you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 3 months ago (28 children)

Satellite is better for remote people. I know a woman whose Alaskan village (indigenous, not colonizer) got significantly better internet once starlink was rolled out.

Now you could say that nations with meaningful duties to remote peoples should band together and essentially jointly operate (maybe having the UN administer it) such a service for them and use it as the last resort akin to sat phones. And I'd be cool with that. But I so think such people should have internet, and this is probably cheaper than running and maintaining cables all across Alaska and northern Canada.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    That's true, but it's largely due to a market that doesn't prioritize remote clients and a regulatory system which has roped off huge parts of the radio spectrum.

    Instead of a starlink receiver talking to low orbit, you could have a dish that uses fixed wireless access or point to point connections to access a terrestrial tower. In exceptional situations geostationary satellites make sense, but these low earth constellations are getting out of control.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Give them internet via a geo stationary satellite.

    You only need a few in a space where there is a lot of room, and it won't bug anyone, contrary to the shit show we have with the countless starlink satellites visibly zipping over while working hard to make the Kessler Syndrome a thing.

    I'm not even talking about the pollution caused by those rocket launches

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

    Give them internet via a geo stationary satellite.

    We have that already. Its comparatively very expensive, and also very very high latency simply because for the speed-of-light. The satellite at GEO sits at 20k kilometers. That by itself introduces 250ms of latency each way. So a 500ms latency is not uncommon for GEO satellite internet. Also, GEO satellites are very expensive because of how much energy (deltaV) it takes to get the satellite out that far and for how long they have to operate to make that money back.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (20 children)

    But it's not better. It's just rhe only option. They would very much prefer to be connected with a cable or a cell tower no? Why wouldnt they?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (19 children)

    You have permafrost melting so northern tundra areas will be worse to build on going forward. But the context is tiny rural places that don't have roads and you travel by plane or snowmobile, they're not getting cable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (16 children)

    they're not getting cable.

    why not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Hundreds of miles of expensive cable because terrain make expensive to serve dozens of hundreds.

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

    It's significantly cheaper still. Cable is dirt cheap, technology of laying cable is mature and we already have roads developed to piggy back off infra off. Now think about satellites that only live a few years and are incredibly expensive and immature.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (11 children)

    Which part of permafrost do you not understand?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Beyond permafrost it's also extremely remote and often separated from Anchorage (metro area has the majority of the population of Alaska, at a similar population to the city of Cleveland) by national parks, mountains, and rivers. It's very expensive to run cable out to such small populations

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    Ah. I see. You're thinking to let the fiberglass cables lose on top of permafrost like it's a hose from a shed.

    If you're able, you can learn why that is a bad idea online. There is plethora of reasons why fiberglass cables usually go underground.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

    I genuinely don't understand you. Ok so they go underground next to a road - then what? They freeze and explode? Or do you imply we can't afford to dig ditches but can afford to fire rockets?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Are you implying there's a large amount of people not connected by roads? How many you think?

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

    I literally direct you again to fucking google that, because the first response from Google literally tells you why that will not fucking work.

    Are you so entitled that you demand we copy paste it for your pleasure.

    The google will include the over-the-air elevated fibreglass that costs 20x more per mile than anywhere else, why it would cost one third of that number a year to maintain, why it cannot go underground (because of permafrost melting when being dug up and turning into mud and bog and sinking the installation and million other things), thst there are no roads in many places at all, etc. etc.

    Your laziness is offending.

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

    5G is the answer for most people. The few people living in extremely remote places are not worth rolling out special satellites for them. It will not be profitable. They can use existing satellite services for basic communication.

  • source
  • parent