Slashdot Mirror
"Twisted" OAM Beams Carry 2.5 Terabits Per Second
MrSeb writes "American and Israeli researchers have used twisted, vortex beams to transmit data at 2.5 terabits per second. As far as I can discern, this is the fastest wireless network ever created — by some margin. These twisted signals use orbital angular momentum (OAM) to cram much more data into a single stream, without using more spectrum. In current state-of-the-art transmission protocols (WiFi, LTE, COFDM), we only modulate the spin angular momentum (SAM) of radio waves, not the OAM. If you picture the Earth, SAM is our planet spinning on its axis, while OAM is our movement around the Sun. Basically, the breakthrough here is that researchers have created a wireless network protocol that uses both OAM and SAM. In this case, Alan Willner and fellow researchers from the University of Southern California, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Tel Aviv University, twisted together eight ~300Gbps visible light data streams using OAM. For the networking nerds, Willner's OAM link has a spectral efficiency of 95.7 bits per hertz; LTE maxes out at 16.32 bits/Hz; 802.11n is 2.4 bits/Hz. Digital TV (DVB-T) is just 0.55 bits/Hz. In short, this might just be exactly what our congested wireless spectrum needs."
I do not like them, SAM I am.
Light is wires.
Yes. Yes. Light uses wires. I can see it now, through the wires.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Last time I looked, visible light didn't need wires to propagate. Hence, wireless.
This is very cool, but the current super high bandwidth demonstration is being done with optical light over very short (1 meter) distances.
The article did point to an article from a couple months ago about the first ever OAM transmission; which was done with radio waves. But the antennas used look very directional and there was no mention of bandwidth.
Optical might be useful to further increase the speed of fibers, and highly directional radio might help for satellite broadcast or to compete with microwave relay towers. But requiring highly directional antennas, on both ends, isn't good for mobile wireless.
Hopefully we'll see another story soon where someone figures out how to detect and transmit OAM encoded radio waves from non-directional antennas.
From the article: "fastest wireless network ever created". Since this thing uses lasers and requires line of sight it would perhaps be more relevant to compare to other laser transmission schemes, where the record stands at 26 Tbit/sec
Awesome, I've been saying for years that OAM would win!
(But then again, I always root for the OAM beam!)
And we'll still pay telcos for phone calls instead of switching to SIP :-(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/14/3/033001/pdf/1367-2630_14_3_033001.pdf
I am still not sure exactly what the physics is here.
Cool! I can hit my monthly cap in .0001 seconds!
Congratulations on your attempt at being pedantic, but the fact of the matter is that the common usage of the term "wireless network" in this article refers the transmission of radio waves. The submitter uses that term three times, and only sneaks in the term "light" once, obviously because visible light "wireless" transmissions are far less exciting than radio wave transmissions.
What is the use case of a visible light "wireless" network? Maybe point-to-point networks between buildings? I can't think of much else.
I suppose we could measure the transmission rate of future TV remotes in Libraries of Congress per second...
Cross the streams!
I thought the US and Israel coming out and admitting they did it was proof enough?
I wouldn't get too excited.
Network technology has been steadily advancing, yet in the U.S. Internet access speeds and costs have remained stagnant.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Two reasons:
* This is applicable to point-to-point links, not broadcast.
* This involves a structured beam multiple wavelengths in diameter -- infeasibly large at 1-10 GHz frequencies.
So what is it good for? Free-space optical comms! It could also be applied to sub-THz frequencies for increased range, but not to wavelengths as long as are commonly used today. Applications include backhaul for GSM towers and satellite-to-satellite comms.
It's worth noting, however, that free-space optical comms are not particularly bandwidth-constrained, so the incredible spectral efficiency (TFA says 95.7 bits [sic] per hertz) is not as important as it might seem -- you have literally hundreds of terahertz available in the optical window, so when you need more capacity, you can simply add another wavelength to the beam instead of adding orbital structure to the beam.
I'm not hating on this research -- it's ridiculously cool stuff, and far enough from my field I'd be foolish to think I know better -- but I do remain unclear whether this will end up with any definite advantage over existing techniques.
> 95.7 bits per hertz
95.7 bits per cycles per second?
Still trying to resolve whether OAM is more than pattern polarization in a regular antenna. If it is not, then:
1) the spatial region of receiving the differently-polarized "streams" will spread out with distance from the transmitter, and
2) there will be a finite isolation between the different polarization states in a real receiving device, essentially setting up a maximum signal to noise ratio (SNR); this sort of finite isolation between states is likely to exist in any event
With any comms system, you can increase the data throughput without expanding spectral occupancy (bandwidth), but the penalty is to require higher and higher SNR to tell the different symbol states apart (each symbol represents more and more bits as your throughput increases)
But, the experimenters in this case may be waaaaaay more smart/experienced/better looking than me...
Spectral efficiency does seem to be measured in bits per herts. At least, Wikipedia says so, so it must be true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_efficiency#Link_spectral_efficiency
To infinity and beyond !
Actually I misread, it's bit/s/hertz.
yet in the U.S. Internet access speeds and costs have remained stagnant.
lolwut? These are just approximate dates and speeds from memory, so I may be off by a few years but the gist of it is about right:
25 years ago, I had 300 baud dialup.
20 yeas ago, I had 14.4Kb dialup
15 years ago, I had something like 56Kb dialup
12 years ago, I had 256 Kb DSL
10 years ago, I had 3 Mb cable
5 years ago, I had 6 Mb cable
today, I have 15 Mb cable (and some people have stuff like FIOS)
The details will be different for everyone, but unless you're going to tell me everyone but me was using multiple Mb connections in the 1980's, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that claim. US access speeds have been steadily increasing every since I've been watching them, and they've continued to do so in the last few years. My connection went from 6 to 15 MB just a year or two ago.
yet in the U.S. Internet access speeds and costs have remained stagnant.
lolwut? These are just approximate dates and speeds from memory, so I may be off by a few years but the gist of it is about right:
25 years ago, I had 300 baud dialup. 20 yeas ago, I had 14.4Kb dialup 15 years ago, I had something like 56Kb dialup 12 years ago, I had 256 Kb DSL 10 years ago, I had 3 Mb cable 5 years ago, I had 6 Mb cable today, I have 15 Mb cable (and some people have stuff like FIOS)
The details will be different for everyone, but unless you're going to tell me everyone but me was using multiple Mb connections in the 1980's, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that claim. US access speeds have been steadily increasing every since I've been watching them, and they've continued to do so in the last few years. My connection went from 6 to 15 MB just a year or two ago.
Over here in Finland, just over the past few years my connection speed has gone from 10/1Mb/s to 200/15Mb/s (cable, uncapped) while the price has gone down from 49 euro/month to 14 euro/month. Have the prices dropped similarly in the US?
Which actually makes sense, unlike the units in the summary.
Just one word - bullshit! At least in the reporting.
Did noone else notice the "infinite capacity" in the link? I'm afraid that violates the laws of not just information theory, but of physics itself. Why should we trust any of their reporting when it's clear they don't know the subject matter they are reporting on?
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Shh, you're just supposed to parrot the meme, even if it's not true.
I wasn't aware that I had to connect wires to my eyes to perceive that portion of the EM spectrum (which "wifi" is just a different part of, incidentally).
No, the price has stayed about the same.
From my memory, those data costs were $30-$50/month for each speed.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Once they commercialize this, it will be found to cause cancerous-like growths in the brain and begin the zombie apocalypse!
Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
This post sums up the concept well enough. Each OAM value (usually associated with the letter l) means that the phase of the light around the beam centre changes by 2pi. So, l=0 is no change in phase, l=1 is 2pi change in phase and so on. There's no upper limit to OAM values, and light waves with different OAM are orthogonal, so you can theoretically have infinitely many beams with no interference between them. There are no more theoretical problems with this than having say an infinite number of GigE cards and cables. There is no way you could build something that actually uses an infinite number of beams with individual vorticities, of course, but that's the same with the infinite gigabit links too.
Good judgement comes from experience
:: Experience comes from bad judgement
:::: Abundance comes from alleviating congestion
:: Congestion comes from delivering abundance.
It's pretty much a theorem in transportation systems that you can't alleviate congestion by boosting capacity until the less direct or desirable routes are destitute.
