For those who think wireless is the answer to Australia's broadband needs, this is from a much longer answer to a question on the Link mailing list
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2010-August/089266.html..." his faith in wireless is wildly optimistic. He does
acknowledge contention ratios, but nevertheless goes on to intimate
that 100Mbps performance could be a realistic customer expectation.
The spectrum required to deliver this to bandwidth hungry customers
in high-density urban areas just isn't available unless cell-sizes
are reduced to ridiculously small levels (a tower every few hundred
meters). Once again, he could do well to go back and study some basic
physics."
Discussion went on to make the point that wireless towers are connected by fibre links. To get anywhere near the speeds required in the very near future, let alone in ten years time, would require so many towers that connecting premises directly would use less fibre.
There's a lot more at that link, for anyone who really wants to know rather than just have their prejudices reinforced. At the end of the missive is a viral letter that's probably the source of much of the misinformation peddled in this forum. I guess the motives behind
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nbn-could-cost-households-an-ex... are similar to those of the author of the viral letter. If there was any substance in the Australian article, wouldn't we have heard about it from those areas where rollout of the NBN has already begun?