Chris Remington@beehaw.orgM to Technology@beehaw.org · 10 months ago10 to 100 Times Faster than a Starlink Antenna, and Cheaper Than Fiber: Taara Unveils a Laser Internet That Could Shatter the Status Quodailygalaxy.comvideomessage-square22fedilinkarrow-up1122arrow-down13
arrow-up1119arrow-down1video10 to 100 Times Faster than a Starlink Antenna, and Cheaper Than Fiber: Taara Unveils a Laser Internet That Could Shatter the Status Quodailygalaxy.comChris Remington@beehaw.orgM to Technology@beehaw.org · 10 months agomessage-square22fedilink
minus-squareHurlingDurling@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·10 months agoDo you mean the tech that has existed since forever ago and that was replaced by microwaves?
minus-squareleopardpuncher@beehaw.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down6·10 months agoAsked cgpt to compare lasers to microwave for data transmission; take with a grain of salt, but seems transfer rate especially isn’t comparable. 🔄 Comparison: Laser vs Microwave Data Transmission 📋 Comparison Table Feature Laser Transmission (e.g., Taara) Microwave Transmission Medium Free-space optical (light, like a fiber-optic cable without fiber) Radio/microwave frequencies (GHz range) Wavelength ~780–1600 nm (near-infrared) ~1–100 GHz Typical Data Rate 10–100 Gbps (Taara targets ~20 Gbps and higher) 100 Mbps – 1 Gbps (modern line-of-sight microwave) Max Practical Range ~10–20 km, highly sensitive to weather ~30–50 km, more tolerant of weather Line-of-Sight Requirement Yes, with tight beam alignment needed Yes, but more forgiving alignment Weather Sensitivity High — fog, rain, dust degrade performance Moderate — heavy rain can attenuate signal Latency Low Low Power Usage Lower power for same data rate Slightly higher power use Security High — narrow beam, hard to intercept Moderate — wider beam, easier to jam or intercept Deployment Harder — requires precision mounting and stability Easier — flexible mounting, ruggedized equipment Cost Higher upfront (optical gear, alignment systems) Lower per-unit, mature market Use Cases High-throughput backhaul (rural, terrain-constrained areas) Medium-throughput links, often as telco backbone 📌 Key Insights Bandwidth: Lasers have a much higher data capacity, similar to fiber optics. Microwave is far more limited in throughput. Range: Microwave wins in raw distance, particularly in less-than-ideal weather. Lasers struggle with any visibility obstruction. Stability: Lasers require precision alignment and environmental stability (wind, vibration can disrupt link). Microwaves are more forgiving. Security: Lasers are harder to intercept due to their tight beams. Microwaves, being broader, are more vulnerable to eavesdropping and interference. 🧠 When to Use What Use Laser Links (e.g., Taara) when: You need fiber-like throughput without laying fiber The link is short to medium range (under 20 km) You can ensure clear line-of-sight and good weather conditions You prioritize security and low interference Use Microwave Transmission when: You need a reliable, moderate-speed link over 30–50 km Operating in all weather conditions is a must You want easier setup with more flexibility in alignment Budget constraints are tighter
minus-squareHurlingDurling@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·10 months agoSooooo… microwave is still better, got it.
Do you mean the tech that has existed since forever ago and that was replaced by microwaves?
Asked cgpt to compare lasers to microwave for data transmission; take with a grain of salt, but seems transfer rate especially isn’t comparable.
🔄 Comparison: Laser vs Microwave Data Transmission
📋 Comparison Table
📌 Key Insights
🧠 When to Use What
Use Laser Links (e.g., Taara) when:
Use Microwave Transmission when:
Sooooo… microwave is still better, got it.