In this section
Rural Columnists
Offers for readers
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 25860
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 364
- ››
Rural news stream
Latest news
- A damn good idea 18
- National average market values 2013 1
- Off-road light diesel vehicles get RUC exemption
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Americans confident 5
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Downgrades coming ? 4
- S&P may cut TSB, Co-op, Heartland ratings 21
- Just add water 59
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Sinking data 2
- Purse strings loosened in Budget 2013 3
- Lowest since 2008
Most commented
- Going back is not going forward 77
- Just add water 59
- What the RBNZ's OCR decision means 54
- RBNZ holding OCR 'through end of 2013' 33
- Electrifying politics 30
- Go farming, young Kiwis 25
- Mortgage rate rises may follow opposition power policy 23
- S&P may cut TSB, Co-op, Heartland ratings 21
- Fake lamb in 'NZ' brand 21
- Fonterra may cut 300 jobs 21
Most viewed
- Tradable slaughter rights idea useful but may not be the answer 4
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Americans confident 5
- A damn good idea 18
- National average market values 2013 1
- S&P may cut TSB, Co-op, Heartland ratings 21
- Off-road light diesel vehicles get RUC exemption
- Just add water 59
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Downgrades coming ? 4
- 90 seconds at 9 am: Sinking data 2
- The Weekly Livestock report
Bruce Wills says being left naked is no fun and is frustrated wireless broadband is coming so slowly for farmers - who would innovate with it. Your view?

By Bruce Wills
I was left naked this week.
No I have not suddenly joined some farmers' naturist club but I am talking about my mobile phone.
In my rush to get to Wellington I was half way to the airport when I had a dread thought, felt my suit jacket then realised, I had left it on my desk at home. There was no time to turn around so for the past few days I have returned to an era before mobile telephony.
It is only when you go off the grid that you realise just how dependent we have all become on that little marvel of technology.
In my lifetime I have seen the stuff of Maxwell Smart and Star Tre become much better than that envisaged by science fiction.
Ironically, we seem to be returning to thin bricks these days, given 3G and soon 4G phones, will seek to maximise screen size for entertainment and the web experience.
Of course, I would have just liked to have a phone but since I was hundreds of kilometres from my SIM card that had to wait. It made me think that the old CDMA network may have had some redeeming features after all. Of course there will be messages, indignant ones at that, so if I didn't get back to you, sorry!
Related Topics
Wireless telephony and data is perhaps the answer to getting rural broadband out to where we need it most; in our tractors and in the field.
The brave new world of wired rural broadband is coming but is seemingly costly and far from rapid. In 2017 we may, if we are very lucky, be where Wellington was in 2010.
Just as our rural councils demand a fairer share of Road User Charges, given rural contributes over 50 percent but gets only about 30 percent back, broadband needs to start where economic activity starts.
I understand it will cost a rural school something like $300 each month just to connect to rural broadband. How many single teacher rural schools can afford close to $4,000 per annum for this? It also seems disproportionately higher than what urban schools will be paying.
Broadband is not just for us farmers but our local companies, communities and schools. Our children and our families deserve equality but if we want serious economic development that is distributed rather than just concentrated in a few select urban pockets, we need to unleash our full rural inventiveness.
The current ‘solutions’ seem far from ideal when the likes of Jeanette Maxwell, Federated Farmers’ meat and fibre chair, can almost see a cabinet but cannot connect to it. Her farm falls in the proverbial no-man’s land comprising a satellite ‘shadow’ created by Mt Hutt and weak mobile 3G, even with a yagi antennae. She has broadband of sorts on copper but it is not rapid or reliable.
With the move to e-filing and e-government along with the National Animal Identification and Tracing Scheme, Jeanette isn’t alone being technologically frustrated.
While my phone sits at my farm, the new features we have don’t quite make up for patchy 2G technology that is voice.
Dropped calls waste time and cost us money, but there is no slack cut for us in rural areas. There are holes in cellphone coverage something I know from driving around the Hawke’s Bay. If we can’t get 2G reliably then it doesn’t bode well for 3G or even 4G.
To us, rural broadband ought to be about breaking down barriers because the web makes the world smaller. It is also about productivity and new tools for us to become better farmers.
Frankly we have no conception of where things could head.
Somewhere, someone will be creating an application or program that will have that Eureka factor. It would be great to think it is a kiwi.
While fixed line broadband is great and will be welcome, the reality is that wide area wireless coverage is better as it delivers coverage in the field.
