10 ms·

So I guess companies will now fill the entire global sky with thousands of sats just to make up for the fact that the US government ignores rural houses when it

• fulmicoton 6y ago
  I'm French too. France is tiny. It is not about the number of bakery you have but how far your are from the closest medium size city. Also, the satellite are not geostationary above the US. They rotate above the Earth and will bring the internet everywhere... Bringing internet to everyone in the World is nothing to sneeze at. (I agree with the last bit of the rant. It sucks that private companies can launch whatever they want in space. That is not specific to the US however.)
• sgt 6y ago
  But are all villages in France like that? I doubt it. Even in Norway there are thousands of people without access to sufficiently fast broadband, and some 80k DSL customers who apparently will never get fiber at all. The proposed solution for the latter is to use 4G/5G, which comes with its own issues of course. I'd say even in well developed countries, Starlink is a nice option to have. As I understand it, the 42Mbps they see now is only going to improve as well.
  • bambax 6y ago
    Yes I think all French villages have at least super fast ADSL. The US is much larger than France of course, but whatever the reason, it's incredible and really upsetting that they can pollute the earth like this, and for the rest of eternity, just to solve a temporary domestic problem.
    • schmidp 6y ago
      The satellites deorbit automatically. You are misinformed.
    • dwild 6y ago
      > The US is much larger than France of course, but whatever the reason, it's incredible and really upsetting that they can pollute the earth like this, and for the rest of eternity, just to solve a temporary domestic problem. Temporary domestic problem? It's a problem worldwide, the fact that France can get fast ADSL almost everywhere doesn't means it's true worldwide. Wireless has the advantage of not needing a huge infrastructure locally, which is a huge help where you don't have any. I remember a presentation from Charles Sirois, one of the guy that brought cellular networks to Quebec. He told us how he helped build some cellular networks in some place where they didn't even have phones. Sure I have no doubt it wasn't easy to build theses towers, but it was certainly much easier than bringing cable to every single building. Every business had cellphones afterward, it was a huge boom, it helped develop so many industry. Now imagine the same but with freaking internet. This is going to be a huge boom for so many third world countries. But no you are right, France can pay to lay fiber everywhere, theses third world country should just do the same, they are just not trying enough.
      • bambax 6y ago
        Ah yes, third world countries. That's what Musk is after, that great philanthropist.
    • thu2111 6y ago
      ADSL and super-fast don't go together as adjectives. ADSL is by far now a legacy technology.
  • apexalpha 6y ago
    Eventually everyone is going to get connected, yes. I mean someone in Norway also had to draw a powerline to these people, to use electricity. Why not draw a fiber link, too? It's just part of infrastructure. I'm not saying that Starlink isn't useful. I'm just really wondering what the implications for astronomy are going to be, whether we will always see these things at dusk. Now it's Starlink, but what if 3 or 4 companies in total want to have a network? What if on top of that China and India want their own, just like GPS? It just seems we're running head first into this without anyone thinking of the implications or governance of it.
    • Aeolun 6y ago
      > I'm just really wondering what the implications for astronomy are going to be More space based telescopes?
    • heavenlyblue 6y ago
      You don’t need to draw a power line if you can just tap to a local mountain river
    • sgt 6y ago
      I think it'll be nicely self regulated. It's expensive to run, those that are not profitable will not be able to maintain their network and being in low orbit, those satellites will fall into the sky and burn up.
    • ballenf 6y ago
      Hopefully using satellites like this is a temporary solution for the next decade or two until we have a better solution. Their limited lifespan is what makes me much less pessimistic than I would be. They have relatively high maintenance costs which means that if utilization is low, it won't make sense to keep replacing them.
    • menybuvico 6y ago
      The power lines were, to a large extent, built with U.S. money after the war. Many rural areas have seen little infrastructure investments since then. Anyway, if governments, businesses and individuals care enough then it's easy enough to develop that infrastructure now. The satellites will come down in a few years. Who volunteers to tell Musk?
• ShorsHammer 6y ago
  If your inlaws weren't scheduled to get an upgrade to fibre and were instead cut off from the world due to costs of servicing remote areas would this comment be different in any way? It's a _big_ world.
• reportingsjr 6y ago
  On the flip side, why should the majority of us in denser areas in the US subsidize people who want to live in exurbs/rural areas? If you want to live in a place like that, be prepared to pay the cost for the infrastructure. We already pay enough subsidies for roads, water, power, etc in rural/exurban areas.
  • bambax 6y ago
    Because that's what a country is.
  • apexalpha 6y ago
    I'm healthy but I pay for those who are not. I grew up fine but I pay for those with special needs. I have a job during Covid but I pay for those who don't. I guess in Europe we call this 'society'.
    • thehappypm 6y ago
      Europeans really barely understand the US. Yes, of course, we understand how investing in communities makes a society work. What Europeans don’t understand is just how fucking huge the US is and how low-density huge swaths of the country are. Farmers might live 500 miles from a metro of 100,000 people. It’s a huge challenge to give everyone fiber without the 1% of hyper rural America doubling costs for everyone else.
      • ohgodplsno 6y ago
        Yes, yes, all of Europe fits into Texas, and even Texas fits into Texas, and that's just one state. We get how mind-bogglingly huge the US is. It's been said over and over again by every single american whenever the subject of your subpar infrastructure comes up. Europe is just as big. Not as dense, maybe. But your telcos were given hundreds of billions to do something (that should have been the job of the government), and simply pocketed them, with your government doing nothing about it. So, if that money was properly invested, instead of polluting low orbit, that'd be nice.
• tomohawk 6y ago
  We are working with a county in West Virginia that is 2 hours by car from Washington DC. 2 hours! The school officials have decided to do remote schooling. Fully 50% of the students have no internet at all. Another 30% have internet that is incapable of remote. You might say that they're too poor. And that is part of it. But there are plenty of people with lots of money in DC and the surrounding area that would be interested in moving here or having a vacation cabin, but cannot buy internet access for any amount of money. It just doesn't exist. The communication laws desperately need an upgrade from the 1930s laws on the books that regulate everything like it is a telephone invented in the 1800s.
  • thehappypm 6y ago
    West Virginia is a bit cherry-picked, it is by far the most systemically poor state in the mid-Atlantic, and it’s got immense infrastructure challenges due to the mountains. I sympathize with those people, but the vast majority of the US is doing better.
• mrfusion 6y ago
  Sad this is the top comment.
  • andruby 6y ago
    Can you elaborate why you find this sad? Do you disagree with the opinion in the comment?
    • dencodev 6y ago
      >spamming the entire nightsky with to the point that it prevent astronomers from obtaining useful data Is simply not true. It's outright false and the commenter that posted it clearly just has an axe to grind against Elon Musk along with a million other people on this website
• dx87 6y ago
  In all your anti-american rambling, you are ignoring that SpaceX isn't the only company doing this. > Other operators include the London-based OneWeb, which has launched 74 of what it hopes will be a gigantic fleet of 48,000 satellites
  • apexalpha 6y ago
    It's not anti-American rambling. As I said in my other comment I'm aware of other companies doing the same. Although an American company will be first, with clearance from the American government. I'm more drawn to the fact that the American government can greenlight this, even though it has global implications. These things will also impact astronomy in Argentina. Where can they lodge a complaint? They will impact the night sky in Europe, yet we have no say in American government or decision making. I can understand this has never been a problem because no one has ever been planning to launch 14,000 sats! But within 10 - 15 year maybe 3 or 4 companies might do it. Then we have 50,000 sats in LEO. Will this be worth it? And if so, who weighs these pro's and cons? Just one government? Feels like we're running headfirst into a new world where no one has thought of the consequences yet.
    • dx87 6y ago
      I agree that it's irresponsible, but most of your comment is "American infrastructure is horrible, European infrastructure is great. I can't believe American would force this on the rest of the world", even though it's a European company that's planning to put more of these satellites in the sky than every other company combined.
    • flingo 6y ago
      > I'm more drawn to the fact that the American government can greenlight this, even though it has global implications. They only need to greenlight the launch, and radio-transmissions over the US. As far as I know, there is no central authority anywhere to stop you from putting/keeping a satellite in a certain orbit. (aside from someone else moving it out of that orbit by force) Space border laws aren't super-well developed yet.
  • hylaride 6y ago
• uberswe 6y ago
  The US is terrible when it comes to infrastructure. Sweden is similar to France here, expanding fiber internet to all households that want it even if they are rural. Someone mentioned Norway as a reply but I think it's an unfair comparison as Norway will have more trouble building this infrastructure since there is mountains everywhere.
• snicker7 6y ago
  France also has a high population density. Even "rural" areas are still close to major population centers. That is not true in rural Siberia or the Rocky Mountains.
• syshum 6y ago
  I am sorry but how it is the role of government to provide everyone with internet? The American government "refuses" because there is no Constitutional Authority for which it could use to provide such a service, and that is a good thing People seem to think government should just provide everything to everyone, the government should be very limited in size and scope, and providing internet is WELL outside what a limited government should be doing. under the federalist system that is the United States you could make an augment that STATE governments could provide such a service but it should not be a Federal program at all
  • patentatt 6y ago
    Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads." In an alternate reality, it’s easy to see how this could be interpreted broadly as meaning the government has an impetus to provide for communications infrastructure.
    • syshum 6y ago
      This clause like many others have been abused to the point there the literal words do not mean anything, this is the so call "living document" interpretation of the constitution, one that should be rejected as it sets in place a "standard" that the words mean what ever we choose them to mean There was an Amendment process put in place expressly to prevent the type of "reinterpretation" you are advocating for, if we the people desire the US Federal Government to provide us with Internet then we the people need to pass an constitutional amendment declaring that power
      • patentatt 6y ago
        "... The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. ..." - Thomas Jefferson https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/tho... Jefferson was in favor of living people controlling government, rather than trying to divine what dead people would have wanted. The living document approach to understanding the constitution is a way to keep the text of the constitution static while still allowing for each generation to interpret it as they see fit. It's a pretty good compromise. Also: words always mean whatever we choose them to mean. As my favorite law professor would always remind us, words don't leap off the page and become reality by magic. People read the words, and people take actions. So what you're disparaging as "reinterpreting" I'd argue is just "interpreting," and is a necessary component of all written language.
• delcaran 6y ago
  I'm in Italy, 15km from the province capital, 7km from a major turistic village, in a village of 3000 souls. I'm waiting for 2Mbps ADSL since 2007.
  • squarefoot 6y ago
    Where do you live? (I'm Italian as well). Mobile connections aside, there are some vendors who would reach you through WiFi if you're in line of sight with any of their repeaters. (eolo.it and alternatyva.it came to mind, but there are others). In 2009 I brought a whoppy 4DL/4UL connection (with a really low latency excellent for online gaming) to a house in a rural area where the only available option would have been a 57k analog modem. Now there are much faster solutions. Also, don't trust the national provider Telecom Italia. Before finding that solution, we pestered them with requests to cover that area, and their canned response has always been "we're working on it", while actually they were waiting for more people to move in that area so that it would have been more convenient for them.
    • delcaran 6y ago
      Province of Udine. Yes, Eolo has been my provider for the last 10 years, I was one of the earliest adopters in the province. The service has always been good, but worsening in the last 2 years due to too many contracts been sold without improving the infrastructure. IE, during the lockdown I had to rely on the 4G network (even checking email was not possible through Eolo) and somedays I still have troubles. If I may, which provider offers you 4DL/4UL and how much does it costs?
      • squarefoot 6y ago
        The 4UL/4DL was an offer by Alternatyva.it back then. I don't recall the costs, but they were comparable, although a bit higher, to a wired ADSL. They kept it until Telecom Italia finally covered that area with faster ADSL, which if memory serves had been 5 or 6 years later. I seem to remember we had to settle to a 4/4 setup although the contract allowed a bit more DL speed, due to the distance from the only repeater we had in line of sight. Performance was good during day and very good from evening, with speed tests around or very near the theoretical maximum.
• moltar 6y ago
  Maybe it’s not at full capacity? I mean they are just testing it after all. Lots of fine tuning to do.
• mayama 6y ago
  You are ignoring millions of people in rural Asia and Africa who don't have internet connection, or a spotty 3g/4g connection for internet. Satellite internet is legitimate use case for these people. Starlink might be too costly for most of them, but some other satellite internet company might cater to them.
