SKA Telescope To Offer Neighbors Cheap Broadband

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SKA Telescope To Offer Neighbors Cheap Broadband

Posted by timothy on Saturday November 29, 2014 @05:57AM from the port-in-a-storm dept.

An anonymous reader writes The Square Kilometer Array is a giant telescope currently being built in the middle of the Karoo in South Africa, which when complete will be 50 times more sensitive than any existing Earth-based telescope. The problem is that it's so sensitive, the thousands of antennas need to be protected from terrestrial radio interference. Given that cell masts and technologies like TB white spaces are the only way people living in the remote areas near SKA are going to be able to get affordable net access, this is a bit of a problem. In order that its neighbors aren't completely cut-off, SKA is offering them subsidized satellite broadband instead. Which is nice.

63 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Full Disclosure by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 06:03 · Score: 0

This problem exists due to politics as the entire telescope could've been solely based in Australia & New Zealand which was the best choice from a scientific point of view.
How will they talk to satellites without radio? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seriously, I understand that they're avoiding the much stronger radio signals from terrestrial cellular networks, but the article definitely explains it poorly.
Since the SKA requires staggering amounts of bandwidth between components of its antenna array, I expect that once it's been installed they'll switch to piggybacking off those fibres. But this is a stopgap to preserve radio quiet while the system is built.
It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by TWX · 2014-11-29 06:14 · Score: 1

I am aware that resources theft has been a problem in poor areas, where recyclables like copper are routinely stolen, but still, wouldn't it have been cheaper, in the long-term, to trench DEEP, build monitored deep equipment vaults with sensors back to the security office of the telescope for access monitoring, and do fiber backbone to the neighborhoods, handing off to either some radio frequency that's not a problem or using copper or fiber for the last mile? Once the infrastructure is in, assuming it's done right, it should be fairly low-maintenance and difficult to steal, and if the only copper is either the last-mile or within the residence like a FIOS or google-fiber solution then there's much less actually worth stealing.

Actual single-mode fiber cable isn't very expensive when new and really isn't worth much when used, so attempting to scrap it out wouldn't be worthwhile.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
1. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by ganjadude · 2014-11-29 06:34 · Score: 2
  
