- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- technology
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- technology
Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies::The FCC reaffirmed a decision not to award Starlink a nearly $900 million subsidy for offering 100Mbps/20Mbps low-latency internet service in 35 states.
I don’t think you understand that a lot of copper is still less than infinite rockets forever
This is the kind of dumb statement that really gives this platform a bad name. I know people who were quoted a six figure sum to get mains power to their property, fibre would have been a similar cost. And this is people who are at a fixed location, we also have those who are mobile to consider.
There are people for whom a wired connection to anything is out of the question.
If only someone like a government would subsidise the installation just like the subsidised starlink because that also isn’t profitable. But a lot of money today is cheaper than an infinite amount of money from launching infinite rockets forever.
How do you think everything got built thus far? Only in America do you get this logic repeated. Everyone else just builds infrastructure. Yes, even in places with very remote peoples.
First, I’m not in America.
Second, I don’t think you comprehend just how remote some people are. I live in New Zealand, where over 90% of the country has fibre broadband thanks to a government initiative to get everyone connected, and we still have a large number of people using Starlink or other systems to get online, because it is simply not cost effective to wire them in.
Reality does not align with your smug one-liners.
Hey, look, I can instantly downvote you too even though downvotes mean nothing on this platform, and it just antagonises any hope of conversation! Woo. Here’s where you say you didn’t do that. Though probably all hope for a normal conversation went out the window when you started your part by just flatout calling me dumb, funny!
My entire point is that starlink is not more cost effective, it’s paid for by American subsidies and investors. It’s a money losing scheme. But laying infrastructure instead of burning the money up with infinite rockets full of infinite cell towers forever gives you a better return on the money spent as you can continue using that infrastructure for hundreds more years
You are dumb though.
deleted by creator
Still doesn’t help ships
The issue with starlink is the choice to be in LEO instead of using geosats. It lowers the latency but it makes the whole project completely unsustainable.
I suspect they’ll eventually move to a slightly higher orbit, where their satellites can last a decade or so, once the technology is more mature.
Ships don’t need infinite rockets full of infinite cell towers launched forever.
Maybe when we have fusion power and don’t have to waste the resources. We don’t. We have to choose what we want to use. I say that launching infinite rockets with infinite cell towers forever is not worth being able to watch tiktok in the middle of the Atlantic.
There’s always actual satellite internet for the needed communications.
Maybe we should just wait for the subsidies and the investor money that’s actually paying for starlink to run out and see where things quite literally fall.
They need 12,000 of them, which isn’t a huge amount considering you’re covering the entire globe.
Per year, forever. Hence infinite rockets with infinite cell towers.
The typical lifespan is 5-7 years, so 2400 per year at worst.
You don’t really do math, do you?
It’s one year. Their goal is 5 years, but it’s one year because they haven’t hit their goal. Starlink hasn’t even been active for five years yet. This is embarrassing for you.
What are you talking about?
They fall out of the sky in one year. Their stated goal is five. They fall out of the sky after one year.
A lot of glass is much better than a lot of copper.