The problem with laser communication is that it doesn’t take much rain, snow or fog to block the signal.
Similar “free-space optics” systems have been tested since the late 1990s, but past attempts were limited by weather conditions and fragile alignment systems. Taara claims its devices overcome many of those limitations with improved beam tracking and more resilient design.
They claim they’ve overcome that hurdle though, as per the article.
Yes, but the article is literally nothing without that information.
The only interesting thing about a new approach to laser internet is if they’ve solved the critical issue holding it back.
I wonder what they did, though. Because the article is omitting most of the interesting details and frames it as if this as if optical communication in itself was something new or disruptive… I mean if I read the Wikipedia article on Long-range optical wireless communication, it seems a bunch of companies have already invested 3 digit million sums into solving this exact issue…
Okay, photo taken (by Gabriele Barni) from 17.1177 km (claimed metric kilometers) straight distance to the buildings:
.You can imagine how wobbly the image was.
How to compensate it? Wide, powerful beam? Gonna be blinded by an invisible light?
Quote from the video:
This is as simple as a digital camera with a laser pointer.
claimed metric kilometers
As opposed to imperial, customary or nautical kilometres?
Yes
The company now operates in 12 countries and employs around 20 people.
That sounds like hard work.
20 people are probably the executives and upper management. The 90% of the company is filled by contractors
Just lay fiber. Stop. Just lay fiber.
Right? It seems like there’s no reason to consider this niche solution except for crossing bodies of water as a last mile connection. Is there some shortage of fiber or just security concerns prompting all this investment?
If South Dakota can do it then its possible anywhere
Not very compareable systems. One covers the entire globe with satellites and another is just a fancy version of Wi-Fi. If you live somewhere remote you’d still need a bunch of masts within line of sight from eachother and if you’re vanlifer or such then it’s of no use.
I mean, cool technology but serves a bit different purpose. Especially in the edge cases.
Hang on that’s not a fair comparison. So you will need to deploy some masts to reach remote areas, got it.
Satellite internet then needs to fire a satellite into space to cover the area of which now there are thousands of then And the satellite has a shelf life and will eventually burn up in the atmosphere requiring repeated deployments.
Masts sounds easier.
You need quite a bit of masts to cover the entire globe and that still doesn’t work in places like in the middle of the ocean. Satellites most likely are easier to deploy and cheaper as well.
I don’t think this technology is intended to be used for global internet. But for giving access to a remote town, this is many magnitudes lesser in cost than a satellite.
A brief internet search tells me that a Starlink satellite is ~$1 million apiece, and lasts 5 years. With the additional cost of the launch the annual cost is ~$300,000 per year per satellite. You can work out the cost for 10 masts and tell me that its much cheaper.
From a consumer perspective, Starlink is amazing. Fast, relatively cheap, available anywhere. From a labour and material cost, its incredibly expensive. If a town can be serviced by cable, wireless, this new laser or whatever then the economical and environmental impact (in terms of materials) are a fraction.
Whilst masts will face the same prejudice as windmills for destroying landscapes, Starlink has already been causing issues with stargazing and night sky pollution. And this is only the first commercial venture for low-orbit internet. I can imagine there shall eventually be multiple of these setups, each with thousands of satellites (Starlink is at 7k+ now I think) which will only exacerbate the issues.
The point being, that having other technologies with overlapping abilities isn’t a bad thing. Choice is good.
and it requires line of sight which means it is hard to scale, will have issues with adverse climate and probably will need frequent realigments
Imagine an autolock laser connection to the signal tower. Or autolock laser to a satellite in a vanlife.
Then imagine clouds. Pigeons.
Imagine a rainbow on a cool spring day.
Taara is Google, just saying.
“has just broken free from Alphabet”
10 to 100 Times less reliable than WiFi
Do you mean the tech that has existed since forever ago and that was replaced by microwaves?