  i like the idea, but the problem with fiber being cheep and not worth anything at scrap, criminals are not the brightest bunch out there. they dig it up assuming its copper and when its not, its still damaged
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
2. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by TWX · 2014-11-29 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Even damaged fiber can be fixed though. And as far a deep, I'm thinking 20'+ down. Make it cost more than copper prices to attempt to get at it.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
3. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by drinkypoo · 2014-11-29 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  Even damaged fiber can be fixed though. And as far a deep, I'm thinking 20'+ down. Make it cost more than copper prices to attempt to get at it.
  So you're going to make it cheaper by digging a 20' trench into bumfuck nowhere?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by TWX · 2014-11-29 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I'd dig the christie vaults first, and horizontal-bore between them.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
5. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by Charliemopps · 2014-11-29 07:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I am aware that resources theft has been a problem in poor areas, where recyclables like copper are routinely stolen, but still, wouldn't it have been cheaper, in the long-term, to trench DEEP, build monitored deep equipment vaults with sensors back to the security office of the telescope for access monitoring, and do fiber backbone to the neighborhoods, handing off to either some radio frequency that's not a problem or using copper or fiber for the last mile? Once the infrastructure is in, assuming it's done right, it should be fairly low-maintenance and difficult to steal, and if the only copper is either the last-mile or within the residence like a FIOS or google-fiber solution then there's much less actually worth stealing.
  Actual single-mode fiber cable isn't very expensive when new and really isn't worth much when used, so attempting to scrap it out wouldn't be worthwhile.
  The array covers over 3000km. I doubt trenching fiber to every resident in that area would be cheap at all.
6. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by drinkypoo · 2014-11-29 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I'd dig the christie vaults first, and horizontal-bore between them.
  If you can bring it in cheaper, I'm sure they'd be interested in what you've got to say. Nobody wants to use a satellite link for communications.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
7. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by GNious · 2014-11-29 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  The array covers over 3000km. I doubt trenching fiber to every resident in that area would be cheap at all.
  Since it appears to be a line, can't be too expensive ... if it was 3000sqkm, it would be silly-expensive.
8. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by Immerman · 2014-11-29 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe in the long term, but that's always a gamble. And even in the long term you're assuming satellite communications don't get cheaper which, with the accelerating pace of advances in satellite miniaturization and launch technology, seems like a risky bet.
  And it's far from guaranteed to be cheaper anyway - take a look at the map:
  https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
  There's a few small communities at the nexuses of the surrounding ring of roads within 20-80 miles of the telescope that might be wireable at (long term) cost savings, but zoom in anywhere in that "empty" region and you find it's criss-crossed with dirt tracks. Now some of those might be animal tracks, but I'm guessing there's probably a lot of scattered households in the region, and those would almost certainly be prohibitively expensive to wire.
  There's a reason Africa is leapfrogging wired communication infrastructure to go almost pure cellular: the continent is 22% larger than all of North America, with lots of low-density population areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... indicates that the region around the telescope has an average population density of less than 1 person per square kilometer, lower even than most of the rural western US. Infrastructure is usually not cost effective in such regions, and must be subsidized by higher rates in urban areas, which wouldn't be an option here.
  Moreover, note that whole "almost pure cellular" strategy - which means that there's probably no wired infrastructure in the region to tie in to. Yeah, they could theoretically piggyback on the telescope's fiber, but I really doubt the astronomers have any interest in playing the part of rural ISP - and the added administrative, maintenance, and support costs of such a thing might rapidly consume any theoretical savings. You could also just run fiber out far enough to tie in to the cellular network, but someone still has to do all the maintenance and support, and the cellular companies are unlikely to be any more interested in getting involved in such an unprofitable endeavor than the astronomers.
  In short - there's not actually a lot of realistic options, and satellite uplinks may well be the most cost-effective solution.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
9. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by stevelinton · 2014-11-29 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  The population is VERY spread out -- that's why they put the telescopes here in first place. Think rural Nevada, then take 90% of the people away.
10. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by stevelinton · 2014-11-29 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  It's not a line. It's roughly a spiral. See https://www.skatelescope.org/l.... 3000 sqkm is probably the area of the radio-quiet park. But it's population, apart from the astronomers and engineers is tiny
11. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by itzly · 2014-11-29 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Cover the fiber with warning ribbon that says "optic fiber - dig carefully".
12. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  Because everyone in the world can read, right?
13. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by jd · 2014-11-29 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hey, stormtroopers'll dig trenches anywhere. Even on airless spacestations.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
14. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  The array covers over 3000km.
  But 81% of the antennas are within a 4km radius of the centre. At least for SKA Phase 1, which is the part they're seriously planning at this point; and for the mid-frequency array, which is the part being sited in South Africa. The reasons for this are fairly technical: the optimum distribution has a dense cluster of antennas near the centre, with a gradually sparser array as you go further out.
  Source: this document (5.6 MB PDF), table 6, under the "Array Configuration" heading.
15. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by stoatwblr · 2014-11-30 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Actual single-mode fiber cable isn't very expensive when new and really isn't worth much when used, so attempting to scrap it out wouldn't be worthwhile."
  Your average cable thief will steal it first and curse you for not having copper in the cable later.
  The thieves around here are known to take active railway feeders and to break into substations and throw chains over 100kV feeders to try and get at copper. This backfires spectacularly in most cases because the standard grid level response to a feeder short is to try and burn it out by using rebreakers to reconnect the circuit, not cut off the juice. Burning human smells fairly bad.
16. Re:It's not long-term cheaper to trench? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  There are fiber connections to the local town, but there are many isolated farmsteads (with workers living on the farm) and the distances involved are hundreds of kilometers. The ground conditions vary, but along the route there is a lot solid rock, so trenching is only in use around the core of the site.
  Both fiber and power lines are on pylons (fiber wrapped around the 33kV line)
Quiet Zone by Mister+Transistor · 2014-11-29 06:16 · Score: 2

Sounds like a decent solution, we have a similar issue with our space telescopes in the US, so we have a radio quiet zone to deal with it. However, the residents are simply required to make do without WiFi, cellular broadband, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

--
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
1. Re:Quiet Zone by jklovanc · 2014-11-29 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  There are two kinds of zones in that Quiet Zone. There is a 10 mile radius WV Radio Astronomy Zoning Act around the telescopes which is very strict. It involves all electrical equipment sources. The other, much larger zone, is much less restrictive. In the Quiet Zone only require coordination of new or modified, permanent, fixed, licensed transmitters. "Coordination" means that plans must be submitted to NRAO and possibly modified so that emissions are directed away from the telescope. There are cellular towers in the Quiet Zone. Please note that since home WiFi is not licensed it is not coordinated.
  It is a "Quiet Zone" not a "Silent Zone".
2. Re:Quiet Zone by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  I heard that some people LIKE it without Wifi and cellular signals.
space telescope by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 06:16 · Score: 0

