4 ms·
That isn’t realistic in this decade for rural/remote areas. Satellite internet also failed because of the unusable latency incurred. The only way to guarantee b
by himom 9y ago
That isn’t realistic in this decade for rural/remote areas. Satellite internet also failed because of the unusable latency incurred. The only way to guarantee bandwidth is a physical connection because spectrum bandwidth is finite, whereas point-to-point bandwidth scales nearly linearly with more physical channels.
- Panino 9y ago> That isn’t realistic in this decade for rural/remote areas. Not OP, but I recently lived in a rural area and had 3 options for Internet: * Mediacom cable with permanent 20-50% (or more) packet loss * CenturyLink DSL at 1mbps (not a typo) * Local wireless company, 7mbps, no packet loss About 2 decades ago I worked for a different wireless ISP (same rural area) that delivered the best local service by FAR. (Cable wasn't yet an option, and satellite had crazy latency.) So wireless was superior ~2 decades ago in that rural area as well as recently, for many people. So I don't know what you mean by wireless being "[unrealistic] in this decade for rural/remote areas." My position is that municipal fiber is the way to go, but give wireless ISPs credit because they're helping a lot of people get on the Internet who would barely have connectivity otherwise.