Jovial_Monk wrote:Top speed tho is way beyond wireless.
The backbone will always be faster than the point of entry the consumer has. That is required for all current network designs. The "trunk routes" to use an old term will always need to have bigger pipes than the satellites.
Wireless is for the last mile to the end device.
Until we discover sub.space communications where we communicate through the either, physical communications pipes constructed for the purpose (fibre, string, copper) of carrying a specific types of EM will always be required.
Your comparison is unfair. If I have X fibre capacity on a fibre link. If I want to double the capacity all I need to do is run a second fibre cable. In wireless, I only have one medium so unless I run a second EM comms via an alternate universe we am suck with the equivalent of the single fibre and have to come up with creative was to exploit the wireless EM spectrum (compare to fibre) further. The advantage of wireless is that it can be mobile or the last point of the comms link to the end point personal device abd can be via wireless. If my personal bandwidth is satisfied by the last hop in the comms link then it is
a most cost effective solution unless the fibre is already running past my door for another reason. The cost to run it past my door is unjustifiable unless it is in densely populated areas.
From what I see, the last step to my device, the bandwidth of tomorrow will be more than enough (yes there maybe congestion but that too can be minimised). So wireless is fine for my personal bandwidth and therefore good enough for my phone, tablet, home, 3D TV and end user business use. Fibre can be returned to it's best function to carry the network backbone.