Hmm, a ground-based space telescope
1. Re:space telescope by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  Umm, what else are telescopes supposed to look at? And the ground is the best place to put one.
  We also have space-based ground telescopes.
2. Re:space telescope by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  We need moon-based ground telescopes, on tracks around the moon so the telescopes stay out of the sun while powered by the solar panels on the tracks.
Terrestial fiber optic would be a whole lot nicer by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 06:18 · Score: 0

Sending this via satellite broadband. The delay is not fun.
Ping by pubwvj · 2014-11-29 06:22 · Score: 1

The delay is rather a bummer. For the amount of money being put into this they could do terrestrial fiber or some other low fast solution rather than satellite.
"SPACE" Telescope? by tyme · 2014-11-29 06:24 · Score: 1, Informative

What exactly makes this a "space" telescope? Does the submitter (and the "editor" who accepted the article) believe that South Africa is in outer space? Or maybe they believe the word "space" simply indicates that the telescope is used to look at things in space? I'm not sure which would be more idiotic, but I can't think of any other explanations.

--
just a ghost in the machine.
1. Re:"SPACE" Telescope? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  Probably a radio telescope.
2. Re:"SPACE" Telescope? by CohibaVancouver · 2014-11-29 07:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What exactly makes this a "space" telescope?
  Presumably the fact that it is peering into space and not your neighbour's bedroom window or ships on the horizon.
3. Re:"SPACE" Telescope? by Immerman · 2014-11-29 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the fact that it's designed to only look upwards, at space? As opposed to a general purpose telescope that can be pointed at other things on the planet's surface.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
4. Re:"SPACE" Telescope? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  That is stupid. Every astronomical telescope would be a "space" telescope. Space Telescope means a telescope that is in space. Such as Hubble Space Telescope and James Webb Space Telescope. My little 8 inch SCT is not a space telescope. It is a telescope. Put it on a rocket and into space, and it becomes a space telescope.
  It is more likely that Timothy is an idiot.
5. Re:"SPACE" Telescope? by SourceFrog · 2014-11-29 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  Are you saying the Earth is not in space? SKA is on Earth, and Earth is in space. Therefore SKA is in space.
  
  --
  My other UID is three digits.
6. Re:"SPACE" Telescope? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 21:45 · Score: 0
  
  What exactly makes a "astronomical" telescope?
7. Re:"SPACE" Telescope? by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-11-30 01:52 · Score: 2
  
  That's an astronomical telescope. A space telescope is Hubbel and the like, up in, you know, space. See also space observatory.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
8. Re:"SPACE" Telescope? by Half-pint+HAL · 2014-11-30 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly makes a "astronomical" telescope?
  A factory.
  
  --
  Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
9. Re:"SPACE" Telescope? by SourceFrog · 2014-11-30 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Humorless mods
  
  --
  My other UID is three digits.
SKA? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 06:25 · Score: 0

So you're saying that if anyone nearby transmits with a radio, this telescope will pick it up, pick it up, pick it up?
Fail by drinkypoo · 2014-11-29 06:27 · Score: 1

