Why wouldn’t I want my connection to be stable and reliable? I have a tunnel to work that is stable. I have ssh sessions that last until I restarted one side or the other.
You keep moving around from one useless point to another. I’m making a basic statement about your statement about how a wireless connection is just as reliable and better than a hard link. Its not and its pretty obvious that it isn’t. I don’t use spectrum. Never have. Don’t care if they don’t know how to manage BGP. I know or at least I knew back when I was using it for a year to balance out two small connections to keep the plant I was responsible for from getting congested. It would probably take a week or two to get back into the groove on it.
We took over half the households that ATandFee had in our service area in six years by doing it right. As bad as ATandFee’s management is the techs and plant engineers are top notch. I know some of them and they know how to make it all work. They also know the places where they have the most trouble is where they have to rely on microwave links. They know and I know. Anyone who has maintained a wireless infrastructure knows it. As a result of the great uncongested speed provided by that cable plant ATandFee finally started putting in fiber in the area. It isn’t oversubscribed and I know I’m getting what I’m paying for.
My router logs all these things because I have no trouble setting it up and maintaining it. Its trivial for me. I know they haven’t oversubscribed the line because I know how to test for it. I also know because of the throughput logs on my router. I know that my old ISP. The one that I ran the back end largely by myself for a decade learned not to oversubscribe. That when the QOS was just a little faster than they were paying for so all the speed tests went over the speed. I know because even though I went another direction after the buyout I maintained a professional relationship with them. I know the very next year after they took over they upgraded the whole plant by moving to node plus one and upgrading to docsis 3.1 All the subdivided areas upgraded expanded the return frequencies on the the HFC plant. I know just like I would know how stable and how much ingress there was on any wireless link I had. The two links I still have any dealings with have seen the ingress increase steadily over the past decade and there is no hope it is going to drop. I know because I’ve been a network guy since token ring was the thing.
Who cares that traders use shortwave for trading. I bet that is some legacy shit right there.
I’m not moving around from one point to another. I am simply stating that a majority of home users do not need the reliability and operate off of larger tolerances. Reliability costs money. If you need it, good for you. But a majority of people (including those in tech) do not need it, otherwise we’d all be on infiniband and ditching Ethernet by now. There is nothing wrong with a wireless transport, beam forming tech has come a long way to minimize interference, and direct point to point wireless IS faster than underground fiber with no retransmissions.
I’ve been in networking research for more than half a decade now, spanning from various forms of wireless (RFID, LoRA, wifi, 4G, 5G, etc) to wired Ethernet (1Gbps, 100Gbps, 800Gbps), at both the transport level and protocol level (Ethernet, IP, NDN, RoCE, TCP, QUIC, BGP). I’ve taught courses on how these things work. Before that, I was in IT networking for 4 years. From what we’ve seen, no matter how good you say they are, ISP and carrier operators inevitably screw it up on the configuration end (because they are human). BGP, NAT, 5G mobility are all a buggy mess because of this. When it comes to deploying new tech, corners are always cut and it comes back to bite people in the end. Wireless transport is fine, it’s human error that plagues both wired and wireless tech.
Shortwave for trading isn’t some “legacy shit”, it’s where industry and research is headed in the last decade. Your dismissal of new technology and skills is indicative of what this argument has been about: you start from your conclusion and dismiss all evidence before you even think. Issuing blanket statements that are too broad in scope. Everything I said has been quantified with specific assumptions and conditions.
Why wouldn’t I want my connection to be stable and reliable? I have a tunnel to work that is stable. I have ssh sessions that last until I restarted one side or the other.
You keep moving around from one useless point to another. I’m making a basic statement about your statement about how a wireless connection is just as reliable and better than a hard link. Its not and its pretty obvious that it isn’t. I don’t use spectrum. Never have. Don’t care if they don’t know how to manage BGP. I know or at least I knew back when I was using it for a year to balance out two small connections to keep the plant I was responsible for from getting congested. It would probably take a week or two to get back into the groove on it.
We took over half the households that ATandFee had in our service area in six years by doing it right. As bad as ATandFee’s management is the techs and plant engineers are top notch. I know some of them and they know how to make it all work. They also know the places where they have the most trouble is where they have to rely on microwave links. They know and I know. Anyone who has maintained a wireless infrastructure knows it. As a result of the great uncongested speed provided by that cable plant ATandFee finally started putting in fiber in the area. It isn’t oversubscribed and I know I’m getting what I’m paying for.
My router logs all these things because I have no trouble setting it up and maintaining it. Its trivial for me. I know they haven’t oversubscribed the line because I know how to test for it. I also know because of the throughput logs on my router. I know that my old ISP. The one that I ran the back end largely by myself for a decade learned not to oversubscribe. That when the QOS was just a little faster than they were paying for so all the speed tests went over the speed. I know because even though I went another direction after the buyout I maintained a professional relationship with them. I know the very next year after they took over they upgraded the whole plant by moving to node plus one and upgrading to docsis 3.1 All the subdivided areas upgraded expanded the return frequencies on the the HFC plant. I know just like I would know how stable and how much ingress there was on any wireless link I had. The two links I still have any dealings with have seen the ingress increase steadily over the past decade and there is no hope it is going to drop. I know because I’ve been a network guy since token ring was the thing.
Who cares that traders use shortwave for trading. I bet that is some legacy shit right there.
I’m not moving around from one point to another. I am simply stating that a majority of home users do not need the reliability and operate off of larger tolerances. Reliability costs money. If you need it, good for you. But a majority of people (including those in tech) do not need it, otherwise we’d all be on infiniband and ditching Ethernet by now. There is nothing wrong with a wireless transport, beam forming tech has come a long way to minimize interference, and direct point to point wireless IS faster than underground fiber with no retransmissions.
I’ve been in networking research for more than half a decade now, spanning from various forms of wireless (RFID, LoRA, wifi, 4G, 5G, etc) to wired Ethernet (1Gbps, 100Gbps, 800Gbps), at both the transport level and protocol level (Ethernet, IP, NDN, RoCE, TCP, QUIC, BGP). I’ve taught courses on how these things work. Before that, I was in IT networking for 4 years. From what we’ve seen, no matter how good you say they are, ISP and carrier operators inevitably screw it up on the configuration end (because they are human). BGP, NAT, 5G mobility are all a buggy mess because of this. When it comes to deploying new tech, corners are always cut and it comes back to bite people in the end. Wireless transport is fine, it’s human error that plagues both wired and wireless tech.
Shortwave for trading isn’t some “legacy shit”, it’s where industry and research is headed in the last decade. Your dismissal of new technology and skills is indicative of what this argument has been about: you start from your conclusion and dismiss all evidence before you even think. Issuing blanket statements that are too broad in scope. Everything I said has been quantified with specific assumptions and conditions.