4 ms·

I'm sure you know rural California is not the only place without stable and fast internet access. And while that is one usage that will probably dominate in the

I'm sure you know rural California is not the only place without stable and fast internet access. And while that is one usage that will probably dominate in the developed world, have you considered the possibilities in Africa, Asia and the oceans?

SiempreViernes 7y ago
Most people that can afford space internet live in cities, and of the rural ones almost all live in wealthy countries. Rural populations in Africa barely have electricity, the idea that they could pay for that Musk space internet that brings salvation is just obscene.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  It's not just the Africans who operate in Africa. This will enable foreign investment for them.
  - runarberg 7y ago
    This is such a closed minded western centered mindset. The idea of paying for infrastructure projects (or helping fund them) in foreign nations that you might do business with is just not on the horizon. The only option on the table is to build some technologically obscene infrastructure that only those who can afford can use, leaving the local population in poverty.
    - nickik 7y ago
      So people that have some modest wealth in Africa shouldn't be able to get internet? Does it not matter that an entrepreneur and companies can get reliable internet? The local population can get together and buy one antenna is one more option they might be able to provide access to the net for a village. The government could provide one for each school. Human deploy infrastructure in so many different ways. You can try to intellectualize everything away because you seem to have some intense dislike for this, but the fact of the matter is, this system will make internet easier and more affordable then any alternative system in a huge number of places all over the world. And in all those places it will have to compete with the alternatives and the people on the ground can make the choice what helps them the most. Your counter argument boils down to 'We can't solve global poverty, therefore we shouldn't have global internet' and that is just such an insane position.
      - runarberg 7y ago
        I’m sorry, my comment was very snarky and therefor not very clear. What I was trying to say: A more reasonable way to get better internet connectivity to the poor parts of the world is to build tried and trusted traditional infrastructure funded by the wealthier communities around them. You are right though, I do dislike Starlink. In general I have a big distaste for any endeavor that tries to solve a problem with new and untried technology, but that problem only exists because of wealth disparity.
        nickik 7y ago
        Non of the individual parts of Starlink are totally untried. Its a new way to put it together really. Rockets being cheaper now is just a fact of the industry. > What I was trying to say: A more reasonable way to get better internet connectivity to the poor parts of the world is to build tried and trusted traditional infrastructure funded by the wealthier communities around them. The demand that you can live anywhere in the country and have people who live in the city provide you with a FTTH at the same price just seams like unreasonable to me. In most places, specially in the western world, its an organizational not a cost problem. If Starlink is the cheaper way then why should richer communities not just provide Starlink antennas. Especially when you have large area and small communities. > I have a big distaste for any endeavor that tries to solve a problem Starlink solves many problems where other solutions simply don't exist. That is a plain fact. It just so happens that it will also be competitive in lots of other fields and if the competition is terrible, why not adopt Starlink? Its global by design anyway so driving the marginal cost of utilization might make for a competitive price point in many regions and locations. The reality is that its fine to talk about these potential changes, but they haven't happened for a long time now, and the most likely way for a totally dysfunctional system to change is with massive shock to the outside. Then ideas for reform might actually get adopted. So even from that perspective, I really can't see any argument why putting another competitor in this market is not a fantastic idea.
- sigstoat 7y ago
  > Rural populations in Africa barely have electricity and yet there are scads of cell phones there
- tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
  If the marginal cost is low enough, it may be profitable to give rural populations Internet at a price that they can afford, even if it's way cheaper than in California, and so low that the entire system couldn't be run profitably if everyone could get it that cheap.
  - shaklee3 7y ago
    It's not. they're using phased array on the ground, which is far more expensive than the already-too-expensive-for-poor-countries parabolic dishes.
    - TomMarius 7y ago
      Does each household really need 600 Mbps link? I think that could serve as a whole city connection in many places.
      - shaklee3 7y ago
        Certainly not. But now you get in a much different business where you don't sell to consumers, but now you have to own/operate all your hot spots.
        TomMarius 7y ago
        I don't think so. I run a freenet across my town and it's really not a problem at all.
        shaklee3 7y ago
        SpaceX would have to run tens of thousands of what you're doing all over the world, where regulations and laws are different. It's not comparable at all.
        TomMarius 7y ago
        Why would SpaceX run it? I am talking about freenets, the communities run these by themselves. SpaceX sells a station and connectivity to the group as a whole, and I'm pretty sure 600 Mbps (which conpares to nearly a hundred people watching a fullhd video, btw) is more than enough for a town - my network is still just 300 Mbps.

