4 ms·

An Elon Musk hater here: Starlink provides an excellent example of a deeper problem I see with new technology vs. traditional infrastructure. We know how to do

An Elon Musk hater here: Starlink provides an excellent example of a deeper problem I see with new technology vs. traditional infrastructure. We know how to do broadband in rural places. We do it all over the planet. We simply tax income and spend it on infrastructure. Elon Musk (and the likes) see an opportunity to disrupt this simple answer and make money selling a different unproven solution that has the potential to be at best as good. For me this is bad news. If politicians get sold by the likes of Elon Musk, it will stand in the way of traditional proven infrastructure and—in the case of starlink—fast and affordable broadband connection for rural communities.

rddbs 5y ago
It’s hard to fault SpaceX for realizing a market opportunity here. If they can bring decent Internet to rural areas who don’t currently have broadband access, that’s just mutually beneficial for SpaceX and those customers. When (if) those customers ever get broadband access by additional infrastructure investment, SpaceX will need to find a way to provide better value. I’m not sure I understand how this is a bad thing.
extrapickles 5y ago
After investing[0] billions per year in traditional communications companies, we still have people where the only way they can get service is by laying the fiber themselves. States have also been trying to invest in expanding fiber, but traditional companies have been just pocketing the money and blocking anyone else from improving things (eg: google fiber). Starlink seems to be a very cheap option in comparison, even if it has LoS and overheating problems. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tag/rural-broadband/ https://arstechnica.com/tag/rural-broadband/
- runarberg 5y ago
  Other countries seem to be able to get fast internet connection with traditional infrastructure to small towns and communities. Why not America?
BoxOfRain 5y ago
>We know how to do broadband in rural places. We do it all over the planet. We simply tax income and spend it on infrastructure. The problem is that this view means you need politicians who care enough about the issue and many simply don't. I like there being a solution that eliminates a lot of the political factors that cause endless dither and delay over building traditional infrastructure for rural broadband, and for that matter my opinion of Elon Musk is still higher than most of my country's politicians when it comes to technological policy. There's also another important use-case for things like Starlink which is people who can't be reached by traditional infrastructure. These are people who live in remote parts of the world where governments won't consider investing in infrastructure on grounds of cost, and people who live a nomadic lifestyle (liveaboard sailors for example, and van dwellers depending on where they go). I don't think they should be cut off from the internet because of an overly sceptical attitude towards new approaches.
- babesh 5y ago
  Stepping back, low Earth orbit satellite constellations appear to be a better solution than fiber for these remote locations. Then the debate becomes whether it should be a public, private, or private but publicly funded program. Amazon and OneWeb are also looking to build constellations. It isn’t a StarLink question.

rddbs 5y ago

It’s hard to fault SpaceX for realizing a market opportunity here. If they can bring decent Internet to rural areas who don’t currently have broadband access, that’s just mutually beneficial for SpaceX and those customers. When (if) those customers ever get broadband access by additional infrastructure investment, SpaceX will need to find a way to provide better value. I’m not sure I understand how this is a bad thing.

extrapickles 5y ago

After investing[0] billions per year in traditional communications companies, we still have people where the only way they can get service is by laying the fiber themselves. States have also been trying to invest in expanding fiber, but traditional companies have been just pocketing the money and blocking anyone else from improving things (eg: google fiber). Starlink seems to be a very cheap option in comparison, even if it has LoS and overheating problems. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tag/rural-broadband/ https://arstechnica.com/tag/rural-broadband/

runarberg 5y ago
Other countries seem to be able to get fast internet connection with traditional infrastructure to small towns and communities. Why not America?

BoxOfRain 5y ago

>We know how to do broadband in rural places. We do it all over the planet. We simply tax income and spend it on infrastructure. The problem is that this view means you need politicians who care enough about the issue and many simply don't. I like there being a solution that eliminates a lot of the political factors that cause endless dither and delay over building traditional infrastructure for rural broadband, and for that matter my opinion of Elon Musk is still higher than most of my country's politicians when it comes to technological policy. There's also another important use-case for things like Starlink which is people who can't be reached by traditional infrastructure. These are people who live in remote parts of the world where governments won't consider investing in infrastructure on grounds of cost, and people who live a nomadic lifestyle (liveaboard sailors for example, and van dwellers depending on where they go). I don't think they should be cut off from the internet because of an overly sceptical attitude towards new approaches.

babesh 5y ago
Stepping back, low Earth orbit satellite constellations appear to be a better solution than fiber for these remote locations. Then the debate becomes whether it should be a public, private, or private but publicly funded program. Amazon and OneWeb are also looking to build constellations. It isn’t a StarLink question.