4 ms·

The long game is being fully wired. No, the long game is wireless communications (and renewable energy). One of the reasons for fast growth in some developing

The long game is being fully wired. No, the long game is wireless communications (and renewable energy). One of the reasons for fast growth in some developing countries is the fact that they don't have to make the same investments in infrastructure that developed countries made in the past.

vinceguidry 13y ago
Wireless is a hack, it will never replace wired. Sure, in Africa they get online with mobile phones, but that's only because it's not profitable _yet_ to run landlines. Even 56K would be better than mobile, but since it's Africa they don't even have that. Give it a few more decades and they'll be wired just like everyone else.
- gaadd33 13y ago
  How is 56K better than 4G or at least 3G?
- ghshephard 13y ago
  Particularly over long, sparse networks, wired connectivity is not as cost effective as wireless connectivity, even including the cost of pole assets and antenna mounts. And data rates of > 1 Gigabit for wireless connections are readily achievable these days. [1] [1] http://www.bridgewave.com/solutions/whitepapers.cfm http://www.bridgewave.com/solutions/whitepapers.cfm
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    The United States is a long, sparse country, one of the longest, sparsest countries on the globe. We are wired because running backbones over 3G blows. People say infrastructure is too expensive to build, it's not. When you have a discerning customer base with the purchasing power to demand it, infrastructure is the only way to serve it. Wireless cannot support that. As soon as the developing world stops being developing, in will come the telcos to build real kit.
    - ghshephard 13y ago
      So, a couple things here. #1 - The United States is wired for legacy reasons, our infrastructure was built 50+ years ago when wireless voice and data for the most part did not exist. #2 - When I say "sparse" I'm referring to density of the target population, as in, the number of households per square mile. It does make sense to run wired connections to dense urban populations, the cost-per-connection, particularly measured on a bandwidth-per-drop-per-dollar basis is great. Also, if you already have cable (either pairs of copper, or coax-for-TV) running to those people's homes, you've got a foundation for delivering data. For most of the developing world in the next century (excluding the cities), communications, data, and entertainment will be in the form of wireless (Satellite, 3G, or directional 50 GHz+ data drops for backbones). We won't be running cables to supply communities in the African countryside with high speed Internet. (We also won't be running it over 3G/LTE - which wouldn't be most people's choice for a wireless data backbone these days)
- acchow 13y ago
  > Wireless is a hack It's been years since I've had a landline phone. I'm sure I'll eventually drop my landline high speed internet connection too.
  - vinceguidry 13y ago
    It's a hack for the use case of basic connectivity. Your cell phone connects to a cell tower, which in turn connects to a trunk line. That's the proper way to do wireless. In the developing world, cell towers connect to other cell towers wirelessly. That's a hack. It's the reason why hotel Internet blows. Not its proper use case, engineering-wise. Service sucks but the customer base isn't discerning enough to notice and wouldn't be able to afford better. We have Clear Internet service in Atlanta. We had it for awhile, but crappy reception due to trees even though we were well covered by three towers made us go back to cable. Dialup would have been better. I had another friend within eyesight of a tower, he dropped it too because service got so crowded and bad that he couldn't stand it. Current wireless technology could never replace wired and deliver the same quality of service that wires do. For proof, head down to your local Starbucks and try to get work done. I've not seen one yet where the connection didn't cut out at least once an hour. Radios degrade over time, copper doesn't.
    - sshconnection 13y ago
      Maybe you just had a bad experience with your provider in Atlanta. Webpass in SF is pretty awesome. 200mbps for 50/mo.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - acchow 13y ago
        Clear Internet is 4G. He was giving an example of how "wireless is a hack". As far as I can tell from their website, Webpass is wired.
- pavs 13y ago
  You have no idea what you are talking about. I live in a developing country (bangladesh) which is mostly poor. About 80-90% of internet users are wireless internet users, and every year its getting more dominating. Wired connection is extremely expensive to deploy and very time consuming too, wireless, not so much. As a matter of fact there is no "nation-wide" wired internet service here, only local providers. New wireless providers are popping up almost every year...
- randomafrican 13y ago
  >Sure, in Africa they get online with mobile phones, but that's only because it's not profitable _yet_ to run landlines. I'm not sure it will be ever be profitable to run landlines. The big issue being that there wont never be public and private monopolies again and that you dont run a line to a single costumer.

