5 ms·
Obviously very cool (but not without precedent). The things I'm wondering about is cost and resilience. What do they cost? And could bad actors bring them down
by confluence 13y ago
Obviously very cool (but not without precedent). The things I'm wondering about is cost and resilience. What do they cost? And could bad actors bring them down with lasers?
- Sven7 13y agoAs long as they cost less than putting up cell phone towers in the middle of nowhere, its all good. Idk but I don't imagine cell phone towers cover a 40km radius. Telco's have no great incentive to do this so kudos to Google. And as Larry Page said, stop already with the obvious negativity. Bad actors can bring down cell phone towers too. And who cares about precedents.
- riffraff 13y agoAFAIR the GSM radius was about that (35-40km) I imagine more recent technologies may have some more. But of course this suffers a lot from topography.
- Sami_Lehtinen 13y agoThere's reason why they extended it (Enhanced Extended Range). It was only technical limit due TDMA timing advance. It had nothing to do with the actual signal reception strength / transmission power required. So in 800 MHz range 120 kilometers should be well achievable with 2 W transmitter. "GSM has a fixed maximum cell site range of 120 km, which is imposed by technical limitations. This is expanded from the old limit of 35 km."
- corin_ 13y ago> Bad actors can bring down cell phone towers too. That doesn't mean there aren't relevant lines of debate about the ease of bringing them down.
- throwaway10001 13y agoGoogle bought them? They have been doing it since 2008, at least http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120347353988378955.html?mod=blog http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120347353988378955.ht...