SiempreViernes 7y ago

Most people that can afford space internet live in cities, and of the rural ones almost all live in wealthy countries. Rural populations in Africa barely have electricity, the idea that they could pay for that Musk space internet that brings salvation is just obscene.

TomMarius 7y ago
It's not just the Africans who operate in Africa. This will enable foreign investment for them.
- runarberg 7y ago
  This is such a closed minded western centered mindset. The idea of paying for infrastructure projects (or helping fund them) in foreign nations that you might do business with is just not on the horizon. The only option on the table is to build some technologically obscene infrastructure that only those who can afford can use, leaving the local population in poverty.
  - nickik 7y ago
    So people that have some modest wealth in Africa shouldn't be able to get internet? Does it not matter that an entrepreneur and companies can get reliable internet? The local population can get together and buy one antenna is one more option they might be able to provide access to the net for a village. The government could provide one for each school. Human deploy infrastructure in so many different ways. You can try to intellectualize everything away because you seem to have some intense dislike for this, but the fact of the matter is, this system will make internet easier and more affordable then any alternative system in a huge number of places all over the world. And in all those places it will have to compete with the alternatives and the people on the ground can make the choice what helps them the most. Your counter argument boils down to 'We can't solve global poverty, therefore we shouldn't have global internet' and that is just such an insane position.
    - runarberg 7y ago
      I’m sorry, my comment was very snarky and therefor not very clear. What I was trying to say: A more reasonable way to get better internet connectivity to the poor parts of the world is to build tried and trusted traditional infrastructure funded by the wealthier communities around them. You are right though, I do dislike Starlink. In general I have a big distaste for any endeavor that tries to solve a problem with new and untried technology, but that problem only exists because of wealth disparity.
      - nickik 7y ago
        Non of the individual parts of Starlink are totally untried. Its a new way to put it together really. Rockets being cheaper now is just a fact of the industry. > What I was trying to say: A more reasonable way to get better internet connectivity to the poor parts of the world is to build tried and trusted traditional infrastructure funded by the wealthier communities around them. The demand that you can live anywhere in the country and have people who live in the city provide you with a FTTH at the same price just seams like unreasonable to me. In most places, specially in the western world, its an organizational not a cost problem. If Starlink is the cheaper way then why should richer communities not just provide Starlink antennas. Especially when you have large area and small communities. > I have a big distaste for any endeavor that tries to solve a problem Starlink solves many problems where other solutions simply don't exist. That is a plain fact. It just so happens that it will also be competitive in lots of other fields and if the competition is terrible, why not adopt Starlink? Its global by design anyway so driving the marginal cost of utilization might make for a competitive price point in many regions and locations. The reality is that its fine to talk about these potential changes, but they haven't happened for a long time now, and the most likely way for a totally dysfunctional system to change is with massive shock to the outside. Then ideas for reform might actually get adopted. So even from that perspective, I really can't see any argument why putting another competitor in this market is not a fantastic idea.
sigstoat 7y ago
> Rural populations in Africa barely have electricity and yet there are scads of cell phones there
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
If the marginal cost is low enough, it may be profitable to give rural populations Internet at a price that they can afford, even if it's way cheaper than in California, and so low that the entire system couldn't be run profitably if everyone could get it that cheap.
- shaklee3 7y ago
  It's not. they're using phased array on the ground, which is far more expensive than the already-too-expensive-for-poor-countries parabolic dishes.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    Does each household really need 600 Mbps link? I think that could serve as a whole city connection in many places.
    - shaklee3 7y ago
      Certainly not. But now you get in a much different business where you don't sell to consumers, but now you have to own/operate all your hot spots.
      - TomMarius 7y ago
        I don't think so. I run a freenet across my town and it's really not a problem at all.
        shaklee3 7y ago
        SpaceX would have to run tens of thousands of what you're doing all over the world, where regulations and laws are different. It's not comparable at all.
        TomMarius 7y ago
        Why would SpaceX run it? I am talking about freenets, the communities run these by themselves. SpaceX sells a station and connectivity to the group as a whole, and I'm pretty sure 600 Mbps (which conpares to nearly a hundred people watching a fullhd video, btw) is more than enough for a town - my network is still just 300 Mbps.