Comment 2TJZ Re: There is no replacement for fiber.


Google possibly investigating high-speed wireless alternatives to fiber


There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1)

by on 2014-10-21 13:48 (#2TJ3)

There is no replacement for Fiber. There's things people try to do to cheap out and give a inferior product, such as brighthouse's "hybrid fiber coax" network. I've used wireless before, even licensed wireless links: They absolutely suck compared to fiber. I'm not talking about bandwidth I'm just talking about you know--actually working all the time.

Wireless does incredibly crazy stuff(depending on spectrum). It bounces of things, multiple copies of information arrive from different paths, rain screws with it, microwaves screw with it, winds screw with the antennas, etc.

If google fiber wants to change itself from the absolute premier internet provider into something only a backwater coal town with dialup would want, feel free to change to wireless. I'll stick with my FTTH network.

Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1)

by on 2014-10-21 19:30 (#2TJP)

Actually, microwave links are ridiculously reliable. Before fiber optics, before communications satellites, most long-distance phone calls and TV programming went from microwave tower to microwave tower, all the way across the country, as needed.

Today, microwave links from NY (or NJ) to Chicago are competing with and replacing fiber-optics, particularly for high-speed trading purposes, due to the lower latency.

You shouldn't confuse your experiences with companies that have "wireless" in their names, that are possibly operating very lean and selling sub-par service, with the underlying technology. I think we can all agree that satellite TV can be pretty darn reliable... if it wasn't, your OTA or cable TV wouldn't work, either, because they get their network programming feed via satellite. Ditto for, say, OTA TV, FM radio, etc. There's no reason local wireless from the end of the block couldn't be every bit as reliable.

Re: There is no replacement for fiber. (Score: 1)

by on 2014-10-22 12:04 (#2TJZ)

I've used microwave..that was the licensed frequency stuff that I've used in the past. Now granted it was a different ballpark of equipment than someone using high frequency trading might use so not exactly apples to apples. But what caliber equipment would google use to deliver internet service to the home? I'm betting closer to the stuff I've used than the stuff wallstreet uses. Keep in mind in a point to multipoint environment(unless you're using a satelite) you're not using a directional antenna at both end, and may not even have line of sight--So you're dealing with reflection of signal and all the fun stuff that happens with that.

It seems ( microwave propogates faster than light through a fiber optic cable. Cool. So there's certainly a latency advantage.

But if given a choice between fiber to the home, and microwave to my home I'd still choose fiber, even at a higher price. While I may suffer 2ms in latency, I'll gladly take that in return for subterranian cable run to my home, higher reliability, and likely higher future bandwidth.

My satelite TV suffered from rain fade during storms. Did yours? Also keep in mind that's a direct line of sight link.

Junk Status

Not marked as junk