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.
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
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.
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.
The bandwidth of IPoAC is considerably lower, though.
Imagine a rainbow on a cool spring day.
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
10 to 100 Times less reliable than WiFi
Taara is Google, just saying.
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
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
Sooooo… microwave is still better, got it.
