Thread replies: 10
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
File: wired vs wireless.jpg (12KB, 520x275px) Image search:
[Google]
12KB, 520x275px
Entire article at:
https://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/why-not-wireless/
Why not wireless?
The numerous mainstream media articles on the NBN (and particularly the comments sections) are invariably littered with statements like “Wireless is the future”, “Everyone knows fixed lines are dead”, “fibre optics are being made obsolete” etc etc.
And no-one more than I would love that to be true. I’m sure we all would. The thought that we could obtain superfast data speeds without the need for wires is a tantalising concept. Unfortunately, it’s just not possible. That’s not to say wireless networks won’t continue to improve. Of course they will. But they will never approach the current or future speeds available via fibre-optic cables.
Wireless is a great complementary technology for deployment alongside fast fixed networks, and is also useful for delivering broadband to a small number of users in remote areas. But it is incapable of doing so in densely populated urban areas.
Let me make one fact absolutely clear from the beginning:Despite what you may have read from certain clueless commentators, there is not a single country or telecommunications company anywhere in the World that is attempting to replace fixed networks with wireless in urban areas, or even planning to do so in the future.
cont.
>>
File: wired_wireless.jpg (42KB, 617x313px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 617x313px
>>57673596
The concise explanation
Physical limitations prevent practical wireless speeds from approaching those available over fibre-optic cables
There is insufficient radio spectrum to allow wireless to replace fixed networks
To even partially overcome the above limitations, we would need to build over 75,000 new mobile transmission towers across Australia
Wireless network connections are prohibitively expensive, typically being 3-4 times more expensive, for less data volume and at a much slower speed.
Entire article at:
https://nbnmyths.wordpress.com/why-not-wireless/
>>
>>57673596
>But they will never approach the current or future speeds available via fibre-optic cables.
This may be true, but in the consumer market often wireless speeds are faster than fiber. For example I pay for a 50/50 FiOS (fiber optic) connection, but my phone LTE (wireless) is closer to 80/60.
With Google going to wireless this does seem where the market is headed.
>>
>>57673596
>I’m sure we all would.
No, fuck you. I'm being radiated by all sorts of assholes around me enough already. Fuck off. The signal belongs into the cable, just like cars belong onto roads and nobody in their right mind would prefer to have them driving all over the place. Besides, security, speed, reliability, power consumption - wireless has nothing on wired in those regards, and will never have.
>>
Until faster links between here and the US are enabled it's really not that big a priority. Besides, what are the plebs using it for other than muh Netflix, porn and gaymen to justify running cable to every home?
>>
>>57673663
Fuck you I want my flying car.
>>
>>57673649
That has nothing to do with the capabilities of the technology. You just have a speed cap because they can only put so many nodes around town and still turn a profit.
>>
>>57673714
Good news, they've been available for the last 100 years.
>>
File: Terrafugia Transition_mp916_pic_62922.jpg (673KB, 1920x1440px) Image search:
[Google]
673KB, 1920x1440px
>>57673663
> > I’m sure we all would.
> No, fuck you.
Well, if wireless was AS GOOD as wired, I’m sure everybody would use it, as thee is no denying the convenience of having your “home computer” in your pocket wherever you go.
>>
Did the author waste their time replying to retards ?
Yes they did.
Thread posts: 10
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3