That will work out as well as the death tunnel (formerly hyperlink)
Yeah, because all the gamers love to play online with a 3 second latency.
Honestly, I think starlink is a fantastic idea in general, but this is clearly bullshit. Starlink works well in tandem with fiber, not as a replacement.
It’s just never going to be as cost effective as installed fiber. Fiber is obviously the right technology to use in heavily populated areas i.e. for the vast majority of Internet users. And where the population is sparse and laying fiber for individual customers is cost prohibitive, that is where satellite connectivity shines. If SpaceX or anyone else is pretending otherwise, they’re being blatantly deceitful and malicious. That’s not in Internet users’ best interest.
As fiber is rolled out more, i see less and less why it would be cost prohibitive?
All you need to do to connect a remote place is lay a cable. More expensive if you need dig a trench and put the cable in there. But if it can be done for electricity it can be done for fiber.
Well the companies that want to lay fiber aren’t always the same ones who own the telephone poles. If they have to pay for that, that adds to costs.
Also, above ground cables are more exposed and need to be repaired more frequently. Falling trees can sever cables and simply swinging in the wind puts more wear on the cables over time. All together, it means that burying cables is more cost effective in the long term, but present higher upfront costs. Whereas above ground cables are cheaper upfront, but more expensive over time.
The high upfront costs are the bigger deal, but in general, they just don’t want to lay a mile of cable for a couple of users, regardless of how they’re doing it.
Starlink still requires ground stations, and those ground stations can and are a limiting factor. I was up at a cabin that had Starlink, and service is still in the “better than nothing” phase.
There is concern for fucking up things like radio telescopes. Also, creating a Kessler syndrome event. “But LEO wouldn’t have an issue with that because it would burn up”. Two things:
- Everything in LEO being destroyed is still really bad. Astronauts would likely die.
- Objects in lower orbits can get ejected into higher orbits and hit things there. Kessler sydrome in LEO could potentially start a chain reaction in higher orbits.
Plus, the EU and China are understandably worried about Musk being the only game up there and want to deploy their own equivalent systems. So now there’s not just one system of satellites threatening Kessler syndrome, but possibly three.
Just roll out fiber everywhere like we have with electricity.
lets get down to the real reason he wants to do this. he would be able to turn off connection for millions if they piss him off, or hand over the data to said political actors like putin or trump, also to manipulate future elections like he did last time.
Starlink works well in tandem with fiber, not as a replacement.
It doesn’t even work well in tandem.
Starlink has a single benefit going for it right now: Lack of uptake.
They only have a swath of spectrum, and that has a physical upper limit to how much information it can carry, in total. So does fiber. But, Starlink gets to share that with all users (Much like how cable internet works, its shared bandwidth for everyone on the loop). Fiber, you get your dedicated pipe.
This isn’t even getting to view obstruction (A plane will cause a drop out), latency, jitter, etc. These are all physics problem that just cannot be solved without violating the laws of physics. Latency, at a minimum, is 2.6 ms, and that’s just for the first leg.
It’s crazy to say it doesn’t work well in tandem… I mean, it’s demonstrable, If it didn’t work, people wouldn’t use it, but they do. And there is no other way to reach users in some places. Starlink can reach users that only a long range wireless solution can work for. There are some other long range wireless solutions, but this one does work.
Look, I don’t like Elon, I don’t like monopolies, I’m not a secret shill for SpaceX, but I can admit the truth right in front of me. You don’t have to stretch the truth to say Starlink isn’t a good system for the vast majority of people, so why do it? Why create a false narrative? Why get all defensive about a technology?
And finally, I do not see any reason to care about an extra 5 ms latency.
And there is no other way to reach users in some places.
There is, if we decided to instead of giving Elon billions every few months, we used that money to expand the fiber networks.
Starlink can reach users that only a long range wireless solution can work for. There are some other long range wireless solutions, but this one does work.
