3 ms·

> It is frightening how fragile the physical security of global networks appears to be. Protecting miles and miles of cable running through the wilderness is a

> It is frightening how fragile the physical security of global networks appears to be. Protecting miles and miles of cable running through the wilderness is an herculean task, especially since usually nobody attempts to attack it. One can of course do a three-way fallback of landline/direct radio link/satellite, but that would be insane cost for, again, basically no benefit and no bandwidth. Two fiber lines is really the best thing you're going to get if you want good and fast internet speeds at reasonable prices.

great_reversal 6y ago
Unless you opt for SpaceX's Starlink. Still expensive, but bandwidth is usually better than without it in remote regions.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Well, yes. Current satellite is pretty awful by all accounts. And many places (like my house 40 miles outside of Boston) don't get great cellular reception--which has effective bandwidth caps in any case. In those situations, StarLink looks like a pretty good option, such as at my dad's house where he had 1 Mbps DSL. But probably not so great for the crowd that thinks they can't live without 1 Gbps and TBs of data/month.
- Sebb767 6y ago
  Yes and no. Starlink is definitely a solution for very small village or remote cabins, but economy of scale kicks in pretty fast. Doing napkin math, the village has 2k people, so let's assume 400 households. If each of those wants 100 Mbit/s, we'd need a 40 Gbit/s link. Maybe 10 Gbit/s with over-provisioning. So that's basically a satellite only for this village. Not to mention that satellites have their own set of vulnerabilities. Probably easier to just lay a redundant fiber liner and use star link for emergencies, in case the robotic beavers take over :)
wang_li 6y ago
> especially since usually nobody attempts to attack it. Don’t tell the folks at UMN, they’ll look at it and think, “OMG! It would be so easy to cut with an axe. Such a massive security vulnerability. Bet I could write a paper about this. Where’s my axe?”

great_reversal 6y ago

Unless you opt for SpaceX's Starlink. Still expensive, but bandwidth is usually better than without it in remote regions.

ghaff 6y ago
Well, yes. Current satellite is pretty awful by all accounts. And many places (like my house 40 miles outside of Boston) don't get great cellular reception--which has effective bandwidth caps in any case. In those situations, StarLink looks like a pretty good option, such as at my dad's house where he had 1 Mbps DSL. But probably not so great for the crowd that thinks they can't live without 1 Gbps and TBs of data/month.
Sebb767 6y ago
Yes and no. Starlink is definitely a solution for very small village or remote cabins, but economy of scale kicks in pretty fast. Doing napkin math, the village has 2k people, so let's assume 400 households. If each of those wants 100 Mbit/s, we'd need a 40 Gbit/s link. Maybe 10 Gbit/s with over-provisioning. So that's basically a satellite only for this village. Not to mention that satellites have their own set of vulnerabilities. Probably easier to just lay a redundant fiber liner and use star link for emergencies, in case the robotic beavers take over :)

wang_li 6y ago

> especially since usually nobody attempts to attack it. Don’t tell the folks at UMN, they’ll look at it and think, “OMG! It would be so easy to cut with an axe. Such a massive security vulnerability. Bet I could write a paper about this. Where’s my axe?”