Another thing that strikes me is how close we are to going cashless. Aside from EFT-POS there is a big trend emerging towards stored value cards or cashless wallets.
A big issue facing many smaller rural centres is the loss of banking services and after the banks have left, even remote ATM machines are now coming under threat.
One potential solution for our rural communities is to move quickly in adopting cashless wallets. Indeed it may be driven by simple expediency with the loss of banks and cash machines but that comes back to having the internet; wired or wireless. The internet is the enabler.
I honestly never thought that leaving my phone would get me thinking so hard about where we are and where we could go.
We talk much about being a world leader on many things, so how about starting with technology coming out from our farms, orchards, forests and trawlers.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Wills is the President of Federated Farmers. You can contact him here »









24 Comments
Thought we were doing the
Thought we were doing the right thing for the environment - decided to put in a soil moisture probe so we can use effluent irrigation at the best time for soil moisture conditions. Well, it is one of those theory and practice difference things. Sounds great in theory. Was assured we had good enough mobile reception for it to send the data to the web based app that we need to access - even though we told them mobile was crap. So went ahead and spent around $4k on a system and calibration of said system.
Had a few teething problems - as you do with technology at times. Then it worked well for a whole week - yay! Then vodafone upgraded their system. Since the upgrade the data is no longer being sent to web. Phoned the contractor a few times, finally got told - we are going to try a more powerful aerial. I've given them a deadline of end of next week - if it's not up and running reliably by then they can take the whole thing back.
The problem for rural folk with been 'the end of the line' for robust mobile and broadband, in our situtation, is that Regional Councils are looking to make technology like soil moisture probes mandatory. It's all well and good in theory, but when in practice our mobile/internet is worse than some third world countries, 'it just ain't goin' to happen in some cases'.
On arrival in China a few years ago the number of people with mobiles and no landlines really stuck out to me. Then the penny dropped - it was cheaper to install cellphone towers to get the population connected than running miles and miles of copper wire out to the populace. I can't understand why the govt has gone for a fibre roll out to the rural masses. Most rural people I know are very underwhelmed by it all - we can't wait 5 years, so when it does come, it is going to have to be priced right for us to take it up.
Mobile and internet in significant parts of rural New Zealand is no better than third world - unless you can afford to pay large sums of money per month. I was phoned and told I could get a better deal on internet and landline-$35 pm and 2gb. I currently pay $80 for 1gb on wireless at home and on the farm $120pm for 6gb . When I finally could get a word in, I said to the telemarketer - you do know we are rural? 'Oh, well in that case we can't offer you anything better than what you are getting'. How is a young rural (non farming family) family supposed to be able to afford internet at those prices?
You choose to live in the
You choose to live in the wonderful rural landscape, get over it.
Funny thing but you and the farmers whine about too much tax or not good enough prices for your produce but when in a free market you dont get it cheap enough you whine again and expect to be subsidised by others.
regards
Steven my reply is this: Stop
Steven my reply is this:
Stop expecting the rural folk to keep up with the assumptions of urban life.
I very much say Broadband, and whatever is around the next corner, is not a necessity of life, and it's not true infrastructure (councils, schools and libraries DO NOT need broadband to function. It's a convenience and advancement but it's not a necessity).
So user pays.
And stop taxing/charging rates to rural NZ for "public" "necessities".
But then you and other urbanites don't get to impose your other urban demands of rural producers either. Reading the other day about some whining urbanite complaining that private farmers were using his free public water. In whatever sense of the world, did he think he had any kind of ownership rights to "public" water whatsoever?
Likewise with Broadband....
EITHER it's entirely a manufactured private deal and you purchase what YOU want off the supplier. You want school or rural community on the backbone (or the grid) then you join together to collectively arrange it.
OR it's a public system commissioned by government, for the people, all of the people (especially the taxpayers who are funding it), in which case rural areas who have to use it for business compliance reasons (since things are compulsory web-based at the choice of central government or their lackey councils) then it would need to be supplied. That is the urban governments decision and time they personal took on the complaince cost for their foolishness.
Water well the urbanite is
Water well the urbanite is wrong, using potable water the water plants is crazy....bet he/she does that as he/she whines about you doing the same.
