747
SpaceX says states should dump fiber plans, give all grant money to Starlink (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
306 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 1 year ago (16 children)

Spoken like someone who has never had some idiot in a backhoe chop a fiber bundle…multiple times in a week.

And, when it happens, it generally gets repaired in hours. You cannot launch a new constellation in hours.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    True, but your're comparing a single fiber optic line to an entire network of satellites. Blow up one, and they simply route traffic around it. Blow up 10, and you might have a small moving deadzone that removes service for a few minutes.

    If you want to compare accurately, look at the time it takes to replace the cable infrastructure for an entire nation vs the time it takes to relaunch all the star link satellites. We started using satellites in the first place because it was the fastest (and in many cases, cheapest) way to get TV coverage anywhere on the planet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    You understand EMPs wouldn't affect one sat, right? Or a capture net can hit an entire train?

    If you want to compare accurately, look at the time it takes to replace the cable infrastructure for an entire nation vs the time it takes to relaunch all the star link satellites.

    That can, and has been done in a couple of weeks. It happens somewhat regularly.

    https://www.leadventgrp.com/blog/submarine-cable-damage-and-repair-claims-and-remedial-measures

    10-20 days to launch a repair crew, and another week to affect the repair. At a few hundred million in costs.

    A single rocket launch it minimally a year of planning. And BILLIONS in costs.

    We started using satellites in the first place because it was the fastest (and in many cases, cheapest) way to get TV coverage anywhere on the planet.

    Well, yes, because they are placed in a high orbit (Not LEO) generally, in order to cover massive patterns with ONE WAY signalling (Aside from the one uplink).

    This is a host of difference between myriad 2-way ground stations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    That can, and has been done in a couple of weeks. It happens somewhat regularly.

    https://www.leadventgrp.com/blog/submarine-cable-damage-and-repair-claims-and-remedial-measures

    Whoops, there you go again comparing the impact and resolution of a single cable to an entire national network.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (12 children)

    Whoops, there you go again comparing the impact and resolution of a single cable to an entire national network.

    That's... um... how it works? It's generally one, maybe two, cables connecting continents: https://dabrownstein.com/2015/06/30/charting-interconnectedness-in-undersea-internet-cables/

    I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.

    So, generally, "nations" are not connected via undersea cables, continents are.

    So, yes, repairing one, maybe two, would be reconnecting an entire national network. Which is STILL cheaper than replacing a mass of Starlink sats... Which, btw, need replacing routinely anyways, because their orbits decay purposefully.

    So, every 5 years, we need spend tens of billions to launch another set of trains, just to have them fall into the ocean after 5 years of service. Just to obtain a service that is cheaper, and doesn't require nearly as much regular investment if we just used fiber.

    https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html

    I get the feeling you don't understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems. And, you also don't understand that without connected ground stations, served by those "at risk fiber networks on the ground" (That you purport as very risky), Starlink doesn't work, either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    You are comparing a backbone to last mile? Starlink relies on that fiber backbone too. Cutting all the last mile fiber in America would be an insanely difficult attack. Satellites are comparatively vulnerable to a great many attacks. They literally fly over the enemy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    That’s… um… how it works? It’s generally one, maybe two, cables connecting continents: https://dabrownstein.com/2015/06/30/charting-interconnectedness-in-undersea-internet-cables/

    I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.

    I think you didn't quite understand. I'm not talking about just undersea cables. An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.

    I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.

    Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.

    I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.

    Oh, so you mean a very viable attack today (Taking out swaths of constellations) is on par with destroying a sizeable segment of a web of fiber that is very interconnected, and very resilient to outages due to a single fiber?

    I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.

    It's viable because we are funding that, with gobs of money, instead of using those gobs of money to fund something that is "Buy once, cry once" instead of Starlinks "must be replaced in total, every 5 years, at billions per train".

    Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.

    No, and frankly, you're digging yourself into a deeper hole.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Alright. Let's clear this up.

    Are satellite links easier to take down than a fiber link? No. It takes specialized weapons manfactured by state level actors to take out a a single satellite, let alone a whole constellation. I can take a pair of wire clippers, and take out every cable link in my neighborhood in a afternoon. Russia fairly regularly sabotages undersea cables just by "accidentally" dragging an anchor over them.

