USB9 V1.742.ac/3 ... it is important to be precise here, because otherwise, the cable will be incompatible and the systems involved will fall back into a safe mode that's essentially, but not quite USB 1.0 standards. /s
So, why exactly wasn't USB4 2.0 not called USB 4.2?
They had to call it USB4 2.0 because the previous generation was USB4. How could they change their naming scheme to something like 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, that would confuse consumers!
True, i somehow omitted the 100km while reading their comment.
It's still unlikely to succeed, as the required precision for multiple simultaneous data streams is quiet significant. Nonetheless, it's theoretically possible. Just not economically useful, as cables are inherently cheaper for the same amount of data transmitted.
I'm not saying that these won't exist, they already do to some degree with Starlink after all... I'm just saying that this tech is highly unlikely to replace the backbone infrastructure, which seacables are.
We can't possibly imagine now what can succeed in 100 years because we can't even conceive what kind of tech or societal developments will happen over that period.