Compliance costs, yes I agree Im mystified why there should be effectively a compulsory requirement to have broadband, but then I think councils are all in la la land. They cannot be sustained, cant see them being here in 20 years and probably not functional in 10...
and no broadband isnt essential IMHO....though the rest if the family think so.....to me its like TV a luxury....
regards
It is like the diamond
It is like the diamond studded water treatment schemes the government pushes the councils to adopt (by constantly upgrading minimum requirements - or their inspectors not policing some requirements (so the councils and ratepayers could survive) then later inspectors demanding all the boxes are ticked properly because that's their job.) and the number of councils trying to "future proof" their responsibillities out to 20 and 50 years projections (so they don't have to keep rebuying the same projects to service the same requirements) but getting caught out with the rule changes. Again especially where previous understandings and arrangements get trampled by central governments and their stormtroopers.
Their are demands on councils to have certain databases in place, and to have certain minimum levels of service on demand. That means that these places must use the approved software and they must be setup by the people who contract such services (of which I was a contracted employee of one such company for a few years).
Then there is the matter of centralisation support, vs decentralised maintenance.
Also the matter of reporting, via government official electronic media in the approved manner (which differs from department to department).
And finally, the matter of security. With such open revenue sources, higher ups in government demand rather extraenous, and expensive, levels of security. Even information of a trival nature is supposed to be protected "by Right". Again coming back to the overpayment of State servants, putting them into NZ'ers High Class "money is nothing, principles are everything" financial expectations. And such people, again, falling into the First & Second Estates, never have to actually personally provide the resources they demand of others.
I presume Steven you are all
I presume Steven you are all for Aucklanders to pay for all of their roading infrastructure and the like instead of the rest of us paying for it through higher petrol taxes.
Yes. regards
Yes.
regards
steven I understand that you
steven I understand that you are IT competent. Please explain this for me:
On a mountain top there is a wireless transmitter enabling internet connection so long as you have line of sight and the correct aerial equipment. The area from mountain to sea is completely flat - no hills. Within this area are two small communities (9500 & 1500pop) surrounded by lifestylers and farmers. Why would the lifestylers and farmers have to pay more than those in the small communities for internet, off the same transmitter? I have never really understood why, people accessing the same transmitter for the internet, should have such a huge difference in cost of receiving the same service. What from a purely technical point of view would justify this?
From what you say here I'd
From what you say here I'd assume its price gouging. The provider has a monopoly and is assuming lifestylers and farmers are rich enough to pay more. From an IT perspective, nothing to justify a price difference I can think of....but networking and wifi is not my area of expertese.
NB IT is like engineering non- ppl somehow expect anyone who does IT or engineering to know the total subject, you cant. Its simply to vast and complex for that...but our head networking techy might know, I will ask as Im curious as well.
NB I use 3g same price inside say Blenheim v outside....so I dont understand your situation.
regards
Thanks steven. Mobile
Thanks steven. Mobile broadband via a usb isn't an option due to lousy mobile reception. I am referring to wireless like what Orcon provided, though it doesn't offer any rural broadband anymore. It is different from usb broadband.
The price gouging to some rural communities is what I was attempting to imply in my first comment. That is what is unacceptable to me. Netsmart (www.netsmart.co.nz) will hopefully be available where I live soon - can't wait for it, so I can ditch my current provider. :-)
It can be frustrating to know that there is technology available to us especially in the fields of effluent management and water management that we can't use because of lousy mobile and/or internet connection. Ah, well, such is life I guess.
I had a chat to my networking
I had a chat to my networking guy and we know that 3g is directional (I didnt realise just how much so). So its possible that each pole/tower's payback would depend on the number of ppl using it. The townships could have directional service so 1500 using one tower would be cheaper for the provider than say 5~10 farmers using a tower in a different direction. But a farmer/lifestyler in the 1500s path should be using the same tower so should be the same cost/price...........
This same thing could apply to Orcon's service. NB My few contacts with Orcon has been they are un-pleasant price gougers and best avoided, they wanted a crazy sign up period for UFB and huge penalty if you wanted out, I declined.
Very line of sight....but interesting.....
http://www.netsmart.co.nz/broadband/index.cfm?page=coverage
regards
How does your signal get to
How does your signal get to the mountain top, considering that it would have to be enough bandwidth to contain the entire area's cumulative usage, and some signalling overhead.
If the people are urbanised, do they use exactly the same equipment as the farm community (ie are they on the same tower, no more or less repeaters, no more or less antenna arrays as often each antenna covers a eliptical lobe.)
Each antenna might cover 15-35 degrees, and higher power, and higher traffic arrays are significantly more expensive, as are the broader ones. The broader the signal, the wider but shorter the elipse. The more people you can catch in any one antennas ellipse, the more cost effect that antenna is (in setup and power and maintenance and support).
