4 ms·
> Unless it manages to massively eat into mobile network market share Several mobile carriers are already using them for backend of remote towers.
by nomel 5mo ago
> Unless it manages to massively eat into mobile network market share
Several mobile carriers are already using them for backend of remote towers.
- AntiUSAbah 5mo agoFor something relevant? Why would they do this? Dark fibers is an easy thing and you need to put power to these remote towers anyway.
- nomel 5mo agoYou need a cell tower every 20 miles or so, less for a performant one. There's not dark fiber at that density in remote regions (remote is, by definition, lacking infrastructure). There's a better chance of power, and for the cases there's not, solar/battery is fine for a cell tower, especially one designed for lower power remote installations.
- AntiUSAbah 5mo agoThe initial cost for a dark fibre on a power pool is very low and can give you low latency and high bandwidth. Starlink antenna needs a lot more energy and has a high montly cost. That shouldn't be very economically for long.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- AntiUSAbah 5mo agoAnd to add to this: They still have packet loss when they switch the satelites every 1-4 minutes.
- nomel 5mo agoPacket loss is an assumption with cellular, so accommodations are built into all stages, including the variable rate vocoders used! And, a bit of packet loss is still better than literally no service, which was the previously, economically driven, state for these places. There's a 20% increase in satellites planned, with possible 300% increase in the future, so it should reduce.
- fragmede 5mo agoIf only there was some sort of transmission control protocol that was resilient to packet loss!