3 ms·

Are you even serious? Cluttering the sky with THOUSANDS of sattelites is okey, while other providers offer comparable service with.. 3 sattelites, that operate

by dgan 5y ago

Are you even serious? Cluttering the sky with THOUSANDS of sattelites is okey, while other providers offer comparable service with.. 3 sattelites, that operate for decades? This is absolutely the worse way of providing Low to Medium quality connection to richest world, at the expense of everyone else. I am running my half broken laptop from 2016,that I d hope, would last much longer.

adwn 5y ago
> while other providers offer comparable service with.. 3 sattelites They really don't. Not in terms of bandwidth, not in terms of latency, and not in terms of maximum number of serviceable customers.
- dgan 5y ago
  Current offers are 50mpbs on a working infrastructure, for 50$ per month. Starlink now, is a 120mpbs in ideal conditions, for 100$ per month, 500$ upfront and thousands of spacejunk to be replaced every 5 years. Sorry but I dont see how is that game changer. You won't (I hope) play online shooters with satellite link, latency is a meager consolation
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    High latency isn't just concern for the gamers. It matters to people holding online meetings or working on remote desktops. Which means almost everyone who wants to work from home.
inglor_cz 5y ago
I am being serious. Cluttering of the sky is unfortunate, but people in the 19th century were really unhappy about electric wires or wagons without horses and we cope now. There are almost 8 billion people on this planet and we cannot expect them to enjoy certain standard of living without some sacrifices. If Starlink parameters are Low to Medium for you, I wonder what your standards are. Perhaps you are very fortunate in where you live (a major urban center of a first world country?). An alternative to Starlink would be a very extensive network of optic cables all around, and it certainly isn't clear to me at all that this would be eco-friendlier than Starlink. I also don't think that Starlink is going to be a first world project only. On the contrary, I think its biggest impact will be in the poorer part of the world. People there will likely share connections (100 USD a month is quite a lot in poorer countries), but still. Even a 10 Mbps shared connection is a huge deal for someone in Kinshasa. The worst obstacle will actually be politics. Starlink won't be easily controlled/censored by politicians, so I expect them to hate it and go out of their way to ban it. As for the laptop: yeah, 2016. Reasonably good hardware, you can run Windows 10 on it. But you wouldn't use PC hardware from 2000. The innovation cycle is real, only its length is different in various branches of industry. The oldest computer I run is from 2008 and it is noticeably energy hungry; I am not sure if at this point, swapping it for something new wouldn't be easier on the Earth. Not a simple calculation at all.
- dgan 5y ago
  Points one by one: - If you believe sky cluttering isn't a problem, I can't argue against that. I believe it's much bigger problem, than metallic wires across land fields. Just because metal wires are localized, but tens of thousands satellites, are all flying above OUR heads (yes, mine included, while I don't live in a country where I have a word to say about Elon's narcissistic dreams). - 4G works awesomely. There are already satellite internet providers if you live in such rural area, they offers up to 50mbps bandwidth, for 50$ monthly - Huh? So you believe that 3rd world country is not able to build 4/5G towers, but their citizens are somehow able to pay monthly fees for internet to an American billionaire? Or maybe the fees will be somehow so low that 1$ per day will be plenty enough to pay for satellite infrastructure? Wait, for satellite infrastructure that needs to be replaced every 5 years? How does your math works? You are completely delusional. - Not running windows, but I disgress. My point is to compare today available satellites, to SpaceX sattelites. You are comparing on different time periods, while I am not. Those 20 years serving ARE still made today! Your comparison is invalid.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    "tens of thousands satellites, are all flying above OUR heads" Do you feel threatened by them, or just resent the fact that they will alter the look of the night sky, especially around sunset and sunrise? I can understand the latter, but communication satellites in orbit aren't a safety problem for people on the surface, unlike, say, every drone that someone flies in your proximity. "4G works awesomely." This is very local, I can't even get 4G coverage at some places literally on the border of Prague, a major European capital. Not a wilderness by any means. "You are completely delusional." Stop that shit. And do not attack my math, I actually graduated in algebra and number theory. Seriously, to calculate returns on Starlink in the future, you need to assess several variables such as launch cost, manufacture cost, personnel cost and total # of customers. These are not yet known with necessary precision into the future, so we can only guesstimate. If we take Musk's admission that Starlink needs 30 billion USD to survive, 10 million paying end customers worldwide should be more than enough. That is not that much, compared to the world population. And we do not know how much extra money are getting from customers such as the US Army which is really intrigued with Starlink. "Those 20 years serving ARE still made today! Your comparison is invalid. " So yes, they are. Do they provide a service on 2021 quality level? There are steam engines still in operation, but that does not mean that the technology isn't obsolete.

