3 ms·
What is the better option?
by ALittleLight 3y ago
What is the better option?
- I_Am_Nous 3y agoThe FCC originally didn't want to include fixed wireless or satellite internet for RDOF consideration, so from that fact alone I believe they were intending it to be fiber optic. A fiber plant is pretty immutable, even if you end up upgrading the things connected to the fiber for higher speeds. Once it's buried, it's pretty reliable (unless a passing herd of excavators get hungry and smell the fiber buried underground) while a satellite system is hard to upgrade and subject to the unpredictability of space. For example, mission Group 4-7 deployed 49 satellites and a geomagnetic storm killed all but 10 of them. The risk is just much higher with satellites than with buried fiber. If the FCC is trying to build more permanent networks, fiber in the ground is much more permanent.
- jandrese 3y agoBuried fiber is never going to happen for the rural folks serviced by Starlink. It's hard to get companies to put fiber down in well populated suburbs, getting them out into the country is pure wishful thinking, especially if you're only talking about a billion dollars.
- YokoZar 3y agoDo we have to bury it? Why not just put it up on transmission lines? It seems weird to me that we can run Cable TV to fairly remote locations but not fiber.
- tacocataco 3y agoNation wide buried fiber is never going to be profitable, so why bother involving the for-profit corporations in getting it up and running? Plus they've shown themselves to be not trust worthy after they stole previous funds for fiber expansion.