Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

x.company

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 285 posts

Re: Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

#61

Post by r14c »

geek_at wrote: post #58
ecshafer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should the military not have internet? If laser based internet is better than satellite or microwave or wireless (I assume the military uses these three). Then isn't that good?

[flagged]

That's the interesting paradox of technological development. If it's out of the bag, then it's out of bag, but that cuts both ways. You can never control who will gain access to advancements. Even if you trust the custodians now, you don't know who they will be in the future, &c. Eventually you end up at a fork: either pursue and endless technological arms race or find some way to build lasting cooperative and peaceful relationships. As they say, the surest way to destroy your enemy is to make them your friend. Still a massive challenge, but presumably that's why empires eventually always fail. They don't know how to make friends.

Re: Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

#62

Post by refulgentis »

calebio wrote: post #54
refulgentis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I keep wondering how people make Starlink work, my understanding is the connection degrades then stops then reconnects every...idk, 5 minutes? as the satellites go overhead. That is not a correct understanding for how the Starlink network behaves today[0]. While I can't speak for using it outside of the U.S., I have not faced any interruptions outside of a few times during very severe weather. [0] in the early days…

I see, tyty (been wondering for quite some time)

Re: Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

#63

Post by refulgentis »

miloignis wrote: post #34
refulgentis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

From my perspective, Google Fiber 100% disrupted connectivity - it woke the incumbents up and made them offer competitive Fiber. In that sense, they succeeded! My last three connections from my last three ISPs have all been gigabit (one of which was Google Fiber, easily the best internet I've ever had). I think they're expanding again, too, though I wish they had stayed as aggressive with rollout as they started.

That's a really good point, back home, Verizon didn't bother with Fios investment until then.

Re: Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

#64

Post by refulgentis »

cbg0 wrote: post #50
refulgentis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 5G in general (strictly inferior to incumbent, speed isn't faster, latency is higher, not as reliable) I'm guessing this is a US thing? In Europe, 5G is definitely faster while latency is on par with 4G. YMMMV between EU countries though.

You're right, it's definitely better than 4G, my wording was unclear, more in the sense of "Would I make this my home ISP?" than "how did 5G go?" (I would have thought cell providers would have 20-30% of the market now, ah, the follys of youth...)

Re: Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

#65

Post by adrian_b »

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.

In the traditional terminology, "ultraviolet" and "infrared" are abbreviations for "ultraviolet light" and "infrared light", so ultraviolet and infrared were definitely always classified as kinds of light.

However, what was initially called "infrared light" is what is called now "near infrared". What is called now "far infrared" was traditionally called "radiant heat", which is a term that dates from before it became understood that both radiant heat and light are electromagnetic waves.

The traditional divisions between radio waves, radiant heat, light and X rays were determined by the fact that each of these 4 required different kinds of emitting and detecting devices. However the evolution of technology has extended the ranges for each kind of emitter and detector, so now the ranges of the corresponding kinds of devices are overlapping, so any precise thresholds in the frequency ranges are only conventional.

Re: Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

#66

Post by stnmtn »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #57
refulgentis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The key breakthrough for 5G was allowing ~10x the number of devices to connect to a node compared to 4G. 5G is what allowed the toppling of data caps that was by far the #1 consumer complaint for years. 4G just couldn't handle heavy loads well, so data caps were needed to constrain demand. Teleco's aren't going to say this out load, but it's the real reason why they were so celebratory about 5G, despite it coming off…

Why would they not be loud about it? I think "We've built out 5G so we can get rid of your data caps!" is a message any telecom would want to broadcast out, unless I'm missing something

Re: Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

#67

Post by spwa4 »

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…

I think you're too late. Pretty sure the military has line-of-sight free-space-optics to satellites since at least the second Iraq war.

One can only wonder how small the "receivers" (routers, really) have gotten by now.

Re: Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

#68

Post by jerlam »

miloignis wrote: post #34
refulgentis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

From my perspective, Google Fiber 100% disrupted connectivity - it woke the incumbents up and made them offer competitive Fiber. In that sense, they succeeded! My last three connections from my last three ISPs have all been gigabit (one of which was Google Fiber, easily the best internet I've ever had). I think they're expanding again, too, though I wish they had stayed as aggressive with rollout as they started.

Ironically, Google Fiber purchased a wireless provider - Webpass - back in 2016 which is deployed in parallel to their fiber offerings.

Re: Alphabet spins out Taara – Internet over lasers

#70

Post by adrian_b »

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.)

While "X-ray light" or "radio light" have never been used in any widespread terminology, the existence of "invisible light" has become known at the beginning of the 19th century, when the terms "infrared light" and "ultraviolet light" have been coined for it.

"Invisible light" is light that is invisible for humans, but which is visible for many animals and for many of the devices that are designed to detect visible light. Traditionally, "invisible light" was distinguished from X-rays (with higher frequency) and radiant heat (with lower frequency), because those required different kinds of emitting and detecting devices than those designed for light.

Post reply on HN