Skip to content

The plan for nationwide fiber internet might be upended for Starlink

Technology
71 42 331
  • there's nothing better than optic fiber because nothing can be faster than light

    Edit: as comment below says optic fiber isn't actually faster, but still better because it has lower packet loss, is cheaper and not owned by elon musk

    That's...not really a cogent argument.

    Satellites connect to ground using radio/microwave (or even laser), all of which are electromagnetic radiation and travel at the speed of light (in vacuum).

    Light in a fiber travels much more slowly than in vacuum --- light in fiber travels at around 67% the speed of light in vacuum (depends on the fiber). In contrast, signals through cat7 twisted pair (Ethernet) can be north of 75%, and coaxial cable can be north of 80% (even higher for air dielectric). Note that these are all carrying electromagnetic waves, they're just a) not in free space and b) generally not optical frequency, so we don't call them light, but they are still governed by the same equations and limitations.

    If you want to get signals from point A to point B fastest (lowest latency), you don't use fiber, you probably use microwaves: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/private-microwave-networks-financial-hft/

    Finally, the reason fiber is so good is complicated, but has to do with the fact that "physics bandwidth" tends to care about fractional bandwidth ("delta frequency divided by frequency"), whereas "information bandwidth" cares about absolute bandwidth ("delta frequency"), all else being equal (looking at you, SNR). Fiber uses optical frequencies, which can be hundreds of THz --- so a tiny fractional bandwidth is a huge absolute bandwidth.

  • That's...not really a cogent argument.

    Satellites connect to ground using radio/microwave (or even laser), all of which are electromagnetic radiation and travel at the speed of light (in vacuum).

    Light in a fiber travels much more slowly than in vacuum --- light in fiber travels at around 67% the speed of light in vacuum (depends on the fiber). In contrast, signals through cat7 twisted pair (Ethernet) can be north of 75%, and coaxial cable can be north of 80% (even higher for air dielectric). Note that these are all carrying electromagnetic waves, they're just a) not in free space and b) generally not optical frequency, so we don't call them light, but they are still governed by the same equations and limitations.

    If you want to get signals from point A to point B fastest (lowest latency), you don't use fiber, you probably use microwaves: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/private-microwave-networks-financial-hft/

    Finally, the reason fiber is so good is complicated, but has to do with the fact that "physics bandwidth" tends to care about fractional bandwidth ("delta frequency divided by frequency"), whereas "information bandwidth" cares about absolute bandwidth ("delta frequency"), all else being equal (looking at you, SNR). Fiber uses optical frequencies, which can be hundreds of THz --- so a tiny fractional bandwidth is a huge absolute bandwidth.

    Light in a fiber travels much more slowly than in vacuum — light in fiber travels at around 67% the speed of light in vacuum

    I'm a complete laymen when it comes to this, but this sounds like it would pertain to latency rather than bandwidth. I expect that fiber would have a much higher data capacity than satellite.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Better get to work laying cable.

  • Light in a fiber travels much more slowly than in vacuum — light in fiber travels at around 67% the speed of light in vacuum

    I'm a complete laymen when it comes to this, but this sounds like it would pertain to latency rather than bandwidth. I expect that fiber would have a much higher data capacity than satellite.

    Yep, you're right --- I was just responding to parent's comment about fiber being best because nothing is faster than light 🙂

  • there's nothing better than optic fiber because nothing can be faster than light

    Edit: as comment below says optic fiber isn't actually faster, but still better because it has lower packet loss, is cheaper and not owned by elon musk

    This has got a scary amount of up votes, especially considering that this is the 'technology' community.

    Radiowaves are also 'light' and infact as many others have mentioned so eloquently, light travelling through air is faster than light travelling through glass. The reasons why fiber is better are - better stability because of lower packet loss and interference, better efficiency because of lower attenuation and losses due to diffusion, reflection, and other processes when traveling in a fiber optic cable, and more bandwidth because we can use more favourable frequencies in optic cables (@qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website explains it perfectly in another reply to the parent comment)

  • Do you mean works or falls out of the sky routinely to litter the earth? We build lots as far as smaller ISPs go. You just don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

    Starlink is designed to demise on re-entry. It's a core criteria.

  • Starlink demises on re-entry.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Pros of fibre:

    • cheaper: much cheaper than copper or satellites.
    • faster: latency is faster than copper and wireless (to satellite).
    • very high bandwidth: theoretically unlimited. In practice a commercial fibre optic multicore run for domestic use at street/town level will be pushing ~800Gb/a, and this number generally doubles every few years as tech advances. The new spec being finalised is 1.6Pb/s.
    • high stability: does not give a crap if it's cloudy, foggy, or rainy, or if the trees have wet leaves, or if it's just a very humid day, unlike all forms of outdoor wireless comms. Does not care about lightning strikes, as copper does.
    • long life: 25 to 30 years life quoted for most industrial in-ground fibre, but real life span is expected to be much longer based on health checks on deployed cable in countries with large fibre rollouts. Upgradable without replacing the medium throughout that lifecycle.
    • lowest power usage: fibre optic uses far less power and energy than 4G 5G and satellite infrastructure.

