you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 3 months ago (22 children)

Starlink has always been a shitty cell service at best. Only now the towers have to be entirely replaced every three or so years if memory serves.

Coulda just run fiberoptic but that would be the boring solution with a lower return.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    It does make sense for very rural customers. For my parents to get fiber like you suggest, someone would have to string up about 10 miles of fiber to gain like 50 customers, maybe. With another 90 miles of fiber they can get all the way to 1000 people served; idk how many households that is but the unit economics don't make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I mean if we're looking at pure economics, it's probably not even worth running power lines to your parents. Matter of fact, they probably wouldn't even have electricity if the government didn't force electrical companies to build power lines to everyone, with the electrification act of 1968.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    It isnt worth it, but at least in Canada and USA we've given the ISPs billions of dollars to service them, and they keep adding a token amount of people and saying shucks all the money is gone we couldn't do what we said, and then we give them more. Rinse and repeat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's not. But fiber isn't a regulated utility like power is, so the argument is moot until that changes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Yes, and that's the problem. Fibre should be treated the same way as electric and, formerly, landline phones. For the last 20-30+ years, the government has handed billions out to connect everyone. With very little movement in a LOT of places.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Give it 50 years of replacing satellites and I am willing to bet a one time install of fiber would have been cheaper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    Fiber wouldn't be a one-time charge though. There's regular ongoing maintenance needed for a fiber network.

    There's an old joke in the telecom world:

    Q: If you were going to be stranded on a desert island and you could only take one thing with you, what would you take?

    A: I would take a small bundle of fiber optic cable. As soon as I was on the island, I'd make a small hole in the sand and bury it. As soon as I turn my back there would be someone with a backhoe there to dig it up.

    The cost of sending crew out to fix a 10 mile fiber run servicing a single household would wipe out any possible profit from that subscriber for more than 100 years. Now multiple that by how many 10 mile+ fiber runs we'd need to service all those widespread low-density rural customers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Rural, cellular dead zones (eg desert, mountain passes), air, ocean/seas/large lakes.

    To cover rural reliably though you end up having to be over dense areas as well, but they cant really compete in the dense areas as they'll be cheaper options, but you can make some money there since you already cover it. The area they could best compete there would be critical backup service.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    I'd like to see someone setup cell towers across the pacific ocean. I even started dreaming up what it would take/cost - but I soon realized it would never be worth it so I'm not asking for investors. (though probably I should have... Anyone know a VC with money to burn?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I’d like to see someone setup cell towers across the pacific ocean.

    Fiber cables cross-cross the oceans many times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    Wait so you're saying the ships, just the ships moving across the pacific are enough reason to have low earth orbit satellites in such quantity they impede things as simple as looking at the stars? The ships can get internet from higher earth orbit satellites that don't have to be constantly replaced. We haven't been choosing between internet and no internet with starlink, there has been satallite internet way before starlink and there will be way after. All it takes is a less cooperative FAA not allowing so many rocket launches for the AI nazi company and slowly holes form in the coverage as the satellites burn up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (6 children)

    No, I'm saying that the ships would like it. Also having used geosynchronous satellite internet I have first hand experience that the lag sucks. Better than nothing, but Starlink has less lag. Probably faster but I don't know what the latest speeds are. Still geosynchronous covers a lot of area which means you are sharing with a lot of people.

    Cruise ships pay a lot for internet because their customers want it. Crew on all ships want it for their breaks.

    Starlink isn't worth it for just the above, but add in rural people on land and it makes sense. Though I understand the astronomers hate it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    I'll be short with you.: I don't care how much nicer starlink is, putting that many satellites into low earth orbit all the time is not good for the climate. The few thousand people on ships at any given time can wait to stream high def porn or download it while at port. All the needed uses of the internet can be met via slow higher orbiting satellites.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Lots of things are not necessary and are bad for the climate. You likely enjoy many of them. You start by reducing your own consumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    God, if this isn't the most "Fuck You!" reply you could've made

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Frankly its just about as much as anyone should care

    Ohmmy's comment is essentualy "its bad for the envirement" (as if its not true for everything) and "they should just deal with it as is" as an attempt to shutdown the arguement

    I very much dont see how it would have continued any other way (excludeing a few roundabouts)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago*

    that don’t have to be constantly replaced.

    Its by delibarate choice

    Increase the orbit by a bit and it quickly goes from about 5 years to decades and decades for reentry

    The entire point is that they will be replaceing them that often anyways, may as well get some other benefits

  • source
  • parent