There should have been a Star Trek episode where high-end subspace polarizers keep disappearing from engineering consoles because the Ferengi have taken on a contract from Monster Cable to supply private Holodeck enthusiasts with the finest detail in nose hair.
Isn't that just one use?
That argument would work if places that matched density with European or Asian cities also matched or approached their internet connectivity. They don't, however, not by a long shot.
Sure, someone living out in Nowhere, Idaho can't expect readily available and inexpensive broadband, but someone living in or around NYC, LA, or DC should. They don't have shit worth comparing either, for the most part. Lucky pockets of population have FTTP services or cable carriers who don't suck, but the vast majority have yet another overpriced Time Warner or guaranteed to be shit DSL.
If the Europeans can deploy these nice networks in cities that were never built to be friendly to modern infrastructure, why can't we seem to figure it out even in new construction?
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
I pay AT&T $25 a month for DSL at 760Kb.
Compared to other countries, I understand that is pathetic.
I could pay $50 to Time Warner for 5Mb. But I can wait for my porn.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
> crappy country
Someone woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning...
Finland is 338,424 km2. That makes it bigger than all but the four largest US states: Alaska, Texas, California and Montana. Providing great internet over an area that size is a decent accomplishment, one that the other 46 states apparently can't match despite being smaller than Finland.
Where do the packets come from? Magic?
Your observation would only hold water if a high population density area was only sharing information with itself.
The challenge with the US are the huge distances you need to traverse to connect high population density areas. Costs of running new fiber with this technology through the deserts in California, through Las Vegas, etc. are not cheap.
Bottom line is that the US needs to deploy orders more meters of fiber to achieve the same level of service that Finland, or some other small EU country can provide.
I imagine Finland has more than a few international links.
The Shannon limit is for a fixed-bandwidth channel of mostly-fixed average noise. It doesn't apply here, because they are just finding a way to squeeze more independent channels into the same path. It isn't infinite, of course, but Shannon isn't the limit here. It'll be something else limiting the angular discrimination of the antennas.
How long are those links? How many? How much capacity do they have?
The US is big and has pockets of high population density. It's not as simple as getting to the border.
All that space you need to interconnect, and in many cases, each state can have populations comparable to EU countries. That means a lot of high capacity fiber runs need to connect up each population center.
Additionally, even with CDNs making it more efficient, you still have some very high traffic segments traversing the US that need to be quite large to support all the p/t traffic going across it.
It's not an apples to apples comparison. The US needs more fiber, and more capacity to achieve what Finland has. Ultimately that means the cost of bandwidth is going to be higher, and there may be less of it.
That does not excuse any of the bullshit US carrier pull of course, but it still will not be a fair comparison price wise even in the most ideal conditions.
And by friendly he means tunnels with fiber running throughout New York City all paid by the federal government. Verizon has been throwing out one excuse after another as to why they can't wire buildings in NYC and the majority turns out to be false. In fact the need for something other than DSL or T1 in this building was so huge that it's tenants were will to pay for the run from the street to the building. Verizon balked because that meant losing over 20+ T1 lines. Thank god TimeWarner took the opportunity and now has 20+ subscriptions and all of Verizon's excuses (Govt/Owners/Regulations won't let them in the building turned out to be crap)
Pirk: Mr Fukov, twist factor 1000. Just pick a direction
Fukov: It doesn't go to 1000....
Spook: It would be logical to avoid the direction we just came from. The station commander would hardly appreciate it.
Pirk: Hmph. Engage...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPglc3z6r_A
"Intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
-Londo Mollari
Wait, do you mean Americans are poor and can't afford more fiber? You have poor internet that doesn't compare with some 'crappy' country somewhere near the North Pole? Why do you whine about poor infrastructure and still sound like you're better than anyone else?
I read your comment and another one a little above and I must say i'm impressed. If you don't get why please read your comment again.
uhm...
It most definitely does apply here, even if it happens to not be the current limit. The number of bits you can get through the channel without error is dependent on the S/N ratio, and that's all there is to it. DVB gets so few bits/hz because it's got to work at amazingly bad S/N ratios over huge distances; this is allowed to use 90+ bits/hz because the line is short and because the S/N ratio is very high. Whether or not this is scalable to distances of more than a foot or usable in the real world is a valid question.