Places like towns can often be covered by one to three antenna, because everyone is grouped in one area, and traffic can also be shaped and supplier bandwidth purchased to fit the patterns.
Scattered groups, require more antenna and are less predictable in their usage. And often require higher power to ensure quality of signal throughout the reception area. For Radio transmission this isn't so important but for digital signals, especially return traffic, there is much interence and attenuation from the larger variety of terrestial and atmospheric influences.
That is for pure wireless, using duplex terrestial systems.
What has been used in the past is simplex (one way) broadband transmission to the site, with the return path (upload) being via landline. These certain increase the receiver speed which is the bulk of the traffic. They're somewhat harder to setup - once the data is in the cloud, it's all just packets, but you need to have an ISP with pockets and influence strong enough to command tower sites AND telephone line support in a timely manner. (something which is hard if you're trying to compete with "the incumberent")
This also means that rural subscribers have to face all the usual costs and hassles involved with landlines (Plain Old Telephone Services, aka POTS). Interference, line length, cost of supply, risk to service availability, competition with business and family demanding telephone usage especially for incoming calls!.
In this day and age, radio transmission and VOIP (Voice of Internet Protocol, ie Skype and other digital phone services) are putting pressure on existing landlines anyway - often with modern replacement "landlines" being dedicated VOIP routers using digital services within the service providers product.
But generally, it's purely a density thing.
Thanks mist for the
Thanks mist for the explanation-quite a bit more to it than I thought. Not sure how it all gets there. To be honest I was quite surprised Orcon supplied wireless to the area I live in, when I moved there. But then there are the two mills in Kawerau, Fonterra in Edgecumbe and the mill in Whakatane, so perhaps they are the ones who justified Orcon being there. The transmitter sits atop Mt Edgecumbe and I know that that is where we receive our signal from (had to top some trees in order to receive signal). My Orcon wireless is now a 'grandfathered service', and hasn't been available to new subscribers for some time. Will give them credit for being a reliable and stable service transmission wise. I'm loathe to connect to any 'landline' type service - water seems to get in to phone lines when we get a really good rain and knocks them out for a while. Friend on the westcoast found having sattellite internet a boon when their lines went down for around 4 days last week. At this time of year on the farm there is so much work re herd records to be uploaded they were grateful not to be relying on a 'landline' internet system.
If there's a Fonterra
If there's a Fonterra factory/outlet (eg RD1) nearby that's probably why the capability exists.
About 12 years ago, Fonterra was install "thin client" workstations all over their sites (think of it as a dedicated browser computer, about the size of a dagwood sandwich connected to a monitor). However those thin client systems required a significiant amount of bandwidth, once they stuck 6 - 20 in a site. And so they solved it the Fonterra way (as it was known in the computer industry back then)... and just chucked fistloads of money at Telecom and said "make it happen". I know this because I was one of those contracted to install them (the thin clients).
Also Whakatane IIRC is considered satellite to Hamilton-Rotorua and was part of a really big push to get broadband to schools. Hamilton is heart of Telecom at the time, and it was a potentially political embarisment that "near Hamilton" schools where going to "fall behind" technologically. However it did take financial commitment by some local backers to finally loosen public fund pursestrings get broadband to the town (from nearby Edgecumbe). Once they have backbone Internet, servicing a tourist/holidaying spot (fishing) is a lot easier, but because of the way the antenna work, the town will get better service from directional antenna and far less likely to go to the trouble of omnidirectional.
There are some ideas out there for getting signals into tough areas, using dishes, reflectors, and/or passive repeaters, but it all costs, it all takes maintenance, and often just isn't worth the hassle. (hence the need for the government to legislate to force people to do the impractical) - and thus those who bother, like to price gouge the "rich farmers"
Another issue is one of
Another issue is one of site/interference.
Any transmitter is pumping out power, most of it at a certain frequency, but it does affect nearby frequencies. This is most noticeable when the signal passes through an antenna - that's how the radio signal works. one pattern of conductors or size of resonance chamber, matches up with another of the same pattern. The closer the match, the stronger the signal and more efficient the power conversion is. But if you have lots of power, to cover decent distances, then you don't want any antenna at all nearby (ie they have to be carefully designed not to affect each other, as even a poor match will catch a lot of power at close range!)