The latency of satellite is unacceptable for interactive communications. Internet-by-postcard.
It would probably be cheaper to just build a ring of point to point links using COTS wifi equipment.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1. Re:Fail by ColdWetDog · 2014-11-29 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Wait. What?
  What is the telescope going to use for bandwidth? I'm presuming they aren't storing the data on hard drives and jeeping them around the compound and out to where the data is analyzed (insert joke about bandwidth of a Land Rover full of hard drives here). Are they going to push the data up by satellite? Seems like they could piggyback on whatever the telescope is using.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Fail by drinkypoo · 2014-11-29 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like they could piggyback on whatever the telescope is using.
  I presume that's what they're actually doing, but it's not a problem for the telescope like it is for the users. The multi-second latency isn't a problem when you're sending bulk data.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:Fail by xous · 2014-11-29 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  It is when using standard data transfer protocols. Anything TCP based that doesn't multiplex.
4. Re:Fail by confused+one · 2014-11-29 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  So, you've checked that the COTS WIFI equipment isn't going to radiate harmonics in any of the frequencies scanned by the radio telescope(s)?
5. Re:Fail by drinkypoo · 2014-11-29 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  It is when using standard data transfer protocols. Anything TCP based that doesn't multiplex.
  Most standard data transfer protocols can handle a few seconds' latency, including FTP. People who have satellite internet can still use FTP. Hell, they can still use HTTP, which you may note also uses TCP.
  On the other hand, interactive traffic of all kinds goes straight into the toilet. Even using an AJAXy website will be painful. Gaming is right out. So's Skype, hangouts, voip in general. It might work, but it will be horrible.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:Fail by stevelinton · 2014-11-29 07:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The area is extremely empty in the first place. That's why they chose it for (part of) the SKA.
  The antennae will have dedicated fibre connections (the bandwidth needed for the aperture synthesis is, um, scary, but I suspect
  running fibre or copper from there to every village and isolated farm would be stupidly expensive. Carefully chose satellite equipment will broadcast very
  little outside it's beam, and on quite specific wavebands.
  The article admits that it's not perfect (latency, download caps) but it's better than nothing and imposing radio quiet was an absolute condition of South Africa getting part of this very high prestige project.
7. Re:Fail by drinkypoo · 2014-11-29 07:26 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The article admits that it's not perfect (latency, download caps) but it's better than nothing and imposing radio quiet was an absolute condition of South Africa getting part of this very high prestige project.
  When are we going to admit that building telescopes on earth is a stupid idea, when we know how to get to the moon? Granted, we're a bit rusty... But we really want them on the far side of the moon anyway, and we're still building them here.
  These people's right to participate in the global internet as full citizens has been sold out in exchange the prestige of hosting a radio telescope that shouldn't be on this planet anyway. And what did they get for it? A discount on shitty internet access.
  With every new piece of news I am further dismayed with our failure as a species. I can't shake the nagging sensation that we deserve to become extinct.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
8. Re:Fail by Kjella · 2014-11-29 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  With every new piece of news I am further dismayed with our failure as a species. I can't shake the nagging sensation that we deserve to become extinct.
  By finding a ridiculously complex and expensive answer to a relatively simple problem? If you settled yourself way, way out in the wilderness you probably didn't expect Internet over fiber, my guess is that satellite TV and Internet is probably better than what they had. But hey, if you have the trillions of dollars to put it on the Moon, go right ahead. I kind of see why that wouldn't be the case though...
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
9. Re:Fail by stevelinton · 2014-11-29 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why stop at the moon? You could put half the array at Neptune's leading Trojan and the other half the the trailing one and synthesise a REALLY big aperture.
  Seriously, the answer is cost. It's expensive enough building this many super-high-quality dishes and associated support structures and installing and operating them in empty (almost) deserts in Australia and South Africa, plus the 50 thousand kilometers of optical fibre to link them up and the multi million core supercomputer to do the aperture synthesis.
  Putting all of that on the moon would cost trillions and take decades. The signal would be cleaner (except that you are outside the Van Allen belts so you have to worry about solar radiation) but the signal on Earth is good enough to do the science. Also the moon is actually too small. Even if you spread the dishes over the whole far side you couldn't get as big an aperture as they get with part of the array in Australia and part in Africa.
  What they're going to get is years of work associated with the building and more years, but of less work associated with the operation, plus probably things like roads.
10. Re:Fail by stevelinton · 2014-11-29 08:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The telescope when finished (2025) will need more total bandwidth between its antennae than the entire remainder of the internet is projected to need at that time.
  It will be dedicated fibre, about 50 000 km of it.
  What we're talking about here is connecting the (very few) isolated farms and villages within one or two hundred miles of an antenna. With a population that
  distributed it isn't a last mile issue it's a last hundred miles issue.
11. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 09:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Also the moon is actually too small. Even if you spread the dishes over the whole far side you couldn't get as big an aperture as they get with part of the array in Australia and part in Africa.
  Not that I'm defending the "The SKA is stupid, we should build it on the moon" point-of-view, but for the record, the SKA isn't going to do aperture synthesis between the Australian and African arrays. The bi-continental location of the telescope(s) is largely a politically-driven decision.
12. Re:Fail by itzly · 2014-11-29 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  When are we going to admit that building telescopes on earth is a stupid idea, when we know how to get to the moon?
  
