Because when it stops working in some communities thanks to the interference that this supposedly slides under, you'll stop selling it in others.

However, if you were to start off in a licensed spectrum right off the bat, you could sell the tech to just about every utility company in America.

I am, of course, assuming they intend to make more than one in the future, and have more than just one customer.

Okay, but, again, why an unlicensed band? If this is for utility companies to use, and has a large over-reaching benefit to all sorts of communities (many of them owning or running the utilities), why wouldn't there be cause for a licensed band? I understand the intention, and the expectation that this will work anyways, but why not just make sure by using a licensed band instead?

I don't understand why you would use something with this kind of range in an unlicensed band.

You are basically setting yourself up to fail when you get interference all over your supposed coverage area.

Okay, the tiny camera is good, but I didn't see any mention of a light source.

It's kinda, you know, dark in there.

Speaking as an ISP employee (Wireless), you are almost certainly looking to the wireless folks to save you. We are almost exclusively servicing customers that will NEVER be served by cable/DSL providers. And it has a lot less to do with greed, and a lot more to do with return on investment. Some of the towers we put up, we don't start profiting on until a good 4-5 years after we've done so. I can't even imagine what the rate of return would be for other technologies. Obviously not enough for them to feel it's worth it.

At a time when ISPs are moving to cap bandwidth usage, and these companies are moving to streaming-only ideas, am I the only one cringing?

Don't get me wrong, I love my streaming media, but ISPs seem to really hate it.

Relax. At least you didn't lose your friend to a banana allegory.

Buuuzziiiiiiiiiiing!

"Have a cigar!"