5 ms·

I find it astounding that just any old for profit company can decide to ruin a world-wide public resource just to turn a few bucks. In 2020. I'd expect that fr

by Alupis 6y ago

I find it astounding that just any old for profit company can decide to ruin a world-wide public resource just to turn a few bucks. In 2020. I'd expect that from something like the East India Company in the 1700's or something. Not a modern company in a modern society.

oh_sigh 6y ago
Do you shake your fist at every airplane that flies overhead too?
- Alupis 6y ago
  The country agreed to that. One day the country may decide against it. No-Fly Zones can be created. A US company airplane passing over my house doesn't impact people in India, for example. Airplanes have proven utility. Airplanes proved their utility before bothering people worldwide.
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    The country agreed to the starlink satellites as well, considering they received FCC approval. The country can still decide against it and now allow any more launches, and the satellites that are up there will come down naturally in a few years time. You may even be able to forcibly deorbit them if they still have propellant left (not sure if they do or not). No-fly zones are almost always created for the government to do government things, and not for the direct benefit of the public (ie reducing airport noise for nearby residents). A US plane passing over your house doesn't impact people in India either negatively or positively(except for the consequences of global warming). These satellites passing over the US and India can equally benefit people in the US and India. It's not like starlink is a US only service and SpaceX is going to prevent anyone in India from having access. Satellites also have proven utility, as does the internet, which is why groups like the UN General Assembly HRC declared access to the internet as a basic human right.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      What is not proven is if Starlink will work the way it's been sold to you as an idea. What is also no proven is if it can be profitable even if it does work. People in these remote places of the world are unlikely to be able to afford internet... not have a need or desire for it. They have other priorities. Not to mention there's already ways to get very high-speed internet to remote villages that want it. The only barrier is cost - but for motivated villages and/or governments, it's not very expensive ($10's of thousands up front cost, trivial long-term costs). I've sat in many conferences with people building out wireless networks in remote regions - very fascinating work. There's some pretty non-trivial chance Starlink was only approved because of the Cult of Elon. SpaceX wants to put 1,584 satellites in orbit[1] to the cost of around $10 Billion USD, and will need to replace these routinely due to orbital decay. There's only 2,666 satellites in orbit currently[2]. 1,327 of which are from the US[2]. Re: No fly zones - they can be established for all sorts of things. There's no fly zones around many amusement parks, for example, and not just because of the remote possibility of some terrorist attack. > UN General Assembly HRC declared access to the internet as a basic human right That seems simply to be virtue signaling. Of course everyone should have access to information and knowledge, but that's not exclusive to the internet. It costs money to provide internet access. Basic Human Rights don't cost money to exercise. The Right to be Free doesn't require a monthly payment to some mega-corp. If it did, you would not be free, would you? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink [2] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database#:~:text=In%2Ddepth%20details%20on%20the,purpose%2C%20and%20other%20operational%20details https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database#:~:text=....
      - oh_sigh 6y ago
        Literally anything that hasn't been done yet hasn't been proven, so I don't really understand how you can use that as an argument against it. At worst, if it is unsuccessful, then the satellites will just stop getting launched and will all fall back to earth after a few years, and Elon et al will be out a few billion dollars. > People in these remote places of the world are unlikely to be able to afford internet... not have a need or desire for it. They have other priorities. Not my experience visiting some remote areas of India, Nepal, and Tibet. A single anecdote, but I gave a man a ride to the top of a mountain near Ganden monastery so he could use his cell phone. He went with a list of messages of various people in his family and who to send the messages to. He would normally walk 3 hours uphill in order to get service to send those messages (This was in 2007, maybe things have changed since then). > The only barrier is cost - but for motivated villages and/or governments, it's not very expensive ($10's of thousands up front cost, trivial long-term costs). Many places in the world wouldn't be able to drum up tens of thousands of dollars, and it isn't for a lack of motivation. But they might be able to drum up $500 and then $60/mo. > There's some pretty non-trivial chance Starlink was only approved because of the Cult of Elon. The FCC isn't composed of the twitter mob or the spacex subreddit. I'm not really interested in debating positive or negative rights, or whether the UN was virtue signaling. My point was that many people view internet access as extremely important for humanity, and starlink and other projects may be an incredible boon for the world, at the expense of some astronomy observations.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Not me, but I know I read something once lamenting that almost any place in the world, you can be lost in the wilderness but will still see the occasional plane or at least contrail, and thus can't avoid civilization.
guerrilla 6y ago
This is how many externalities work, most just aren't so globally distributed.

by Alupis 6y ago

oh_sigh 6y ago

Do you shake your fist at every airplane that flies overhead too?

