top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 185 points 2 years ago (6 children)

I think the bigger headline should be the huge conflict of interest between Musk being a megadonor and "advisor" / leader of DOGE (depending on if you ask Trump or his minions) and being the CEO of Starlink owner SpaceX.

Add it to the list including lease of Starlink services and kits to the FAA.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 105 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    As someone that lives in the rural US and has no option for internet besides Starlink, I'd much rather have fiber. Starlink isn't bad, but it's garbage compared to fiber.

    Plus I don't want to give Elmo my money. I really wish I had other options.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    It sucks to even be in partial agreement with the broligarchs, but as a rural American, I have zero sympathy for this fuckhead or anyone else involved in the broadband fund.

    The government has been pouring money into broadband expansion for decades, and for decades, internet providers have been sopping up that money while doing exactly nothing to actually earn it.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean, we could tell them to pay back the money, or force them to make upgrades. But, its easier to just award contracts to starlink.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Yeah there aren't any good guys to root for here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    It's not all a story of failure, because there are numerous rural areas that have fiber now that did not before those programs. Some states have added on programs that boost the fiber adoption, like letting local phone and power companies roll out fiber on utility poles along the power lines. For example, I'm in a rural area and have 2 good options for fiber for about $50/mo with higher tier plans available.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 60 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    There is absolutely no reason the US government shouldn't be launching their own public satellite internet.

    Look at North Korea. People get killed for smuggling in flash drives with western media into the country. We could be streaming it from uninterruptible satellites. We could be fighting the global information war on a level most other countries could only dream of.

    On the domestic end, if we get Internet access to every corner of the country, it opens up remote work to every American. That could bring an incredible economic boost to impoverished rural areas.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 years ago

    Trump shut down Radio Free Asia. And Radio Free Europe, and Voice of America. I don't think he cares about getting the message out there.

    And as far as a public Internet? Have you met the US? We can't deliver electricity or water without someone making a profit on each unit of energy or water delivered. It's unamerican. Why would satellite Internet be any different?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 2 years ago

    Satellite internet is simply never going to best the throughput and stability of fiber. Just another corrupt action so this administration can line their pockets.

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Starlink makes sense on the top of mountain. If you have electricity from the grid, you should get fiber.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 34 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    And it totally won't be monitored or censored ... promise! /s

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)

    Wow I’m shocked. This is my shocked face.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago*

    USA has always been corrupt. What's chocking is the brazenness of this administration. Former administrations at least had the decency to do it in the shadows.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Regardless of the obvious moneygrab corruption, It's not like the fiber program was ever going to work in the first place as long as private ISP's were involved.

    Fiber backbone got installed along 25 miles of rural county highway out in the valley my parents live in. The company paid to do it marks the area as "service coming soon".
    That was in 2018. The fiber is still dark with all the distribution boxes empty and not hooked up to anything, the only other options being $110/mo DSL in a very few select spots, a local mountaintop microwave wireless service that is basically turned off from November until April, or Starlink... and I'm guessing it'll forever remain that way until the coming collapse of the USA.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I never expected the US to go down this way...

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Wouldn't 4G make more sense for most rural locations, its not like its a single house with nothing for 1000 miles in all directions

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • To the users yes, or coax(DOCSIS), how they get to the Internet doesn't really matter, the challenge for rural communities is how they connect to the urban networks(backhaul).

    A lot of rural towns are actually serviced by wireless point to point radios. They have some impressive throughput capabilities but nowhere near what fiber can provide. Also, they are affected by environmental factors like weather or wildlife (https://youtu.be/cZkAP-CQlhA)

    ISPs don't really want to spend millions of dollars to run fiber through mountains to service a town of 4 or 5 thousand people, it would be a poor investment, this is where government programs like above can be useful in then allowing that town or region to have better Internet.

    They can probably make the argument that starlink is cheaper but it's not a long term solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Can starling even come close to the speed of fiber? I’m getting a gibabit a second for 50 bucks a month

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Nowhere close. Wireless anything needs to share a band across multiple devices. With fiber, you can either have an exclusive run to the service provider or, at the very least, to a connection point shared with some neighbors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago*

    It's not meant for that and won't really ever compete well against it if fiber can be run there cost effectively, although there are odd situations even in cities where it's useful.

    Like maybe there's a warehouse in some part of a big city that somehow wasn't connected and the utilities wants 50k to connect it.

    Realistically we can't run fiber everywhere, but there's many millions of more homes out there that could be but aren't, and the telcos keep taking money to do the upgrades and do jack all.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›