geeo Wrote:
Deep ignorance Lol
You are tripping, I never said fibre wasn't any good for moving data I said it wasn't suited for the crappy install lying on the ground up a mountain, no one on earth would spec that for you unless they wanted cheap and unreliable, I think all this does is show how little you know about the tech especially if you think all wireless sucks, were not talking about using a few sky routers bridged together here, just go ask ceragon about their crappy wireless backhaul kit that Telco's who don't know what they are doing use, your knowledge appears to be stuck in the 90's.
Almost all wireless backhaul in the United Kingdom has been replaced with fibre in the last 20 years. The only remaining wireless backhaul is where for whatever reason the cost of laying the fibre cannot be justified. Even in these situations it is and remains a poor second choice.
If wireless was so fantastic why on earth would BT and the Scottish goverment have spent so much money laying fibre to all those Scottish Islands? Why did they not just stick in super reliable fantastic carrier grade wireless saving millions of pounds? If wireless is so fantastic why has BT replaced almost all their microwave backhaul in the last 20 years? The answer is simple wireless backhaul is a second best solution.
The situation is clear wireless sucks in comparison to fibre for backhaul. As has been pointed out there is no simple line of sight and the previous expensive carrier grade wireless backhaul did not survive long.
Glencoe did the right thing by installing fibre backhaul, and it is only some unfortunate and extreme circumstances that caused it to fail. I am sure when repaired/replaced these issues will be addressed.