-dentin
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
It applies per channel, it doesn't limit the number of channels. I'm sure there is a theoretical limit, but shannon isn't it.
There have been proposals for networks with directed signal where you have either a receiver in something like a light fixture or a few throughout a room. It would be harder, but for speeds like that it might be worth it. The other thing you could use it for is to put it on the roof and point it to a receiver on a pole for last mile connections. Easier to maintain than a traditional wired connection, although hopefully it would be strong enough and wide enough that a bird or swarm of gnats wouldn't take you down.
Just compare the US to Europe as a whole. Nearly all EU members have faster and cheaper internet available for the large majority of their population compared to any US state. I'm paying 39 Euro for 50 Mbps cable.
here is my progression and why some us are talking about higher cost:
1988 : 9600 : cost by byte = 200$/(total bytes downloaded and uploaded for the modem life; free bbs)
1993 : 24.8k 30$ for 60hr of net
1995: 33.6k for 30$/100hr of net
1997: 5/1Mb unlimited cable for 40$/month
1998: 10/2Mb cable for 55$/month
2000: 5/.768 unlimited dsl for 30$/month cable was at 80 for 10/2 and it had a cap of 100Gb
2002 3/.768 unlimited dsl 27$/month
2002 5/1 unlimited dsl 28$/month
2012 5/.768 unlimited dsl 29$/month
To me the net was at it best in 1997 ! Don't you think that it's problematic ?
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
I live 3 miles outside a city of 12,000, and 10 miles from Madison, WI. My choices are either, Satellite, local Wireless ISP (I currently pay $65/month for 1mb using 802.11b) or cellular (with 5GB data caps). There is no cable in my neighborhood of 100 homes (they say they will put it in if every single house signs a 2 year contract) and the phone company says we are somehow 40,000 feet from the central office, and won't even get us anyone to talk to about the fact that there are 8 fibers running a half mile down the road to connect areas..
Public service commission lists 20 communications providers for our zip code and says we are well covered. 17 of those are long distance phone/dialup providers. A regional telco (TDS) bought up all the rights to Wi-Max frequencies in the area, then decided after putting up 2 towers in the middle of madison, it was a pain, and seemingly abandoned all plans for it.. (and so far, still holds all the wi-max frequencies)
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
I would also say that the quality of service has also gone down. The cable service providers seem to be attempting to push their next tier services through service degradation and aggressive advertising.
The problem is that simple reflections can change the orbital momentum of a signal (in fact the simplest way to create a signal with orbital momentum is with a spiral reflector antenna). Which doesn't matter for line of sight or fiber, but the cross talk means you won't get linear scaling with the number of OAM orientations for something like WLAN.
I am paying $35 USD for 50 Mbps fiber all the way to my house. And I live in a very small city population wise (under 400,000) in the Midwest US. So basically you are paying about $50 USD per month for what I am getting for $35. I used to pay about $50 for 30 Mbps connection, but switched providers when the fiber service was offered by a competitor.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Out of the states for a while but from what I see the average starting rate/speed is around $30 a month for 12mb.
Now in Canada, the start is around 6mb and $80 a month. + taxes.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Yes, it does limit the number of channels, because the channels are not perfectly orthogonal due to the presence of noise. No single channel coding scheme can bypass Shannon; neither can any combination of elegant channel coding algorithms. Shannon is not a physical 'limit' to be worked around; it is a theoretical limit, and it does not care one whit about the properties of the channel or the modulations used.
If you transmit bits in the presence of noise, Shannon applies.
-dentin
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
Notice the cities I chose. They're all cities that have or are the nearest major city to massive internet exchange points. They have plenty of backbone available, the lacking portion is 100% in the last mile.
Your choice of Las Vegas as an example point is amusing, since it's one of the places seeing a boom in connectivity and datacenters due to being a major city in a place with little potential for natural disasters.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
Finland does require an uplink as well. And most European countries (including Finland) have MASSIVE pipes just like the US has massive pipes (already) between and to most states. Do you think the Internet right now works without? The fiber is there, since it's fiber, it has unlimited bandwidth (although currently practical links are ~40-100Gbps per fiber pair)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Not even close. America's sitting around 103%, above us there is
according wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt (CIA/Eurostat)
Barbados ~104%
Ireland ~108%
Portugal ~108%
Singapore ~118%
Italy ~120%
Jamaica ~126%
Antigua and Barbuda ~130%
Iceland ~130%
Greece ~165%
Saint Kitts and Nevis ~200%
Japan ~208%
and Zimbabwe ~230%
Uhhhh, yeah. Unlike Finland though, we have to connect up all the states together. That's how the Internet workie workie.
