The article is correct that fiber connections can provide a higher bitrate than cable and 5G, but it fails to explain why that makes it a better social or economic proposition.
My 200Mb/s DOCSIS cable connection is well below the theoretical maximum, and is good enough for streaming 8K video, downloading a Linux distro in seconds, downloading a game in a few minutes, etc. The social effect of having this, versus 0.1Mb/s connectivity I had before is huge, but greater bandwidth would not greatly change my experience.
If the aim is to improve the lives of as many people as possible, it takes more to justify a more expensive project, than just: it will be faster.
My primary concern as a politician would be which solution can be affordable and adequate for the largest number of people who do not currently have something adequate.
Why is there no mention of the initial cost to lay down fiber? I expect that would be quite significant compared to wireless links and I am not even thinking of the costs that might be associated with maintenance of the fibers once it is laid down and operational.
The dirty secret of 5G is that they have to run fiber to every street corner anyway just to backhaul the very-short-range base stations.
For a marginal additional cost, you can run it down the street to every house, and consumers aren't forced into a artificial-scarcity "purchase by the gigabyte" scheme run by wireless carriers.
This is such a superficial and terrible article, its like if you gave an intern an outline and they could only use wikipedia to complete it.
While I appreciate what they're trying to do, this comes off as ridiculous to those of us who actually have built or build parts of the internet.
The TLDR of this article is "With current technology you can move more bits with light and electrons than you can with RF", which is likely to stay true for the forseeable future.
What they left out is that most fiber service providers use PON, which doesn't give you the top end of what your physical fiber can do.
My facepalm is that a group like the EFF would likely want to point out the vulnerabilities in RF and 5G from a snooping standpoint.
My experience with all three techs from an Outside Plant aspect, tells me that Fiber probably would be the toughest for an outside party to snoop on (i.e. biggest physical access to network requirements)
[+] [-] gnode|6 years ago|reply
My 200Mb/s DOCSIS cable connection is well below the theoretical maximum, and is good enough for streaming 8K video, downloading a Linux distro in seconds, downloading a game in a few minutes, etc. The social effect of having this, versus 0.1Mb/s connectivity I had before is huge, but greater bandwidth would not greatly change my experience.
If the aim is to improve the lives of as many people as possible, it takes more to justify a more expensive project, than just: it will be faster.
My primary concern as a politician would be which solution can be affordable and adequate for the largest number of people who do not currently have something adequate.
[+] [-] bsder|6 years ago|reply
Upload is the key--not download.
[+] [-] Isamu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EricE|6 years ago|reply
Luckily I have FIOS but my parents are stuck on really crappy DSL or mediocre cable.
[+] [-] oarla|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkoberg|6 years ago|reply
For a marginal additional cost, you can run it down the street to every house, and consumers aren't forced into a artificial-scarcity "purchase by the gigabyte" scheme run by wireless carriers.
[+] [-] rkwasny|6 years ago|reply
Cable/Fibre does not have this problem.
[+] [-] bifrost|6 years ago|reply
While I appreciate what they're trying to do, this comes off as ridiculous to those of us who actually have built or build parts of the internet.
The TLDR of this article is "With current technology you can move more bits with light and electrons than you can with RF", which is likely to stay true for the forseeable future.
What they left out is that most fiber service providers use PON, which doesn't give you the top end of what your physical fiber can do.
Here's a handy article about it: https://www.electronicdesign.com/what-s-difference-between/w...
[+] [-] sp332|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lisptw102019|6 years ago|reply
My experience with all three techs from an Outside Plant aspect, tells me that Fiber probably would be the toughest for an outside party to snoop on (i.e. biggest physical access to network requirements)
[+] [-] jkoberg|6 years ago|reply
Wireless last-mile always seemed like a false argument against municipal fiber on behalf of very profitable wireless carriers