    Cons of nationwide fibre:

    • billionaires who launched thousands of satellites make less money.
    • monopoly Internet Service Providers won't be able to fleece their cable internet customers some of the highest charges for net access in the world.
    • people will tell you "uhm acktually wireless internet is the speed of light also as it communicates via photons", but will usually leave out all of the interference it experiences.

    There's nothing better than fibre optic infrastructure for general public Internet connectivity. Wireless/satellite should only be a last resort for remote users.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Shouldn't the 5G covid brain control serum chip nanobot people be upset about this?

  • Starlink is designed to demise on re-entry. It's a core criteria.

    What does that mean to you exactly? All the ones that burnt up early weren’t designed for that lmao

  • That's...not really a cogent argument.

    Satellites connect to ground using radio/microwave (or even laser), all of which are electromagnetic radiation and travel at the speed of light (in vacuum).

    Light in a fiber travels much more slowly than in vacuum --- light in fiber travels at around 67% the speed of light in vacuum (depends on the fiber). In contrast, signals through cat7 twisted pair (Ethernet) can be north of 75%, and coaxial cable can be north of 80% (even higher for air dielectric). Note that these are all carrying electromagnetic waves, they're just a) not in free space and b) generally not optical frequency, so we don't call them light, but they are still governed by the same equations and limitations.

    If you want to get signals from point A to point B fastest (lowest latency), you don't use fiber, you probably use microwaves: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/private-microwave-networks-financial-hft/

    Finally, the reason fiber is so good is complicated, but has to do with the fact that "physics bandwidth" tends to care about fractional bandwidth ("delta frequency divided by frequency"), whereas "information bandwidth" cares about absolute bandwidth ("delta frequency"), all else being equal (looking at you, SNR). Fiber uses optical frequencies, which can be hundreds of THz --- so a tiny fractional bandwidth is a huge absolute bandwidth.

    Microwave point-to-point radios are fastest because they travel through air, but more importantly, are typically the shortest path possible by line-of-sight.

    Being 66.7% of speed of light doesn't matter terribly when you consider that the cable path is shorter by more than 66.7% of path taken by satelite link.

  • I wish there was more municipal fiber. It's absolutely insane that the big ISPs fight it and often win.

    In capitalist America, laws decide you!

  • Pros of fibre:

    • cheaper: much cheaper than copper or satellites.
    • faster: latency is faster than copper and wireless (to satellite).
    • very high bandwidth: theoretically unlimited. In practice a commercial fibre optic multicore run for domestic use at street/town level will be pushing ~800Gb/a, and this number generally doubles every few years as tech advances. The new spec being finalised is 1.6Pb/s.
    • high stability: does not give a crap if it's cloudy, foggy, or rainy, or if the trees have wet leaves, or if it's just a very humid day, unlike all forms of outdoor wireless comms. Does not care about lightning strikes, as copper does.
    • long life: 25 to 30 years life quoted for most industrial in-ground fibre, but real life span is expected to be much longer based on health checks on deployed cable in countries with large fibre rollouts. Upgradable without replacing the medium throughout that lifecycle.
    • lowest power usage: fibre optic uses far less power and energy than 4G 5G and satellite infrastructure.

    Cons of nationwide fibre:

    • billionaires who launched thousands of satellites make less money.
    • monopoly Internet Service Providers won't be able to fleece their cable internet customers some of the highest charges for net access in the world.
    • people will tell you "uhm acktually wireless internet is the speed of light also as it communicates via photons", but will usually leave out all of the interference it experiences.

    There's nothing better than fibre optic infrastructure for general public Internet connectivity. Wireless/satellite should only be a last resort for remote users.

    As someone who wrote their CS thesis on networks I find starlink infuriating. Its such a terrible option that basically persists through memes and highly niche use anecdotes.

    You can literally cover entire landmass of earth with fiber and cell towers for pennies on a dollar what low orbit satellites would get you.

    Not to mention is objectively better technology which we would have to setup anyways if we want low latency networks and why wouldn't we want that in the future? There are countless benefits to reduced latency so it's really unavoidable. Now some want to prioritize worse technology when it's at peak cost. It's so fucking stupid.

  • Shouldn't the 5G covid brain control serum chip nanobot people be upset about this?

    Inb4 "The satellites are beaming mind control into your head"

  • This has got a scary amount of up votes, especially considering that this is the 'technology' community.

    Radiowaves are also 'light' and infact as many others have mentioned so eloquently, light travelling through air is faster than light travelling through glass. The reasons why fiber is better are - better stability because of lower packet loss and interference, better efficiency because of lower attenuation and losses due to diffusion, reflection, and other processes when traveling in a fiber optic cable, and more bandwidth because we can use more favourable frequencies in optic cables (@qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website explains it perfectly in another reply to the parent comment)

    scary amount of up votes

    Eh, I think it's fine. Fiber is faster (higher bandwidth, lower latency) than light transmission due to the factors you mentioned, so whether it technically transmits slower than light is largely irrelevant.

