T4K
join:2002-03-13
Roach, MO | Use the cell towers I mean if we can't accomplish ... Low latency satellite which is impossible according to many people. Why can't we get more cell sites up? Running fiber to cell sites should be cheaper than running copper to cell sites. Isn't LTE around the corner? |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Wimax is here now and can do like 7 up and 16 down, why wait for LTE? |
|
|
|
| reply to T4K
said by T4K:I mean if we can't accomplish ... Low latency satellite which is impossible according to many people. Not impossible, improbable; in that the technology to actually achieve low latency satellite connections at higher speeds is possible, but what company actually wants to spend to increase user benefit? |
|
 DrModemPremium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1 | said by PapaMidnight:said by T4K:I mean if we can't accomplish ... Low latency satellite which is impossible according to many people. Not impossible, improbable; in that the technology to actually achieve low latency satellite connections at higher speeds is possible, but what company actually wants to spend to increase user benefit? Uh, what technology exists that can accelerate radio signals to hyper-light speeds? |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Not all satellites have to be in geostationary orbits. We could have an array of communications satellites in a much lower orbit. It's just not a practical solution at this time.
Not too long ago there were plans, backed by Microsoft, to invest in a satellite constellation composed of nearly 1000 low Earth orbit satellites for internet services.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic
|
|
