this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
63 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

34879 readers
42 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is it?

To me it seems it's cheaper to build an antenna to serve 100-1000s of users than to dig and install cables to all of them.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It depends on what you're trying to do. If you're just trying to reach them and don't care about bandwidth, wireless is the way to go. It's why more developed countries lagged behind developing countries on the transition to wireless phones. But when you're trying to deploy shear amounts of bandwidth, nothing beats fiber. It's incredibly fast, has low latency, and doesn't get interference.

And I suppose I should say that I think unlimited is a bad idea in general. I favor paying for what I use. People who use expensive infrastructure sparingly should pay less than people use it a lot.