  • I miss dial up. Like local providers with 2 or 3 numbers to try.

    I don't, dial-up sucked.

  • scary amount of up votes

    Eh, I think it's fine. Fiber is faster (higher bandwidth, lower latency) than light transmission due to the factors you mentioned, so whether it technically transmits slower than light is largely irrelevant.

    The speed of light through a medium is what varies, since I have to deal with this at work, and the speed of light through air is technically faster than the speed of light through fiber. But now there is hollow core fiber that makes this difference less.

    Between Chicago and New York the latency of the specialized wireless links commercially available is around about 1/2 of standard fiber taking the most direct route. But bandwidth is also only in gigabits/s vs terabits/s you can put over typical fiber backbone.

    But both are faster than humans can perceive anyway.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    They're doing the whole California rail thing again and a big part of Americans is cheering for it. You wanted a greater America? Enjoy the privatization of everything 🙂

  • scary amount of up votes

    Eh, I think it's fine. Fiber is faster (higher bandwidth, lower latency) than light transmission due to the factors you mentioned, so whether it technically transmits slower than light is largely irrelevant.

    Again the latency might be not better for fiber. But the difference is small and the other factors are much better so the experience with fiber is a lot more stable .

    I do not expect most people to know that non visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum is also similar to visible light. But on technology community on what is a niche enthusiast heavy platform (Lemmy), I expect people to know better to than to upvote something that is blatantly wrong.

  • Again the latency might be not better for fiber. But the difference is small and the other factors are much better so the experience with fiber is a lot more stable .

    I do not expect most people to know that non visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum is also similar to visible light. But on technology community on what is a niche enthusiast heavy platform (Lemmy), I expect people to know better to than to upvote something that is blatantly wrong.

    It's not blatantly wrong, it's technically wrong but close enough. Fiber is faster than satellite because it uses fiber, not because it uses light. There are a lot of less technical people here, so I think it's close enough.

  • I want to know!

    Technology technology
    6
    5 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.comR
    !mechanical_keyboards@programming.dev !ergomechkeyboards@lemmy.world !splitmechkeyboards@lemmy.world and maybe !keychron@lemmy.ca These would be much more appropriate for your post. Also, have a proper post title and question when you post there.
  • Japan using generative AI less than other countries

    Technology technology
    95
    380 Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    558 Aufrufe
    deflated0ne@lemmy.worldD
    That show was so fuckin stupid. But also weirdly wholesome. Nary a jot of creep shit for the whole run. I was genuinely surprised.
  • Sierpinski triangle programs by 5 AI models

    Technology technology
    7
    1
    15 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    42 Aufrufe
    M
    oh, wow! that's so cool!
  • 15 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 24 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    29 Aufrufe
    S
    Said it the day Broadcom bought them, they're going to squeeze the smaller customers out. This behavior is by design.
  • OpenAI plans massive UAE data center project

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    V
    TD Cowen (which is basically the US arm of one of the largest Canadian investment banks) did an extensive report on the state of AI investment. What they found was that despite all their big claims about the future of AI, Microsoft were quietly allowing letters of intent for billions of dollars worth of new compute capacity to expire. Basically, scrapping future plans for expansion, but in a way that's not showy and doesn't require any kind of big announcement. The equivalent of promising to be at the party and then just not showing up. Not long after this reporting came out, it got confirmed by Microsoft, and not long after it came out that Amazon was doing the same thing. Ed Zitron has a really good write up on it; https://www.wheresyoured.at/power-cut/ Amazon isn't the big surprise, they've always been the most cautious of the big players on the whole AI thing. Microsoft on the other hand are very much trying to play things both ways. They know AI is fucked, which is why they're scaling back, but they've also invested a lot of money into their OpenAI partnership so now they have to justify that expenditure which means convincing investors that consumers absolutely love their AI products and are desparate for more. As always, follow the money. Stuff like the three mile island thing is mostly just applying for permits and so on at this point. Relatively small investments. As soon as it comes to big money hitting the table, they're pulling back. That's how you know how they really feel.
  • Audible unveils plans to use AI voices to narrate audiobooks

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    40 Aufrufe
    fancypantsfire@lemm.eeF
    Ah, I see what you’re saying, I misunderstood and thought you were taking about picking a different book. Indeed, for the worst case scenario a mediocre AI voice could be an improvement!
  • 42 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    43 Aufrufe
    B
    Yesterday on reddit I saw a photo a patient shot over the shoulder of his doctor of his computer monitor. It had ChadGPT full with diagnosis requests. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1keqstk/doctor_using_chatgpt_for_a_visit_due_to_knife_cut/