> maybe nobody cares about watching Netflix if we can now have holodecks that become fully immersible experiences that allow for educational training and, to your chagrin, entertainment as well
I don't see why billions of dollars should be spent, for say, less than a low single digit percentage of the rural population who want to stick a machine to their head for educational training.
It's infinitely cheaper, a more sane and healthier decision to move to the location where they can sit in front of the instructor, if they value this education.
2. How large is each "diagnostic medical image"? I can't imagine this being in the order of TB
a. An existing 5G/LTE or satellite internet is perfectly serviceable for even GBs of medical images
b. Let's assume the images are in the order of TBs, does this justify spending billions for one person (or tens) in a "rural" area?
Contrarian opinion: What exactly is the point of "fast" internet?
Most people use the internet for entertainment, people can survive watching Netflix at 1080p/720p, it isn't debilitating.
If I'm wrong in my assessment, give me use cases where you require fast internet in a rural area.
If the question is cost, I don't see how laying fiber and equipment for hundreds, if not, thousands of miles is a solution to reducing cost (unless it's subsidized by the government).
Spending billions on mostly "entertainment" is a waste.
There are tons of Youtube channels and Reddit threads dedicated to clones.
My protocol is, if the originals sell at outrageous prices, I go for clones. They are good enough for me.
I don't see why billions of dollars should be spent, for say, less than a low single digit percentage of the rural population who want to stick a machine to their head for educational training.
It's infinitely cheaper, a more sane and healthier decision to move to the location where they can sit in front of the instructor, if they value this education.