3 ms·

My grandparents still use AOL, because they live in the absolute middle of nowhere (aka they drive roughly an hour to be able to do groceries). Their options ha

My grandparents still use AOL, because they live in the absolute middle of nowhere (aka they drive roughly an hour to be able to do groceries). Their options have been basically dial up, or extremely expensive satellite internet. Verizon has been promising the little place they live for around 5 years that they will eventually get some sort of service, however last time i was there i could barely get any cell coverage.

SwellJoe 10y ago
My previous company built web caching servers for independent ISPs. We served a bunch of providers in rural areas who offered WiMAX to customers that were too far out to get DSL or cable internet, and with lower latency than satellite. It was usually somewhat expensive, compared to DSL/cable, but the ISP could profitably serve individual customers the "last mile" (or last dozen miles, with a repeater or two). A lot of those ISPs died as antitrust regulation in the broadband industry failed and their nearby customers got poached by the telcos and cable operators, making it harder to operate at large enough scale to make it work. So, there was a moment where it looked like a lot of those difficult to reach customers would be reached by ISPs willing to roll out WiMAX with tall antennas and repeaters. But, it didn't work out, and most of them died. Anyway, I agree with you that there are still stretches of the US that have people but no broadband. And, my primary internet is mobile broadband (from two different carriers, since I travel and often find only one of them works reliably), so I know the pain of it first-hand. But, still, I'd wager that most AOL customers are older folks (even if the reason is also that people living in rural areas tend to be older).
- JPLeRouzic 10y ago
  Wi-Max or alternatives like DIY long range Wi-Fi, cannot have both 10 miles (~15 km) range and high throughput. At the very minimum because earth curvature, and also because the radio signal has to go right through the moisture in between the sender and receiver. I came up a few years ago with the idea that it would be possible to use the mesospheric layer as a passive relay for communications at 40 miles range in desert areas. This even during daylight. It is inspired by the "laser guide star" in astronomy with coding à la 802.11 (Golay/LDPC). More about it here: https://padiracinnovation.org/2017/01/10/mesosphere-light-scattering-as-cell-tower-substitute/ https://padiracinnovation.org/2017/01/10/mesosphere-light-sc...
  - analognoise 10y ago
    Sure you can, you just need a bigger tower; you can get gigabit speeds with microwaves, no sweat, very directional too. Signal loss due to moisture? Up the power. It doesn't work? Use more power, or add 5 feet to the tower and try again. Remember, if brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough of it. BTW: I like how you kinda gloss over the advanced math for atmospheric corrections. The idea is interesting, though.
    - JPLeRouzic 10y ago
      Thanks for having read the stuff. * About the horizon problem: You need a tower which is 90 meters (270 feet) high to reach a 40 km receiver. It exists but it is pretty costly ... and hugly. * About the power problem, this is regulated. For Wi-Fi I think it is around 80mW. It is not much. * About glossing on math. You are right about it, but after all this is well known: The idea is used heavily in astronomy exactly for this purpose since 10 years. No need to reinvent what more gifted people have already invented.
    - 725686 10y ago
      "if brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough of it" You just made my day with that phrase.

SwellJoe 10y ago

My previous company built web caching servers for independent ISPs. We served a bunch of providers in rural areas who offered WiMAX to customers that were too far out to get DSL or cable internet, and with lower latency than satellite. It was usually somewhat expensive, compared to DSL/cable, but the ISP could profitably serve individual customers the "last mile" (or last dozen miles, with a repeater or two). A lot of those ISPs died as antitrust regulation in the broadband industry failed and their nearby customers got poached by the telcos and cable operators, making it harder to operate at large enough scale to make it work. So, there was a moment where it looked like a lot of those difficult to reach customers would be reached by ISPs willing to roll out WiMAX with tall antennas and repeaters. But, it didn't work out, and most of them died. Anyway, I agree with you that there are still stretches of the US that have people but no broadband. And, my primary internet is mobile broadband (from two different carriers, since I travel and often find only one of them works reliably), so I know the pain of it first-hand. But, still, I'd wager that most AOL customers are older folks (even if the reason is also that people living in rural areas tend to be older).

JPLeRouzic 10y ago
Wi-Max or alternatives like DIY long range Wi-Fi, cannot have both 10 miles (~15 km) range and high throughput. At the very minimum because earth curvature, and also because the radio signal has to go right through the moisture in between the sender and receiver. I came up a few years ago with the idea that it would be possible to use the mesospheric layer as a passive relay for communications at 40 miles range in desert areas. This even during daylight. It is inspired by the "laser guide star" in astronomy with coding à la 802.11 (Golay/LDPC). More about it here: https://padiracinnovation.org/2017/01/10/mesosphere-light-scattering-as-cell-tower-substitute/ https://padiracinnovation.org/2017/01/10/mesosphere-light-sc...
- analognoise 10y ago
  Sure you can, you just need a bigger tower; you can get gigabit speeds with microwaves, no sweat, very directional too. Signal loss due to moisture? Up the power. It doesn't work? Use more power, or add 5 feet to the tower and try again. Remember, if brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough of it. BTW: I like how you kinda gloss over the advanced math for atmospheric corrections. The idea is interesting, though.
  - JPLeRouzic 10y ago
    Thanks for having read the stuff. * About the horizon problem: You need a tower which is 90 meters (270 feet) high to reach a 40 km receiver. It exists but it is pretty costly ... and hugly. * About the power problem, this is regulated. For Wi-Fi I think it is around 80mW. It is not much. * About glossing on math. You are right about it, but after all this is well known: The idea is used heavily in astronomy exactly for this purpose since 10 years. No need to reinvent what more gifted people have already invented.
  - 725686 10y ago
    "if brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough of it" You just made my day with that phrase.