the energy back into matter. It's been calculated that doing so with something the size of a human being would take more energy than is thought to exist in the known universe, so it's a little impractical.

One proposed way around the difficulty is to transmit, not the energy of your matter, but information about that matter. To do that, you'd be blasted into a plasma, the quantum state of every subatomic particle recorded, the information transmitted and you reassembled from matter that's already at the receiving end, using that information.

So far, I'm told, we can blast you into plasma quite effectively. Optical fibre has the necessary capacity, though the NBN hardware at each end would need upgrading. Recording the quantum states and reassembly after transmission will be left as exercises for the class. 

Of course, the amount of data involved (a human body is composed of quite a few atoms and each atom of many particles) is prodigious, so the bandwidth is substantial.

The second hypothetical involves the nano-assembler, on which the likes of Drexler have been working for decades. The idea is that objects be built up, atom by atom.

Goods could, for example, would be purchased online and delivered, not physically, but as instructions for the nano-assembler. Transmitting data for every atom in an object is bound to be bandwidth-intensive.

One interesting side-effect is that so-called "piracy" enters a whole new dimension (or three).

The third is not so hypothetical. It has been proposed that, where there's sufficient penetration of fibre to the premises, services that are currently broadcast be transferred to the network. That frees up valuable spectrum for other uses.

This only works where there's a free fibre connection to every premises. The Coalition's half-baked proposal simply won't cut it. Copper lacks the necessary bandwidth and demanding that people pay for connections to services that are currently broadcast free would be difficult to sell politically.

You asked me to anticipate an application for the residential market. I've given you three possibilities, two of which have serious proponents (much to my surprise). In reality, we're all in the position of that bloke who couldn't figure out what use a telephone might be. Our frame of reference is telegrams delivered by bicycle.

You still haven't clarified what you believe will halt the rise in demand for bandwidth. I presume that's because nothing will.

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:


Your understanding of physics is lamentable.  I don't know where you read it, but it was someone's comic book.

# wrote on Aug 17^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:


Im trying to work out why you think that dams are built on any OTHER criteria.  Do you really think it is even possible that people build dams where they know that wont be much use?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

So, you believe that demand projections aren't significant?

Can't substantiate your assertion then?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 8:50am:

I don't pretend to have qualifications in the area. Your silly question was just a topic of amusement over dinner. This is but part of the answers that we came up with.

# wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 11:32am:


As a rule, rainfall doesn't change for a particular area but remains effectively constant over centuries.  it was perhaps the worst possible example you could use for internet traffic.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 4:57pm:

Oh dear, now who doesn't have a clue?

Still battling to distract from your foolish question, I see.