3 ms·
This is more blurb ... you’re never going to beat wired. Simple physics. You can come up with more and more efficient ways to use spectrum but you’re always goi
by rusk 7y ago
This is more blurb ... you’re never going to beat wired. Simple physics. You can come up with more and more efficient ways to use spectrum but you’re always going to saturate the commons at some stage. With hard wires you can have as many spectrums to share out as you have wires .. running side by side if you like.
- gnicholas 7y agoIt's true that wired will always be faster than wireless, all things equal. But if you live in an area where there is a monopoly on wired internet, you would welcome competition from wireless players. In the town where I live, in a very nice part of Silicon Valley, Comcast is the only option. Their pricing isn't horrendous if you hound them for discounts (I pay $30/mo for 20Mb service), but I'm sure their pricing would be better if they had more competition.
- rusk 7y agoThis is a policy problem as much as a technical one, and really spectrum is managed and licensed in much the same way so there's not much reason to believe you won’t get screwed that way too ...
- ViViDboarder 7y agoRight. So why dish out spectrum and public space for cells to the same players without fixing the existing issues?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- julianozen 7y agoSo yes, 5G will be slower then a wired but it will be much much cheaper to cover wider swaths of area because 5G doesnt need to dig up the ground to every house to install. For places where it is very difficult for broadband to reach, 5G speeds can be a suitable option. At the very least, threats from telecom companies will force Comcast to compete
- HeWhoLurksLate 7y agoBut 5G also has less range, and the tower doodads still require some flavor of backbone to be able to dish out internet. Generally that backbone is a wired connection, be that copper or fiber.