Quoted for sheer, mind-buggering stupidity. You are officially too dumb for slashdot. Please seek immediate medical attention.
Holy fuck, how do these people even breathe?!
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
How much did your bandwidth needs increase, though? The average size of a web page has increased by a factor of ten in the past decade, but my bandwidth has increased by only a factor of two. So my perceived access speeds have actually gone down by a factor of five over that time period. So did yours, by about a factor of two.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
There's no such thing as a distinct OAM quantum number in photons; it's just a linear combination of eigen modes in a multi-mode coordinate system from "pixels" spread out in space and angle to a mixture of modes described by bessel function (or whatever corresponds to an eigenfunction of R cross P in the wave guide). You can't in the end wind up with more eigen modes than you started with in the original multi-mode fiber.
I cringe every time some says OAM has more degrees of freedom. hold onto your wallet
The only value of this is
1) if the OAM modes for some reason do not couple with each other if you bend the fiber. Then they are the eigen modes of a bendable fiber and thus the best way to make use of the multi-mode fiber.
2) it is easier to orthogonally detect the OAM modes then the traditional modes.
But then why not just say that, since that's the important point, not the so-called orbital angular momentum buzz term.
The simple fact of the matter is that it has been show that the elusive particle, the Bugeton, is made up of OAM modes. But only dishonest scientist can detect it.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
You are officially too dumb for slashdot.
Right back at you.
Finland is 338,424 km2. That makes it bigger than all but the four largest US states: Alaska, Texas, California and Montana. Providing great internet over an area that size is a decent accomplishment, one that the other 46 states apparently can't match despite being smaller than Finland.
Trying to compare Finland against a single US state, and then claiming that all other smaller states are deficient, solely based on size, is ignorant. Meaning, that it is an observation lacking in sophistication.
The population density of Finland is 16/km2. Trying to compare that against the entire US is not correct. If you are going to compare states, the closest is Maine, or Oregon.
If you look at it as pools of people (areas of high density populations), connecting up each pool requires expensive, high capacity, fiber runs between each pool.
Also keep in mind, existing investments in infrastructure and a whole host of other costs associated with deployment. Deploying a high capacity network in Finland is orders easier and cheaper than deploying a high capacity network across the entire United States.
How much bandwidth does Finland really require to other countries (networks)? 1 Gb/s is impressive in the last mile, but unless you are telling me that each Finnish citizen is communicating with 1080p video phones to each other, I don't see the use. Meaning, we don't really know what the data usage is on their networks.
So what are the peering and transit costs for Finnish ISPs to other networks in the EU?
Here in the US, we need to connect all the states together. So unlike Finland, whose costs of peering and transit are going to be orders less, we need large amounts of high capacity fiber runs going in between the states to "make the whole thing work". Our costs of peering and transit are considerable.
It's a ridiculous and unfair comparison that I was responding to, because Finland does not have to absorb those same costs.
You simply cannot compare the US against EU countries that simplistically.
If you want to make a fair comparison then you need to break down the entire costs. That is going to include all of the last mile, high density connections in the cities, the backbones inside the cities, the entire length of the fiber runs between cities and other countries, and all of peering and transit costs (bandwidth to other countries). After all of that, then you can compare against average population density and see how much more expensive it really is.
The total peering and transit costs for Finland are going to be orders less than the US. That was my point. Finland is not trying to absorb the costs of other countries uplinks to each other.
How much bandwidth does Finland really have going to other countries?
The pipes crisscrossing the US need more bandwidth than just the populations they traverse need. Even with CDNs, there is a considerable amount of bandwidth that we require, and not all of that originates in the US either.
It's just not a fair comparison.
People in Las Vegas need to absorb the high costs of peering and transit through the deserts though.
I would think that would explain why even a place with high population density like the cities you mention still have a high cost. It's paying for those long distance connections once you get out the cities.
