What is the use of having in place the old infrastructure of telephone poles and copper wire when there is no longer a need for such things that negatively impact our environmental aesthetic and require construction and maintenance as well as leave themselves vulnerable to elemental deterioration?
2006-09-20 08:26:43 · 2 answers · asked by apk 1 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Land Phones
While on one hand running hardwire can be expensive to install and maintain, esp undergorund, wireless is still not able to provide the performance and reliability of wired.
Wireless is limited by environmental conditions such as terrain and atmosphere. For instance, satellite TV reception can be hampered by heavy rains, whereas cable TV has no such issues.
Wireless is also hampered by bandwidth considerations. No matter how much info you want to cram over the air, you have limits that copper and fiber do not have. Which is why you'll notice that your wired Internet can support much higher speeds than wireless, though wireless is catching up.
And if you're a real environmental freak, if you're concerned about copper leaching into your soil, aren't you also concerned about the preponderance of EM transmitters that are increasingly flooding the upper frequencies?
Until wireless can surpass the performance and reliability of wired, I think wired is here to stay.
2006-09-21 03:24:55 · answer #1 · answered by CMass Stan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I agree with you concerning telephone poles though. Underground is the way to go.
The existing infrastructure cost an enormous amount of money to put in place, and would require even more to phase out.
In addition, It is proven to be reliable.
Wireless is still in It's infancy by comparison.
And is "less" than reliable.
Ever traveled through the mountains or the desert?
You are simply cut off without "old school" technology!!
2006-09-20 08:43:18 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Dave 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