So different signals (each antenna normally only operates at one preset frequency or a limited range of presets) are normally spaced well apart, with certain multi-frequency sites (eg Telecom or TVNZ) very carefully designed with which frequencies can be combined.
This becomes a really! big issue because everyone wants the areas with the best coverage, which are usually remote and exposed. Which means getting your gear and engineers, technicians and tower construction crews to the site, and then having to get your accumulated bandwidth signal to and from the site (who wants to run a T1/T3 bundle (big fat data cable) up some remote hillside? or you can use a microwave wireless signal point-to-point back into town but that means more pwoer, more transmitters, and more permissions and you have to be careful not to microwave/radiate any townsfolk nearby.
And generally you can't piggyback on existing networks, because each group have to have their own tower and antennas not to close to each other - and some even try to use excuses to block others from getting good site access (Telecom often say "because of future expansion plans" and when pressured they refuse to disclose for purposes of "commercial sensitivity") which is to say, they don't want to have to sue your site off you in the future when they want more. Thus it's often much cheaper to buy bandwidth of a bulk supplier (Telecom, Vodaphone) and resell it. But when there's no existing services, or the incumberent is releasing a competing product, or just being a dick, then uncovered places get left in the dark... and if a reseller wanted to cover a dark spot, then they would normally have to build the entire chain out to that area from a existing server/router.
As many smaller outfits have found, that the bulk suppliers like to "shake the market tree" every now and then to stop competition getting entrenched in the market. That and personal relationships go sour/get found out, and a startup suddenly finds themselves on the outlist of their bulk supplier. Not good.
While I agree with some of
While I agree with some of what you say, mist, there are some gaps. I live in HK and this is one of the most internet savvy places on earth. There is economy of scale of course - seven and a half million people - and we run three computers almost around the clock, xtra fast broadband, no data cap and pay about $2 NZ a week total.. It's virtually free. Economies that can tap into this type of communication tool at this level leave an economy like NZ's for dead.
The internet as an educational tool is now essential. Libraries that don't embrace it will go the way of the Dodo, already book issues are falling significantly. Local govt needs the net as much as central govt. Today it's indispensable. Farmers need it too for compliance issues and I'm sure will develop new inventive ways to use it productively. Cost and availability though are big issues.
From what was said I'd assume
From what was said I'd assume its the same transmitter doing the townships as outside so I cant explain it in iT terms....but yes if its rural v urban its the same kit divided by 2000 users of 20,000 users its just economics.....plus the location, cables and generator to backup the rural kit would make it more expensive to put in.
As far as I know most libraries these days do free wifi? I know say Blenheim's library does....
regards
OMG, I am very familar with
OMG, I am very familar with Internet supply and computers. Internet and communications is very much a question of population density.
There are at this moment, approxiamately 10 other human beings in a 1km radius circle of my current rural position. Many of those having transmission issues that gets down to 3 per 1km r.
As you are in HK, I think you will agree that there are "somewhat more" than that within your 1km radial area.
So if each person in that kilometer of coverage area, supplied personally, or through taxes, 10meters of high quality Internet equipment (at say $1,000 per individual), how much coverage would you have? I wouldn't even have enough to reach to the end of my driveway even if we all pitched in on my place (or footpath in the case of a business).
(assume $50k, over 15degree arc, over 1 but under 5 km, max 20,000 subscribers- per unit, for wireless)
The problem for mobile
The problem for mobile broadband in NZ is the lack of wireless spectrum and the density of subscribers in rural areas. I'm afraid that the economics are unlikely to ever stack up for rural folk that mobile (or fixed) internet will the same price as in metropolitan areas unless the government subsidises the network rollout massively. The government RBI initiative should provide some small improvement but based on the figures I've seen the mobile operators are unlikely to be investing in large scale infrastructure for rural mobile broadband - there simply isn't the return on investment.
" lack of wireless
" lack of wireless spectrum"
Maybe they should get the Maori to invent them some more spectrum - since they seem to think they own everything in NZ
I wouldnt say lack of
I wouldnt say lack of spectrum but lack of payback......
regards
Shhhhhh, don't let Gerry
Shhhhhh, don't let Gerry Brownlee hear you, he'll call you a moaner. After all the government spent thousands of dollars on building you a cycle way. That's far more important than broadband. What more do you want?
That's rural's new "broadband
That's rural's new "broadband system, each bike carries a packet to the end users and returns the empty.....so about a letter a day....
regards
Never underestimate the
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon filled with archive tapes. Ultimate in sneakernet, even if the lag/latency is somewhat of an issue.