• shortwavesurfer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    5 months ago

    Honestly, it might be worth doing a cost-benefit analysis as to what kind of finds they might get if they just said fuck you and did it anyway. The price of fixed wireless is much lower since you just have to run the fiber to a tower and make sure that that tower has backup power.

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      If they don’t want to maintain the copper lines, they can always replace them with fiber.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Not to mention, fiber is cheaper than copper at this point.

        Telecoms are just lazy and don’t want to string up new lines.

    • unexpectedteapot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      Pretty sure the Californian authority is not a copper DSL religious cult. If you actually read the article, the regulations they are citing are built for vulnerable communities to protect them from for-profit utility providers from cutting them off by shutting down old but only available way to provide internet to the people.

      Wireless is not a fix-all solution, and can be unreliable and bandwidth limited for dense areas.

      This message is sent to you by someone whose utility provider decided to do exactly what you wish and now is stuck with wireless towers that completely go down if there’s any heightened usage (tourism, people moving in, and so on) or pretty much randomly (and since the infrastructure is not built yet, the company’s nearest branch is nowhere near me), if you move too quickly, go to a room the tower doesn’t properly reach (yes can be fixed, but now the burden of cost is on the person not the company), and many more issues that arise when ‘wireless towers’ are provided instead of actual internet cables that might be slower, older and more expensive for the provider but much more reliable, stable and actually working most of the time.

    • Prison Mike@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I barely want to use WiFi at home let alone send it to a tower far away. This reminds me of those stupid 5G home internet plans you can get — why on earth would I want to add so much latency to my internet connection?

      • shortwavesurfer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Actually, I used one of those 5G home internet plans when I used to live in an apartment and they kept raising my rates on God awfully bad cable. And so I told them to shove it. It actually worked out really well. I was a little bit surprised because I had heard that wireless ISPs were not very good.