Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by himom 3137 days ago
That isn’t realistic in this decade for rural/remote areas. Satellite internet also failed because of the unusable latency incurred. The only way to guarantee bandwidth is a physical connection because spectrum bandwidth is finite, whereas point-to-point bandwidth scales nearly linearly with more physical channels.
1 comments
Panino 3137 days ago
> That isn’t realistic in this decade for rural/remote areas.

Not OP, but I recently lived in a rural area and had 3 options for Internet:

  * Mediacom cable with permanent 20-50% (or more) packet loss

  * CenturyLink DSL at 1mbps (not a typo)

  * Local wireless company, 7mbps, no packet loss
About 2 decades ago I worked for a different wireless ISP (same rural area) that delivered the best local service by FAR. (Cable wasn't yet an option, and satellite had crazy latency.) So wireless was superior ~2 decades ago in that rural area as well as recently, for many people. So I don't know what you mean by wireless being "[unrealistic] in this decade for rural/remote areas."

My position is that municipal fiber is the way to go, but give wireless ISPs credit because they're helping a lot of people get on the Internet who would barely have connectivity otherwise.

link