The company now operates in 12 countries and employs around 20 people.
That sounds like hard work.
10 to 100 Times Faster than a Starlink Antenna, and Cheaper Than Fiber: Taara Unveils a Laser Internet That Could Shatter the Status Quo
Submitted 3 weeks ago by remington@beehaw.org to technology@beehaw.org
Comments
floofloof@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
20 people are probably the executives and upper management. The 90% of the company is filled by contractors
teri@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
Taara is Google, just saying.
Baleine@jlai.lu 3 weeks ago
“has just broken free from Alphabet”
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Not very compareable systems. One covers the entire globe with satellites and another is just a fancy version of Wi-Fi. If you live somewhere remote you’d still need a bunch of masts within line of sight from eachother and if you’re vanlifer or such then it’s of no use.
I mean, cool technology but serves a bit different purpose. Especially in the edge cases.
lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 3 weeks ago
Hang on that’s not a fair comparison. So you will need to deploy some masts to reach remote areas, got it.
Satellite internet then needs to fire a satellite into space to cover the area of which now there are thousands of then And the satellite has a shelf life and will eventually burn up in the atmosphere requiring repeated deployments.
Masts sounds easier.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
You need quite a bit of masts to cover the entire globe and that still doesn’t work in places like in the middle of the ocean. Satellites most likely are easier to deploy and cheaper as well.
sanzky@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
and it requires line of sight which means it is hard to scale, will have issues with adverse climate and probably will need frequent realigments
Vex_Detrause@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Imagine an autolock laser connection to the signal tower. Or autolock laser to a satellite in a vanlife.
AlbertSpangler@lemmings.world 3 weeks ago
Then imagine clouds. Pigeons.
diskmaster23@lemmy.one 3 weeks ago
Just lay fiber. Stop. Just lay fiber.
JAWNEHBOY@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
Right? It seems like there’s no reason to consider this niche solution except for crossing bodies of water as a last mile connection. Is there some shortage of fiber or just security concerns prompting all this investment?
diskmaster23@lemmy.one 2 weeks ago
If South Dakota can do it then its possible anywhere
Hirom@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
10 to 100 Times less reliable than WiFi
HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Do you mean the tech that has existed since forever ago and that was replaced by microwaves?
renard_roux@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Asked cgpt to compare lasers to microwave for data transmission; take with a grain of salt, but seems transfer rate especially isn’t comparable.
🔄 Comparison: Laser vs Microwave Data Transmission
📋 Comparison Table
Feature Laser Transmission (e.g., Taara) Microwave Transmission Medium Free-space optical (light, like a fiber-optic cable without fiber) Radio/microwave frequencies (GHz range) Wavelength ~780–1600 nm (near-infrared) ~1–100 GHz Typical Data Rate 10–100 Gbps (Taara targets ~20 Gbps and higher) 100 Mbps – 1 Gbps (modern line-of-sight microwave) Max Practical Range ~10–20 km, highly sensitive to weather ~30–50 km, more tolerant of weather Line-of-Sight Requirement Yes, with tight beam alignment needed Yes, but more forgiving alignment Weather Sensitivity High — fog, rain, dust degrade performance Moderate — heavy rain can attenuate signal Latency Low Low Power Usage Lower power for same data rate Slightly higher power use Security High — narrow beam, hard to intercept Moderate — wider beam, easier to jam or intercept Deployment Harder — requires precision mounting and stability Easier — flexible mounting, ruggedized equipment Cost Higher upfront (optical gear, alignment systems) Lower per-unit, mature market Use Cases High-throughput backhaul (rural, terrain-constrained areas) Medium-throughput links, often as telco backbone
📌 Key Insights
- Bandwidth: Lasers have a much higher data capacity, similar to fiber optics. Microwave is far more limited in throughput.
- Range: Microwave wins in raw distance, particularly in less-than-ideal weather. Lasers struggle with any visibility obstruction.
- Stability: Lasers require precision alignment and environmental stability (wind, vibration can disrupt link). Microwaves are more forgiving.
- Security: Lasers are harder to intercept due to their tight beams. Microwaves, being broader, are more vulnerable to eavesdropping and interference.
🧠 When to Use What
Use Laser Links (e.g., Taara) when:
- You need fiber-like throughput without laying fiber
- The link is short to medium range (under 20 km)
- You can ensure clear line-of-sight and good weather conditions
- You prioritize security and low interference
Use Microwave Transmission when:
- You need a reliable, moderate-speed link over 30–50 km
- Operating in all weather conditions is a must
- You want easier setup with more flexibility in alignment
- Budget constraints are tighter
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 weeks ago
It is misrepresenting the facts quite a bit. I think microwave links might be able to do a bit more bandwidth. And laser can do way more than ChatGPT attributes to it. It can do 1 or 2.5 Gbps as well. The main thing about optics is that it comes without electromagnetic interference. And you don't need to have a fresnel zone without obstacles, and you don't need a license. The other things about laser being more susceptible to weather, etc should be about right.
HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Sooooo… microwave is still better, got it.
cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
The problem with laser communication is that it doesn’t take much rain, snow or fog to block the signal.
luciole@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
They claim they’ve overcome that hurdle though, as per the article.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Yes, but the article is literally nothing without that information.
The only interesting thing about a new approach to laser internet is if they’ve solved the critical issue holding it back.
hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 weeks ago
I wonder what they did, though. Because the article is omitting most of the interesting details and frames it as if this as if optical communication in itself was something new or disruptive... I mean if I read the Wikipedia article on Long-range optical wireless communication, it seems a bunch of companies have already invested 3digit million sums into solving this exact issue...
lnxtx@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
Okay, photo taken (by Gabriele Barni) from 17.1177 km (claimed metric kilometers) straight distance to the buildings: Image
.
You can imagine how wobbly the image was.
How to compensate it? Wide, powerful beam? Gonna be blinded by an invisible light?
Quote from the video: