3 ms·

Starlink will never() directly compete with most of the in-ground Internet providers. Even with tens of thousands of birds up, the physics just don't allow the

Starlink will never() directly compete with most of the in-ground Internet providers. Even with tens of thousands of birds up, the physics just don't allow the kind of bandwidth density that cables do. ) However: never say never!

BenjiWiebe 6y ago
Maybe it should say that StarLink will never compete with an in-ground ISP that wants to be competitive themselves.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  Or the other way round: why should telcos sink billions into covering rural areas with extremely low population density where they'll never be able to recoup costs even closely? They're not having any incentive to do so now, they'll have even less once Starlink is up and running because half the target customers will be happy with that. That is why basic telecommunication infrastructure should be built out by the government, similar to roads, sewers/drinking water/gas pipes and postal service. Letting private companies do the job without mandating equal service will always lead to rural areas being dropped off the radar, and besides it's an enormous waste of resources if two or more service providers have to dig up half the country to bury infrastructure.
Jugurtha 6y ago
>Starlink will never() directly compete with most of the in-ground Internet providers. It only has to compete with in-ground Internet providers that don't provide internet in-ground. There are a lot of them. StarLink will do for the Internet what satellite dishes did for TV and radio in many, many parts of the world that only had access to government controlled broadcasts. Satellite dishes allowed these people to have access to other cultures and become aware of things their governments were hiding from them. The reason I say StarLink is underrated is that SpaceX is a U.S. company providing internet from space. Pretty hard for a government body, or a government, to control this. Even if they try, there definitely will be a black market for the receivers and people will get them where they need them. There will be customs agent who will take a bribe from someone importing them illegally. That's without even addressing the fact that some governments spy on their citizens and arrest them. Granted, nothing guarantees that a StarLink customer won't have U.S. intelligence deep packet inspect the heck of their traffic, but the bigger threat for these people is their own government, and serious jail time for nothing. The lesser of two evils will play a role in adoption.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  With satellite TV, you need only receive and controlling who can do that is a matter of DRM which the transmitting companies struggle to implement securely. In the case of some satellite TV broadcasters, no DRM is employed. With satellite internet however, centralized control is trivial because merely listening to the satellite is not sufficient; the satellite must also accept data you transmit to it. This means that it will be trivial for the American government to regulate Starlink. Whether other governments can regulate Starlink as well will depend on a few matters, not least of which will be the American government's willingness to facilitate their regulation. And even in some countries the American government dislikes, access to Starlink will likely be blocked by mandate of the American government (I wouldn't expect feds to tolerate Starlink selling subscriptions to Iranians or providing service to stations located in Iran.)
  - Jugurtha 6y ago
    >(I wouldn't expect feds to tolerate Starlink selling subscriptions to Iranians or providing service to stations located in Iran.) I would expect that, on the contrary, the U.S. would very much want to get as many citizens of a nation of interest as possible on a network they have some control over. On the one hand, more people chatting leads to more insight. On the other hand, more people chatting creates noise that allows to hide people exfiltrating "interesting information". On the more "businessy" side of things, Facebook and Google have been trying to enter China for quite some time. Google has through Dragonfly until there was a leak, and it announced shutting it down last year. The problem in my opinion is that, to get those few billion people on the internet meant that these corporations had to deal with the Chinese government and "compromise their morals". If getting these people on the network is done through customer-premises equipment, it can be useful. It may prove harder to control the flow of devices than it is to control a corporation. Facebook may as well become an important SpaceX customer. They tried to increase penetration with internet.org and deals with major telecom companies. Both have tried with balloons and drones. StarLink is a new mode (well, not entirely new, but one that has become more affordable). It may create tensions between China and the U.S., and the former may restrict imports of these devices, but they'll find their way. It could also give leverage to the U.S.:"you want us to restrict your citizens' access to StarLink, give us something". Who knows.

BenjiWiebe 6y ago

Maybe it should say that StarLink will never compete with an in-ground ISP that wants to be competitive themselves.

mschuster91 6y ago
Or the other way round: why should telcos sink billions into covering rural areas with extremely low population density where they'll never be able to recoup costs even closely? They're not having any incentive to do so now, they'll have even less once Starlink is up and running because half the target customers will be happy with that. That is why basic telecommunication infrastructure should be built out by the government, similar to roads, sewers/drinking water/gas pipes and postal service. Letting private companies do the job without mandating equal service will always lead to rural areas being dropped off the radar, and besides it's an enormous waste of resources if two or more service providers have to dig up half the country to bury infrastructure.

Jugurtha 6y ago

>Starlink will never() directly compete with most of the in-ground Internet providers. It only has to compete with in-ground Internet providers that don't provide internet in-ground. There are a lot of them. StarLink will do for the Internet what satellite dishes did for TV and radio in many, many parts of the world that only had access to government controlled broadcasts. Satellite dishes allowed these people to have access to other cultures and become aware of things their governments were hiding from them. The reason I say StarLink is underrated is that SpaceX is a U.S. company providing internet from space. Pretty hard for a government body, or a government, to control this. Even if they try, there definitely will be a black market for the receivers and people will get them where they need them. There will be customs agent who will take a bribe from someone importing them illegally. That's without even addressing the fact that some governments spy on their citizens and arrest them. Granted, nothing guarantees that a StarLink customer won't have U.S. intelligence deep packet inspect the heck of their traffic, but the bigger threat for these people is their own government, and serious jail time for nothing. The lesser of two evils will play a role in adoption.

bigbubba 6y ago
With satellite TV, you need only receive and controlling who can do that is a matter of DRM which the transmitting companies struggle to implement securely. In the case of some satellite TV broadcasters, no DRM is employed. With satellite internet however, centralized control is trivial because merely listening to the satellite is not sufficient; the satellite must also accept data you transmit to it. This means that it will be trivial for the American government to regulate Starlink. Whether other governments can regulate Starlink as well will depend on a few matters, not least of which will be the American government's willingness to facilitate their regulation. And even in some countries the American government dislikes, access to Starlink will likely be blocked by mandate of the American government (I wouldn't expect feds to tolerate Starlink selling subscriptions to Iranians or providing service to stations located in Iran.)
- Jugurtha 6y ago
  >(I wouldn't expect feds to tolerate Starlink selling subscriptions to Iranians or providing service to stations located in Iran.) I would expect that, on the contrary, the U.S. would very much want to get as many citizens of a nation of interest as possible on a network they have some control over. On the one hand, more people chatting leads to more insight. On the other hand, more people chatting creates noise that allows to hide people exfiltrating "interesting information". On the more "businessy" side of things, Facebook and Google have been trying to enter China for quite some time. Google has through Dragonfly until there was a leak, and it announced shutting it down last year. The problem in my opinion is that, to get those few billion people on the internet meant that these corporations had to deal with the Chinese government and "compromise their morals". If getting these people on the network is done through customer-premises equipment, it can be useful. It may prove harder to control the flow of devices than it is to control a corporation. Facebook may as well become an important SpaceX customer. They tried to increase penetration with internet.org and deals with major telecom companies. Both have tried with balloons and drones. StarLink is a new mode (well, not entirely new, but one that has become more affordable). It may create tensions between China and the U.S., and the former may restrict imports of these devices, but they'll find their way. It could also give leverage to the U.S.:"you want us to restrict your citizens' access to StarLink, give us something". Who knows.