Alupis 6y ago
The country agreed to that. One day the country may decide against it. No-Fly Zones can be created. A US company airplane passing over my house doesn't impact people in India, for example. Airplanes have proven utility. Airplanes proved their utility before bothering people worldwide.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  The country agreed to the starlink satellites as well, considering they received FCC approval. The country can still decide against it and now allow any more launches, and the satellites that are up there will come down naturally in a few years time. You may even be able to forcibly deorbit them if they still have propellant left (not sure if they do or not). No-fly zones are almost always created for the government to do government things, and not for the direct benefit of the public (ie reducing airport noise for nearby residents). A US plane passing over your house doesn't impact people in India either negatively or positively(except for the consequences of global warming). These satellites passing over the US and India can equally benefit people in the US and India. It's not like starlink is a US only service and SpaceX is going to prevent anyone in India from having access. Satellites also have proven utility, as does the internet, which is why groups like the UN General Assembly HRC declared access to the internet as a basic human right.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    What is not proven is if Starlink will work the way it's been sold to you as an idea. What is also no proven is if it can be profitable even if it does work. People in these remote places of the world are unlikely to be able to afford internet... not have a need or desire for it. They have other priorities. Not to mention there's already ways to get very high-speed internet to remote villages that want it. The only barrier is cost - but for motivated villages and/or governments, it's not very expensive ($10's of thousands up front cost, trivial long-term costs). I've sat in many conferences with people building out wireless networks in remote regions - very fascinating work. There's some pretty non-trivial chance Starlink was only approved because of the Cult of Elon. SpaceX wants to put 1,584 satellites in orbit[1] to the cost of around $10 Billion USD, and will need to replace these routinely due to orbital decay. There's only 2,666 satellites in orbit currently[2]. 1,327 of which are from the US[2]. Re: No fly zones - they can be established for all sorts of things. There's no fly zones around many amusement parks, for example, and not just because of the remote possibility of some terrorist attack. > UN General Assembly HRC declared access to the internet as a basic human right That seems simply to be virtue signaling. Of course everyone should have access to information and knowledge, but that's not exclusive to the internet. It costs money to provide internet access. Basic Human Rights don't cost money to exercise. The Right to be Free doesn't require a monthly payment to some mega-corp. If it did, you would not be free, would you? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink [2] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database#:~:text=In%2Ddepth%20details%20on%20the,purpose%2C%20and%20other%20operational%20details https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database#:~:text=....
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      Literally anything that hasn't been done yet hasn't been proven, so I don't really understand how you can use that as an argument against it. At worst, if it is unsuccessful, then the satellites will just stop getting launched and will all fall back to earth after a few years, and Elon et al will be out a few billion dollars. > People in these remote places of the world are unlikely to be able to afford internet... not have a need or desire for it. They have other priorities. Not my experience visiting some remote areas of India, Nepal, and Tibet. A single anecdote, but I gave a man a ride to the top of a mountain near Ganden monastery so he could use his cell phone. He went with a list of messages of various people in his family and who to send the messages to. He would normally walk 3 hours uphill in order to get service to send those messages (This was in 2007, maybe things have changed since then). > The only barrier is cost - but for motivated villages and/or governments, it's not very expensive ($10's of thousands up front cost, trivial long-term costs). Many places in the world wouldn't be able to drum up tens of thousands of dollars, and it isn't for a lack of motivation. But they might be able to drum up $500 and then $60/mo. > There's some pretty non-trivial chance Starlink was only approved because of the Cult of Elon. The FCC isn't composed of the twitter mob or the spacex subreddit. I'm not really interested in debating positive or negative rights, or whether the UN was virtue signaling. My point was that many people view internet access as extremely important for humanity, and starlink and other projects may be an incredible boon for the world, at the expense of some astronomy observations.
perl4ever 6y ago
Not me, but I know I read something once lamenting that almost any place in the world, you can be lost in the wilderness but will still see the occasional plane or at least contrail, and thus can't avoid civilization.

guerrilla 6y ago

This is how many externalities work, most just aren't so globally distributed.