    Is Starlink funded partially by public money? Absolutely yes, along with every other telecom provider. Hell, we gave them the public TV bands as compensation for builfijg a public fiber network (which they never even fucking did!)

    Do Starlink satellite need to be replaced at extreme cost? Yes, but so does terresrrial network infrastructure. There is a reason why your internet isn't 12kbps anymore... As far as the cost goes, the consumers determine if the cost is worth the benefit, and so far the answer is 'yes'.

    Ever wonder why Ukraine was using Starlink for network connections in the first place? Maybe it's becuse the vulnerable terrestrial based networks were damaged or taken out of service months ago, and you can't exactly get a contractor to go into a warzone and lay down new cables.

    Your points, that satellites based networks are more vulnerable and prohibitively expensive is simply not compatible with reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Are satellite links easier to take down than a fiber link? No

    Depends on what we're talking about.

    Is it easy, in any conceivable scenario, to take out an entire nation's web of cabled infra? No, not at all, and would require the same state actor level threat it would to take out a satellite train. It's just cheaper to do it in space, and less prone to failing than it would be to try a land-based infra attack.

    Do Starlink satellite need to be replaced at extreme cost? Yes, but so does terresrrial network infrastructure.

    We do not need to replace all the fiber, and all the coax, and all the transceivers every 5 years, at a cost of 10s of billions. At most? You need to replace stuff in a DC/DSLAM/termination point and the client side. All the fiber and coax in between is still usable for 20 years, even. And the endpoints don't need to be upgraded physically, most times, it's a software update pushed.

    Ever wonder why Ukraine was using Starlink for network connections in the first place?

    Because Russia bombed their power plants, all the cabling, and it was a literal war zone. And relied on infrastructure that was terrestrial outside of the war zone. And to replace all the infra (Outside of the power plants) will still be cheaper than a couple of trains being launched for StarLink.

    Your points, that satellites based networks are more vulnerable and prohibitively expensive is simply not compatible with reality.

    You do know StarLink can be taken down by targeting their ground stations, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (6 children)

    To put into scale how wrong you are about taking out a satellite, the last satellite the US shot down was in 2008, and it took a specially modified 9 million dollar missile to shoot it down. A Starlink satellite with launch costs included is just under 2 million dollars. Not only is it technologically difficult to take out a satellite, but it's much more costly to shoot them down than it is to put them up.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost

    It's not a trivial thing to take out a single satellite, let alone a whole constellation of satellites.

    You literally could not be more wrong about this.

    ...Russia bombed their power plants, all the cabling, and it was a literal war zone.

    Here you are acknowledge that ground-based systems are very vulnerable to attack. Guess what still works in Ukraine right now (or at least when Elon allows it to work). You got it. Starlink.

    How about another comparison. Starlink has a full project estimated cost of ~10 billion dollars, that's with launches and satellites. The estimated cost to rebuild Ukraine's telecom network is 4.7 billion dollars, and that is just for the damaged infrastructure in Ukraine. Starlink has already generated 72 million in profit (not revenue, but profit!)

    We gave telecom providers 200 billion in tax breaks to build a fiber network in the US, and they didn't even finish the job. 20x what Starlink's estimated cost is.

    Serioualy, the scale of how wrong you are about all of this is staggering.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Here you are acknowledge that ground-based systems are very vulnerable to attack.

    Which includes the ground stations that Starlink uses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Still works over Ukraine somehow... Maybe that fancy satellite network just carries it to the next available ground station?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    It works, only if Elon wants it to work. Did you forget he shut it off during the war, several times?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sure, that's a fault of Elon though, not a fault of satellite networks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    We are talking about Starlink here, correct? Owned by Elon?

    That said, all satellite networks are subject to dying if their ground-stations are taken offline, so if "all the fiber for a country goes down", so does Starlink.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    We are talking about Starlink here, correct? Owned by Elon

    No, we are talking about how hard of a target a satellite based network is vs a terrestrial fiber network. Starlink is being used purely as an example here, but is by no means a complete representation of all aspects of the technology.

    That said, all satellite networks are subject to dying if their ground-stations are taken offline...

    Yes, but they can route traffic between satellites and back down to working ground stations. Theoretically, one working ground station could keep the satellite network connected to the entire Internet. Hence why Starlink still works over Ukraine, and why it is such a big deal when Elon shuts it off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent