• @Triasha
    link
    English
    23 hours ago

    This would work in the US on the coasts and in the cities.

    Even the eastern parts of the west coast states the math gets bad. Running cables over/mountains to service the poorest 10% of the states population.

    Getting into the square states you have 10s of thousands of miles of mountains and deserts to get to a vanishing small number of people. There are twice as many people in my city as there are in the entire state of Wyoming and we are the third largest city in Texas.

    Are you really going to run cables all over an area of the alps but the size of France to bring service to a number of people equivalent to one midsize city? Most of it is protected national Park people don’t even live in.

    Most of Nevada is uninhabited desert with some of the hottest temperatures on earth.

    We can leave half of Texas empty and still have service for 95% of the population.

    It’s not as simple as “just do it” over here. We have huge problems, but the challenges are legit.

      • @fishos
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        You realize the most significant use of satellite internet right now is Ukraine, right? Like you’re aware that this has almost nothing to do with the US and is about starlink/Elon fucking with Ukraine and the internet they provide the military fighting in a war. Right? Like you’re not that oblivious, right? You’re not jumping in here suggesting they lay cat6 in a warzone are you? Cus that would just be foolish and make you look like a jackass, which I’m sure you’re not.

        • @sasquatch7704
          link
          English
          0
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Obviously I’m not suggesting Ukraine should use cat6 or fiber, but those are exceptional situation and that’s a military use case.

          I meant for day to day use, most people already live in urban area are satellites don’t make sens