by kintamanimatt on 11/5/16, 9:23 PM with 2 comments
by greenyoda on 11/5/16, 10:05 PM
by candiodari on 11/6/16, 6:16 AM
In latency, perhaps. Microwave networks are famous for the minimal bandwidth they provide though.
It's also not even a case of using a shorter route. Speed of light in fiber =~ 2/3c, speed of light in "free space" (atmosphere) =~ 99%. On the exact same route, microwaves will be faster, with one tiny caveat. Light can be regenerated through a site (retransmitted without any delay, ie. pure optical regen), microwaves cannot. So in reality the situation is:
0-50 km: fiber wins, hands down (with one exception: cell antennas. Since you already have power + antenna approval, it can be cheaper to just microwave the signal to a central point versus get a fiber connection) 50-500 km: microwave wins, but wouldn't win on the same route (fiber routes within cities have to take the long and winding road due to approvals and obstacles) 500km+: due to the fact that it isn't known how to keep microwave dishes stable on the ocean that is near-inevitable on these distances, fiber wins
Some time in the future free space optical transmissions over either LEO satellites or solar-powered planes will win out over microwave terrestrial transmissions. Free space optics also have the massive advantage that they do not require approvals, either for the planes (vs very very tall masts for microwave, which definitely need approval and often face local opposition), nor do they require approval for the transmission (microwave transmissions at the power levels required for these distances require approval). Since free space optical transmissions have far greater bandwidth, I'm hopeful that we'll be seeing internet latency reduce as well. Also, while satellites aren't cheap, one satellite has about the same price as 50-100 km undersea fiber. Therefore a 500 satellite constellation is cheaper than laying a single cable from London to New York. Of course, fiber will remain the bandwidth king for the time being.