  We don't know how to get to the moon while carrying huge telescopes. And even if we could, it would be orders of magnitude more expensive, while not offering orders of magnitude better performance.
13. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say that compared to the cost of the entire thing, adding a few households to the inevitably necessary anyway fibre network (though, I suppose, separately) then shunting them off to bandwidth providers should've been peanuts. So it rather feels like a cop-out or at least a bit of a failure to think this through and make good use of what you're doing anyway. I certainly would be disappointed not to get fibre and an offer to pay some bandwidth provider for however much bandwidth I desired, if not quite courtesy access to the country's academic network.
14. Re:Fail by drinkypoo · 2014-11-29 11:19 · Score: 2
  
  Putting all of that on the moon would cost trillions and take decades.
  We have trillions to bomb people with, but not for science. Unless it leads to better bombs.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  Why stop at the moon? You could put half the array at Neptune's leading Trojan and the other half the the trailing one and synthesise a REALLY big aperture.
  That's a worthy goal, and building up to it by starting with closer points for maintenance access reasons, like at L1 and L2, makes sense. What a great idea! Thanks for suggesting it! Nobody thought of that!
16. Re:Fail by SourceFrog · 2014-11-29 17:19 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.askamathematician.c...
  "The nearest known, reasonable, candidates for being an Earth-like planet (as of April 2013) are about 20 light years away (HD 20794 d, Gliese 581 c, and Gliese 667C c). Spotting dudes and ladies on one of these worlds requires, at minimum, a telescope array that’s at least 100 million km across. That’s an array more than half the size of Earth’s orbit. The good news is that an array like that (under absolutely ideal circumstances) isn’t that difficult to create. Setting aside that the telescopes would each need to be essentially perfect for their size (Hubble-quality), all we’d need to do is set them up in solar orbits about the size of Earth’s orbit. This is a lot easier than sending them to another planet, and about as hard as sending them to crash on the Moon."
  "to get a picture of an alien that’s person-sized, standing on a world 20 light years away, so that it takes up one pixel in the image, using an exposure time of about one second, would require an array of telescopes with exposed mirrors and lenses with an area totaling more than several thousand times the Earth’s surface area and spread out over a region about the size of Earth’s orbit. This isn’t technically impossible, but it would be “expensive”, and would require substantially more materials than are likely to be reasonably found in our solar system. It probably isn’t worth it to get a blurry, tiny picture of some alien picking it’s nose 20 light years away and 20 years ago."
  
  --
  My other UID is three digits.
17. Re:Fail by SourceFrog · 2014-11-29 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  "With every new piece of news I am further dismayed with our failure as a species. I can't shake the nagging sensation that we deserve to become extinct."
  Says the guy who runs an online drinking games database. Maybe if you actually chipped in and helped with something constructive?
  
  --
  My other UID is three digits.
18. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-30 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  Hey now! Stop being one of those people who actually bothered to read the abstract!
19. Re:Fail by stoatwblr · 2014-11-30 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Bump up the windowing count. A lot of the internet was run through international satellite links just fine in the late 80s through to mid-90s
  Non-interactive stuff (http, ftp, audio/video streaming) isn't an issue, but even telnet works over a geosynchronous satellite link (I used to do that a lot up to about 1997 or so).
  The problems start if you're trying to do phone/video calling or play fragfest-style online games.
  OTOH given the sparseness of the area and the lack of population, you don't really need to trench fibre. Overhead poles work just as well and distribution can be fairly cheap (you don't need dedicated fibre from the central office to each site, just use CWDM or similar principles to tap each user into the line - and this gives the inhabitants of the area an incentive to keep an eye out for nefarious activities too (any interference by anyone means that everyone loses their signal)
PLEASE FIRE TIMMYBOY. DICE! FIRE TIMOTHY LORD!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 08:43 · Score: 0

In order that its neighbours aren't completely cut-off, SKA is offering them subsidised satellite broadband instead. Which is nice.

Does this editor know what a fragment is? He touts his "jornilism degree" every time that he gets a chance, but he doesn't even pick up on this rampant foolishness.
Re:mod up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 09:36 · Score: 0

I don't know what the heck you were talking about, but I only modded you down because you asked to be modded up.
Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-29 12:19 · Score: 0

Seriously, dude needs to be canned
$15,000 per house by raymorris · 2014-11-29 13:03 · Score: 1

The telescope is way out in the boonies. Some of the area has one household per several square kilometers. Fiber installation costs vary greatly, but it costs somewhere around $15,000 to run fiber 2km to a farmhouse, then $15,000 to then next house ...