4 ms·

if you're implying that people in the developing world live without internet access, you'd be dead wrong. Cell service is ubiquitous and data is cheap. Those

by paulmd 6y ago

if you're implying that people in the developing world live without internet access, you'd be dead wrong. Cell service is ubiquitous and data is cheap. Those people are probably better-connected than rural Americans (not suburban, but truly rural, the people living out in the sticks). American data connectivity is just that bad. It's worse than eastern europe. Worse than Asia. Worse than Africa.

cptskippy 6y ago
You'd also be surprised by what's considered rural. Vermont is the most rural state and it's right next to Massachusetts which is one of the least rural.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Vermont is the state with the most even distribution of people also?
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    I have no idea. New Jersey's population is 99% urban, does that mean they all chose to live in an urban setting or that the State is so crammed full of people that there's no place to live in isolation? Looking at a map of New Jersey, it looks like if you managed to setup camp in the middle of a state park you might manage to be 5 miles from the nearest town.
- driverdan 6y ago
  How is VT the most rural state? Both Wyoming and Alaska have a significantly lower population density.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    Rural isn't a simple calculation of area divided by population. It's based on the density of the population. People are not evenly distributed over Alaska or Wyoming, the majority live in urban settings around cities with the majority of the land in those states being uninhabited. 60% or more of the population in Alaska and Wyoming live in an urban setting. In Texas it's over 80% and in California it's over 90%.
- DudeInBasement 6y ago
  Vermont is also filled with trolls
reaperducer 6y ago
if you're implying that people in the developing world live without internet access, you'd be dead wrong I imply no such thing. You're projecting your own biases. I'm merely stating a fact: That not everyone uses Netflix and YouTube, and to consider those life essentials is absurd.
- ajhurliman 6y ago
  I've used YouTube to learn a tremendous amount from programming to home improvement and beyond. I wouldn't consider it essential to my life, but I would certainly be worse off if I didn't have it.
- deeviant 6y ago
  I think saying something that is not essential to you cannot be essential to somebody else is absurd.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Did you forget the part where you said "several billion other people"? If you're not talking about the developing world, and just look at the rural and those who don't want a connection, that's not nearly enough people. So it's not wrong at all for people to assume you meant the developing world. And nobody said they were 'life essentials'.
  - culturestate 6y ago
    To be fair to the other person, China alone (in which neither Netflix nor YouTube are widely available) is almost 1.4 billion people. That could easily be part of their calculus, though I guess you could argue over the meaning of “several” in this context.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      I see that as pedantry. We're talking about internet speeds, and the equivalent of youtube.
joshvm 6y ago
This is partially true. Connectivity is better than most people imagine, even in places like Madagascar (was something like the fifth poorest country recently?). We had 4G in the middle of nowhere and yes, it's cheap for Westerners. However just because 3/4G exists doesn't mean people can afford it. In Madagascar for example, the minimum topup is 100 ARY or about 3 cents. Most people can't afford significant amounts of data, especially not when an autoplay video can bankrupt you. That's the big problem with the argument that starlink is helping developing countries. These countries would be much better off with better rural cellular coverage first, not expensive satellite networking. Unless spacex will subsidise developing nations, who's paying for it?
- agildehaus 6y ago
  Starlink makes improving rural cellular coverage much easier. Just need a tower, electricity, and a Starlink transceiver.

by paulmd 6y ago

cptskippy 6y ago

You'd also be surprised by what's considered rural. Vermont is the most rural state and it's right next to Massachusetts which is one of the least rural.

Ericson2314 6y ago
Vermont is the state with the most even distribution of people also?
- cptskippy 6y ago
  I have no idea. New Jersey's population is 99% urban, does that mean they all chose to live in an urban setting or that the State is so crammed full of people that there's no place to live in isolation? Looking at a map of New Jersey, it looks like if you managed to setup camp in the middle of a state park you might manage to be 5 miles from the nearest town.
driverdan 6y ago
How is VT the most rural state? Both Wyoming and Alaska have a significantly lower population density.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  Rural isn't a simple calculation of area divided by population. It's based on the density of the population. People are not evenly distributed over Alaska or Wyoming, the majority live in urban settings around cities with the majority of the land in those states being uninhabited. 60% or more of the population in Alaska and Wyoming live in an urban setting. In Texas it's over 80% and in California it's over 90%.
DudeInBasement 6y ago
Vermont is also filled with trolls

reaperducer 6y ago

if you're implying that people in the developing world live without internet access, you'd be dead wrong I imply no such thing. You're projecting your own biases. I'm merely stating a fact: That not everyone uses Netflix and YouTube, and to consider those life essentials is absurd.

ajhurliman 6y ago
I've used YouTube to learn a tremendous amount from programming to home improvement and beyond. I wouldn't consider it essential to my life, but I would certainly be worse off if I didn't have it.
deeviant 6y ago
I think saying something that is not essential to you cannot be essential to somebody else is absurd.
Dylan16807 6y ago
Did you forget the part where you said "several billion other people"? If you're not talking about the developing world, and just look at the rural and those who don't want a connection, that's not nearly enough people. So it's not wrong at all for people to assume you meant the developing world. And nobody said they were 'life essentials'.
- culturestate 6y ago
  To be fair to the other person, China alone (in which neither Netflix nor YouTube are widely available) is almost 1.4 billion people. That could easily be part of their calculus, though I guess you could argue over the meaning of “several” in this context.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    I see that as pedantry. We're talking about internet speeds, and the equivalent of youtube.

joshvm 6y ago

This is partially true. Connectivity is better than most people imagine, even in places like Madagascar (was something like the fifth poorest country recently?). We had 4G in the middle of nowhere and yes, it's cheap for Westerners. However just because 3/4G exists doesn't mean people can afford it. In Madagascar for example, the minimum topup is 100 ARY or about 3 cents. Most people can't afford significant amounts of data, especially not when an autoplay video can bankrupt you. That's the big problem with the argument that starlink is helping developing countries. These countries would be much better off with better rural cellular coverage first, not expensive satellite networking. Unless spacex will subsidise developing nations, who's paying for it?

agildehaus 6y ago
Starlink makes improving rural cellular coverage much easier. Just need a tower, electricity, and a Starlink transceiver.