There are myriad technology solutions that are both viable, and already being used. Capitalism means we don’t deploy them. Oligarchy means we instead choose to do things that are more expensive, but happen to benefit a friendly oligarch.
You don’t have to stretch the truth to say Starlink isn’t a good system for the vast majority of people, so why do it?
Except, it isn’t. Its just the one with the hype.
Some people live in places that aren’t connected to large electrical grids, they have local generation and micro grids for a small community. Isolated mountains or small islands, or deserts are good examples of these situations. So if connecting to the electrical grid wasn’t realistic I’m willing to bet that a fiber connection also isn’t realistic.
It’s hard to believe you think fiber can work for literally everything. I really don’t know why you’re bothering to dig in on this issue, it’s so easy to prove otherwise. I hadn’t even mentioned the use case of vehicles yet, boats, planes, trains, trucks, campers, obviously you can’t run fiber to a vehicle. Or truly remote locations where people don’t live, but researches work there, Antarctic bases, etc.
Also, I think you misunderstood my last line. I’m saying Starlink isn’t right for most people. I’m just not making things up to say that.
So if connecting to the electrical grid wasn’t realistic I’m willing to bet that a fiber connection also isn’t realistic.
If fiber isn’t possible due to electrical grids being non-existent… A power hungry sat transceiver will likely be a non-starter, too.
It’s hard to believe you think fiber can work for literally everything.
I don’t think it can. I also don’t think Starlink can work for literally everything, either. There are better, and faster, and cheaper solutions like Microwave backhauls and cellular data service for the last mile.
I hadn’t even mentioned the use case of vehicles yet, boats, planes, trains, trucks, campers, obviously you can’t run fiber to a vehicle.
Boats are the one outlier here, that cannot be reach via cell service, with a fraction of the cost of Starlink. And sure, boats can use it, and boats should pay the full cost of the package. No need for government money to fund them, they didn’t need it before, and don’t need it now. Boaters were quite satisfied paying their Iridium bills in the past.
In France they authorised air hanging fiber, so they just use electric poles and hang the fiber under the 220 volt lines, as a last resort.
Cheap as hell. Or, where there’s a will there is a way.
We do this in some parts of America too. My grandmother’s local electric co-op provided fiber to her house this way in the middle of no where.
The term "tech neutral’ brings back terrible memories of the conservative Liberal successful campaign in #auspol against the #NBN (national broadband network) 😞
do they know what competing is? fiber is much cheaper, stablier, offers less latency and more speed.
I would burn the money before giving it to the nazi
Hmmm ditch lightning fast and stable fiber for the mediocre speed and unstable micro satellite internet connection controlled by a petty asshole…
What to do, what to do?
Just think how much control he can have if he owns the medium which people access the internet.
And he’d only do good things with that power /s
I mean, you don’t have to guess. He’s interfered in a war and turned a social network into his personal bullhorn.
Yeah, please… give me shitty satellite internet instead of a fast fiber line…
Wireless data transmission should only ever be used for nomadic, temporary, and/or sacrificial links.
They’re useful for quick deployment, but are intrinsically brittle and terrible for resiliency and efficiency.
The longer the dependence on them for a given use case, the less defensible arguments in support of them become.
I’m all for the use of satellite delivery of internet services, but only when it’s used in conjunction with a broader roll out of hardwired infrastructure, at which point it can reasonably be relegated to serving as a secondary, backup diverse path.
Cory Doctorow described it as anti-futuristic tech. Where fiber networks get better, faster, and cheaper the denser they get, wireless satellite will get slower and less reliable the more people share that spectrum.
That’s a dumb ass idea, and I’m literally on Starlink right now
I got a better idea: a civil war against oligarchs
Hey uh Musk how’s that there hyperloop comin’?
No fucking thanks. Gigabit+ fiber > Nazi-ass satellite internet that doesn’t have even remotely near the needed bandwidth for actual dense population centers.
I have a better idea: don’t do that.
Company says that everyone should give them money and stop using competing products.
Obvious thing to say in the land of self-interest.