vinceguidry 13y ago

Wireless is a hack, it will never replace wired. Sure, in Africa they get online with mobile phones, but that's only because it's not profitable _yet_ to run landlines. Even 56K would be better than mobile, but since it's Africa they don't even have that. Give it a few more decades and they'll be wired just like everyone else.

gaadd33 13y ago
How is 56K better than 4G or at least 3G?
ghshephard 13y ago
Particularly over long, sparse networks, wired connectivity is not as cost effective as wireless connectivity, even including the cost of pole assets and antenna mounts. And data rates of > 1 Gigabit for wireless connections are readily achievable these days. [1] [1] http://www.bridgewave.com/solutions/whitepapers.cfm http://www.bridgewave.com/solutions/whitepapers.cfm
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  The United States is a long, sparse country, one of the longest, sparsest countries on the globe. We are wired because running backbones over 3G blows. People say infrastructure is too expensive to build, it's not. When you have a discerning customer base with the purchasing power to demand it, infrastructure is the only way to serve it. Wireless cannot support that. As soon as the developing world stops being developing, in will come the telcos to build real kit.
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    So, a couple things here. #1 - The United States is wired for legacy reasons, our infrastructure was built 50+ years ago when wireless voice and data for the most part did not exist. #2 - When I say "sparse" I'm referring to density of the target population, as in, the number of households per square mile. It does make sense to run wired connections to dense urban populations, the cost-per-connection, particularly measured on a bandwidth-per-drop-per-dollar basis is great. Also, if you already have cable (either pairs of copper, or coax-for-TV) running to those people's homes, you've got a foundation for delivering data. For most of the developing world in the next century (excluding the cities), communications, data, and entertainment will be in the form of wireless (Satellite, 3G, or directional 50 GHz+ data drops for backbones). We won't be running cables to supply communities in the African countryside with high speed Internet. (We also won't be running it over 3G/LTE - which wouldn't be most people's choice for a wireless data backbone these days)
acchow 13y ago
> Wireless is a hack It's been years since I've had a landline phone. I'm sure I'll eventually drop my landline high speed internet connection too.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  It's a hack for the use case of basic connectivity. Your cell phone connects to a cell tower, which in turn connects to a trunk line. That's the proper way to do wireless. In the developing world, cell towers connect to other cell towers wirelessly. That's a hack. It's the reason why hotel Internet blows. Not its proper use case, engineering-wise. Service sucks but the customer base isn't discerning enough to notice and wouldn't be able to afford better. We have Clear Internet service in Atlanta. We had it for awhile, but crappy reception due to trees even though we were well covered by three towers made us go back to cable. Dialup would have been better. I had another friend within eyesight of a tower, he dropped it too because service got so crowded and bad that he couldn't stand it. Current wireless technology could never replace wired and deliver the same quality of service that wires do. For proof, head down to your local Starbucks and try to get work done. I've not seen one yet where the connection didn't cut out at least once an hour. Radios degrade over time, copper doesn't.
  - sshconnection 13y ago
    Maybe you just had a bad experience with your provider in Atlanta. Webpass in SF is pretty awesome. 200mbps for 50/mo.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - acchow 13y ago
      Clear Internet is 4G. He was giving an example of how "wireless is a hack". As far as I can tell from their website, Webpass is wired.
pavs 13y ago
You have no idea what you are talking about. I live in a developing country (bangladesh) which is mostly poor. About 80-90% of internet users are wireless internet users, and every year its getting more dominating. Wired connection is extremely expensive to deploy and very time consuming too, wireless, not so much. As a matter of fact there is no "nation-wide" wired internet service here, only local providers. New wireless providers are popping up almost every year...
randomafrican 13y ago
>Sure, in Africa they get online with mobile phones, but that's only because it's not profitable _yet_ to run landlines. I'm not sure it will be ever be profitable to run landlines. The big issue being that there wont never be public and private monopolies again and that you dont run a line to a single costumer.