Between Las Vegas and California, just what exactly is paying for that huge pipe?
I work in satellite communications, where circular polarization (e.g. LHCP and RHCP) is common, especially in some C-band links. Can someone explain to me how OAM is different from CP? Because it sure sounds like CP to me.
And if they're modulating the data onto the phase, wouldn't that simply be phase shift keying?
I read a short IEEE Spectrum article about this just yesterday, and I'm still puzzled. Tech writers tackling this subject would be well advised to mention CP in their writing and explain how this differs.
One simple rule for its versus it's
Trying to compare Finland against a single US state, and then claiming that all other smaller states are deficient, solely based on size, is ignorant. Meaning, that it is an observation lacking in sophistication.
You did that comparison first. He just shot down another one of your "facts" with data.
Go away.
Bzzt!
:-)
Sorry, but the population density mantra just does not cut it:
Population density:
Finland: 16/km2
USA: 32/km2
(source: Wikipedia)
Let me explain: population density of USA is DOUBLE that of Finland. Yes, even in sq. miles
So, every mile of deployed cable is --in average-- twice as efficient in the USA...
Stop spamming please. You got your point, once is enough. Twenty times is spam.
Go away?
Why?
Because I am shooting down all the incorrect and ridiculous comparisons of small EU countries against the entire US when it comes to the logistics of broadband deployment?
Sure. Derp. Derp. They're all the same. If Finland can do it, the US can do it. Derp Derp Derp.
Sweden: 5 years ago anything less than 10/10 MB ADSL was worthless. Sweden today: anything less than 100/100MBs fiber is unacceptable. In fact I have a friend on trial with a 1/1TB line (that's 1000MBs folks!) So yeah, with the US resources and money I would expect you guys to be on Par with Sweden (Note population of about 9million) and Japan~~~ Oh and your Turbo3G that you call 4G = Lawl, we're having 50/50MB/s at sweetspots with our 4G-dongles.
How about preparing for the fucking future? How's life gonna be when the US is up to 100/100MB lines, when the rest of the world is up at 1TB. Seriously crying about the fiber costs is ridicolous. Size of NYC: 468.48 sq mi (1,213.4 km2) Size of Sweden: 528 447 km That's the 57th largest country in the world. We have no lack of Fiber. That's just twice the size of Sweden, now stop talking crap. Americans are quick on the bullet talking about how wealthy your country is (while infact it's not) and you buy tons of superflous shit, but you can't drag fibre from a backbone? I'm quite sure you just swallowed some companys bullshit talk. The difference in size is easily countered by the wealth in NYC vs Sweden. What's paying for that "huge pipe" you're saying? How about the country itself? Or perhaps the carriers? If you dig down fibre in Sweden to your house from the main line, you sign a contract to stay loyal to that company for 100 years (due to the expensive costs). I would assume the US companies to put that on 200 years and triple the cost of fibre, but it's deffo possible.
5,4 million people in Finland, say that everyone pays 10% taxes (while in reality its about 30%). 313,802,00 people in the US, say that everyone pays 10% taxes (while in reality it's about 16% lawl). I'm quite sure that woud cover the costs of fiber. PS, Norway put their fiber in their old sewer system, you know after upgrading Oslo to make it more humane and down to the standards of the year 2000? How about the US who's not even close to as old as us Nordic countires, our building placements, roads, cities etc where made several hundreds of years ago while yours are quite new in that aspect - therefore you should have an easier and cheaper time to dig down that intarwebs
"connecting everyone" You don't need to have everyone running on Fibre. Also by your "calculations" it would be cheaper per citizen with fibre per state than for finland.
I am not supporting the corporations, or parroting their "talking points".
It is simply logistics. In order to deploy the same network, with the same capacity, the US will require far far more fiber per person than Finland.
It is just not a fair comparison and you would be simplistic to make it.
Does the US have problems? Sure. That does not take away from the fact the logistics of providing that much fiber is more expensive.
Thank you AC, said what I wanted but very well formulated. It's not like I hate the US for having horrible internet connections, in fact I love the US - but defending something when you're growing into an Ancient (yes a dinosaur) while the rest of the world is moving rapidly forward. It's not like there isn't any cashflow in the US.