  • rckoepke 6y ago
    Something like 45% of the world's people don't have internet access right now, so that number would be billions, rather than millions. Also, Starlink doesn't have to be too costly for them. The constellation's operating costs could potentially be fully paid by North American and European users. The satellites would still incidentally fly over the southern hemisphere, and any revenue at all from Africa/South America/Asia would mostly just add to Starlinks bottom line profit. The marginal cost of additional users should be minimal once general revenue targets are met. I'd like to hear whether the throughput will increase with additional satellites, or whether it requires re-designs. I wouldn't expect the current satellites to be saturated with users by the currently "limited" number of beta test users. Cost of end-user terminals also will likely have to come down significantly before the worlds poorest would have any access. Although sharing the cost of that among a large group would help, it would also help a lot if the speeds were actually closer to gigabit for sharing the connection.
  • paledot 6y ago
    I'm looking forward to seeing StarLink go up against the Great Firewall. Although Tesla is booming in China right now, so the CCP would probably just retaliate for making service available to Chinese citizens by going after Musk's other company.
• shrubble 6y ago
  About 70% of the earth is covered by water. If you had a sailboat with an auxiliary motor you could go hang out in the Sargasso Sea and have perfect weather most of the time, eat healthy with fresh caught fish and use silar panels to have enough electricity for laptop and starlink modem.
• bryanlarsen 6y ago
  The latest generation of Starlink satellites is invisible to the naked eye once fully raised to full height in a couple of months. The impact on astronomers is real, but very small. OTOH, the benefit is the ability to participate in the modern economy. Cost/benefit to the world seems pretty clear to me.
  • gamblor956 6y ago
    Seems to weigh on the side of not interfering with astronomy, given that we have plenty of alternative options for accessing the internet.
    • dwild 6y ago
      Your comment kind of make me sad... this is such a big issue of perspective. It's something that I often see coming from the US, but any first world country often has that issue, we forget that there's more than us in the world. > In 2019, Internet access became available to 51 percent of the world's population. When households are taken into account, the index increases, reaching 57.8 percent. 42% of the world don't have internet. We aren't talking about not having competitive internet, literally, no internet at all. At the bare minimum, you forgot about 42% of the world... that kind of sad.
      • gamblor956 6y ago
        The 42% of the world that doesn't currently have internet won't be able to afford Starlink anyway, and unless Elon has discovered a way to make satellites 99% cheaper, Starlink will never be the solution for them.
    • thu2111 6y ago
      Why? That's not obvious at all. The internet is useful, even essential for many modern economic activities. Modern astronomy is useful for what, exactly? Learning things about objects that are physically impossible to reach? Ask almost anyone what they care about most, the internet or a book on astronomy, and they'll think you're joking.
• eloff 6y ago
  My parents live in the mountains of Panama. They have ADSL internet, but it's so bad at times they have to resort to tethering over a weak 3G connection and paying per GB for very slow data. They are waiting anxiously for Starlink to be available outside of the US. Starlink is not just about the US, it's a global service that will connect people anywhere the local infrastructure is not yet up to speed. Also comparing rural France to rural US is oranges and apples. The US is almost 20x larger than France.
• tengbretson 6y ago
  > to the point that it prevent astronomers from obtaining useful data? Define useful
• lfuller 6y ago
  To be fair, the network is currently only at ~5% capacity and average speeds can be expected to increase as the constellation is fleshed out and direct laser linkages are brought online.
• xkcd-sucks 6y ago
  Ah but then another company can send telescope satellites to a higher orbit and charge out the ass for NSaaS (night sky as a service)
• sizzle 6y ago
  Is it possible to retrofit and run fiber across sewer systems, telephone poles, and electrical towers so we can connect rural areas without much effort digging trenches to get there by using existing infrastructure?
• Mandatum 6y ago
  I think we're going to see some pretty awesome, in the true sense of the word, activism on this one. Hacked sats. Pirate-style space cleanup sats. It's gonna make an excellent Wired article.
• HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
  Imagine being so full of yourself that you forget that literally half of the planet is not connected to the internet in any way whatsoever. The world isn't the States.
• glenneroo 6y ago
  Living in Vienna, Austria, I can give at least 4 locations in the inner city which don't receive even this speed of connection even though the city promised to roll out fiber 15ish years ago. Then our telecom became privatized and now we are stuck with 40/10 (on good days) DSL connections because no matter how often I call and ask for them to do something about it, they push a hybrid DSL/LTE Modem on me which isn't significantly faster.