Better get to work laying cable.
this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
220 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
70440 readers
2762 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There's nothing better than optic fiber, because nothing can be faster than light
This has got a scary amount for 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 there fewer 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 (@[email protected] explains it perfectly in another reply to the parent comment)
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.
Yep, you're right
I was just responding to parent's comment about fiber being best because nothing is faster than light :)
Light in glass is actually surprisingly slow
After some distance, starlink would have better latency, as while the signal needs to go through a bunch of km of slow atmosphere, it would make up for that by having a big part of the signal go through vacuum between satellites
But latency isn't everything
Fiber (when properly installed) is very stable. Satellite and mobile is always at least a little bit flaky
St*rlink orbits at 500 km so you would need to be like 1800 km by land away from your destination to have a better latency. At that point your latency will be terrible anyway
Hard to calculate exactly.
Latency is lower through the atmosphere than in glass (I thought that air was worse, but turns out it's not. Makes sense. Glass is solid after all)
So it could be even closer than that. But there's also the problem of the SL base station having to do the last bit of the route through fiber to the destination again. Do it also depends on where the base station is located in regards to the destination
Starlink can be more direct as well. The further fiber goes the less direct it is. By the time we're talking between continents that builds up a lot.
I've heard starlink is faster than fiber by a few nanoseconds and big finance really wants that for their high-speed trading
most of its signals move though space, compared to the glass in fiber so it sorta makes sense
Line of site is a thing......
It depends on the distance, but yes. Those laser interlinks are fast.
Its not, light is the fastest AND isnt as interuptuble and lag induced as satalite. A wired connection will ALWAYS have lesslatency to a sat link.
The problem with fiber is it isn't direct, and the satellites do use lasers (light!) to travel longer distances. The longer the distance the bigger edge satellite internet gets.
light in a vacuum is fastest
light in glass is slower than that
actually think about this before you reply
I miss dial up. Like local providers with 2 or 3 numbers to try.
Wireless data transmission should only ever be used for nomadic, temporary, and/or sacrificial links.
They’re useful for quick deployment, but are intrinsically brittle and terrible for resiliency and efficiency.
The longer the dependence on them for a given use case, the less defensible arguments in support of them become.
I’m all for the use of satellite delivery of internet services, but only when it’s used in conjunction with a broader roll out of hardwired infrastructure, at which point it can reasonably be relegated to serving as a secondary, backup diverse path.
They were never building that, let's be honest.
Edit: rural broadband is like the new affordable housing, high speed rail, or better public transit... It's something that's completely possible to do but they'll always find some excuse to do nothing so they can campaign on it again next cycle
It was basically up to the states this time around, they could allocate BEAD funds more or less as they wanted and absolutely build fiber out to the vast majority of residences (look at North Dakota, it's evidently possible) through models like municipal fiber.
Ultimately it's a political issue more than anything else, Americans just can't get anything done anymore, politicians would rather enrich themselves and voters only care about the culture war.
I wish there was more municipal fiber. It's absolutely insane that the big ISPs fight it and often win.
This is proof of why Direct Democracy is better than "Representative" "Democracy"
load more comments
(3 replies)
Someone really needs to explain the fundamental limitations of shared medium internet connections (pretty much anything wireless) when compared to exclusive medium internet connections (one wire/fiber per end point) to politicians and other decision makers. Banning the advertising of shared medium speeds as if they were exclusively reserved for you would be a good start.
Oh, I see.
You think this is a "politicians don't understand the tech they're supposed to regulate" issue, and not a "Elon Musk is bribing every greedy asshole in Congress to prop up his businesses at taxpayer expense" issue.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Uhhh – the politicians politicized money to companies to make tubes that we never got. Not sure if elaborating on details of tubes is going to help clear things up.
Ah yes, who needs fiber when you have an inferior product that will be worse in every calculable way?
Pay no attention to the person who stands to benefit from this deal. There’s definitely nothing illegal about it.
So what if the owner of Starlink just happened to spend a quarter of a billion dollars to get the current president elected? That surely has nothing to do with the abysmal Starlink service stealing away funding for critical infrastructure.
But just think how blazing fast the speeds will be! When they're hurtling out of orbit and crashing into your house!
load more comments
(4 replies)
If your nationwide fibre internet plan rollout was even half as bungled and bullshit as ours here in Australia, it must be a shitshow. It was used as a political pawn, with one party wanting to NOT finish it so they could use it to help get them re-elected endlessly, and the other party opposing it because it wasn't their idea, and pushing an alternative terrible plan that was far slower and far more expensive in the long term. In the end we got a terrible mix of both.
We've already given telecoms well over $100 billion, over the last 25 years, and they've done fuck all
I don't recall labor not wanting to finish it? My recollection was that it was the libs not wanting to go through with it and that's how we got fibre to the node after they were elected.
I get that running fibre all the way to every premises in rural areas like Alice Springs would have been ridiculous though.
Hope you like satellite internet.
Not as much as I revile Musk.
The plan’s lead architect, Evan Feinman, says that before he was forced out by the Trump administration in March, [...] In March, Lutnick announced a “rigorous review” of BEAD, which he claims is too “woke” and filled with “burdensome regulations.” Now the plan may change.
Hatred really does make you do stupid things.
view more: next ›