Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

Post by crazygringo » Mon, Mar 17, 2025, 6:44 PM UTC

thesuitonym wrote: post #37

crazygringo wrote: post #25

> In the same way fiber optic cables in the ground use light to carry data, Taara uses narrow, invisible light beams to transmit information through the air... If the light is "invisible" then is it even light? I looked it up and it's infrared. Do we consider UV and infrared to be light? Or are they UV and infrared period, in contrast to light? I mean, nobody would ever call x-rays or radio waves "light". You'd never…

> Do we consider UV and infrared to be light? Or are they UV and infrared period, in contrast to light? I mean, nobody would ever call x-rays or radio waves "light". You'd never say "it's emitting infrared light", would you? Yes, we do. No, it's not. Yes, they do. Yes, I would.

Post by whatever1 » Mon, Mar 17, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #41

I'm low key afraid that this stuff is gonna get popular for .mil usage. Line of sight free space optics can be immune to many many forms of jamming. Its usage dots the sci books I've read over the years, but almost always for scary reasons. Here's the Navy today announcing work on AirBorne System for Optical Relay and Broadcast (ABSORB), a (for now) low-cost prototype one-to-many (I maybe mis-inferring what multi-acc…

Post by thesuitonym » Mon, Mar 17, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #42

thesuitonym wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we consider UV and infrared to be light? Or are they UV and infrared period, in contrast to light? I mean, nobody would ever call x-rays or radio waves "light". You'd never say "it's emitting infrared light", would you? Yes, we do. No, it's not. Yes, they do. Yes, I would.

People really say "it's emitting x-ray light" or "emitting radio light"? I've never in my life heard that. That sounds completely wrong to my ears. (Which is why "invisible light" sounded so wrong, too.)

Post by fsh » Mon, Mar 17, 2025, 6:47 PM UTC

adrianmonk wrote: post #35

fsh wrote: post #15

This section from the marketing blurb doesn't sound too promising: When atmospheric conditions disrupt the light, our adaptive rate and hybrid architecture maintains the connection, with minimal downtime. In the long run, all these wireless technologies (satellite or optical/microwave terrestrial links) will have a very hard time competing with simply laying down some optical fiber.

You can say the same thing about running wired ethernet to your TV in the living room. It's simpler and more reliable than wifi. But wifi is much easier and quicker to install. Which one do most people use?

Post by cbg0 » Mon, Mar 17, 2025, 6:50 PM UTC

refulgentis wrote: post #23

fsh wrote: post #15

This section from the marketing blurb doesn't sound too promising: When atmospheric conditions disrupt the light, our adaptive rate and hybrid architecture maintains the connection, with minimal downtime. In the long run, all these wireless technologies (satellite or optical/microwave terrestrial links) will have a very hard time competing with simply laying down some optical fiber.

It's interesting at 36 to look back at what I think would disrupt connectivity a decade ago: - Google Fiber (it wasn't possible to do it cheaper than incumbents, so it devolved to standard incumbent x why would 40% margin company invest billions to get Comcast's peak profit margin of ~15% profit) - Starry Internet (too expensive to build out, I have it and it's good, but the company certainly didn't scale) - 5G in ge…