by dgan 5y ago

adwn 5y ago

> while other providers offer comparable service with.. 3 sattelites They really don't. Not in terms of bandwidth, not in terms of latency, and not in terms of maximum number of serviceable customers.

dgan 5y ago
Current offers are 50mpbs on a working infrastructure, for 50$ per month. Starlink now, is a 120mpbs in ideal conditions, for 100$ per month, 500$ upfront and thousands of spacejunk to be replaced every 5 years. Sorry but I dont see how is that game changer. You won't (I hope) play online shooters with satellite link, latency is a meager consolation
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  High latency isn't just concern for the gamers. It matters to people holding online meetings or working on remote desktops. Which means almost everyone who wants to work from home.

inglor_cz 5y ago

I am being serious. Cluttering of the sky is unfortunate, but people in the 19th century were really unhappy about electric wires or wagons without horses and we cope now. There are almost 8 billion people on this planet and we cannot expect them to enjoy certain standard of living without some sacrifices. If Starlink parameters are Low to Medium for you, I wonder what your standards are. Perhaps you are very fortunate in where you live (a major urban center of a first world country?). An alternative to Starlink would be a very extensive network of optic cables all around, and it certainly isn't clear to me at all that this would be eco-friendlier than Starlink. I also don't think that Starlink is going to be a first world project only. On the contrary, I think its biggest impact will be in the poorer part of the world. People there will likely share connections (100 USD a month is quite a lot in poorer countries), but still. Even a 10 Mbps shared connection is a huge deal for someone in Kinshasa. The worst obstacle will actually be politics. Starlink won't be easily controlled/censored by politicians, so I expect them to hate it and go out of their way to ban it. As for the laptop: yeah, 2016. Reasonably good hardware, you can run Windows 10 on it. But you wouldn't use PC hardware from 2000. The innovation cycle is real, only its length is different in various branches of industry. The oldest computer I run is from 2008 and it is noticeably energy hungry; I am not sure if at this point, swapping it for something new wouldn't be easier on the Earth. Not a simple calculation at all.

dgan 5y ago
Points one by one: - If you believe sky cluttering isn't a problem, I can't argue against that. I believe it's much bigger problem, than metallic wires across land fields. Just because metal wires are localized, but tens of thousands satellites, are all flying above OUR heads (yes, mine included, while I don't live in a country where I have a word to say about Elon's narcissistic dreams). - 4G works awesomely. There are already satellite internet providers if you live in such rural area, they offers up to 50mbps bandwidth, for 50$ monthly - Huh? So you believe that 3rd world country is not able to build 4/5G towers, but their citizens are somehow able to pay monthly fees for internet to an American billionaire? Or maybe the fees will be somehow so low that 1$ per day will be plenty enough to pay for satellite infrastructure? Wait, for satellite infrastructure that needs to be replaced every 5 years? How does your math works? You are completely delusional. - Not running windows, but I disgress. My point is to compare today available satellites, to SpaceX sattelites. You are comparing on different time periods, while I am not. Those 20 years serving ARE still made today! Your comparison is invalid.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  "tens of thousands satellites, are all flying above OUR heads" Do you feel threatened by them, or just resent the fact that they will alter the look of the night sky, especially around sunset and sunrise? I can understand the latter, but communication satellites in orbit aren't a safety problem for people on the surface, unlike, say, every drone that someone flies in your proximity. "4G works awesomely." This is very local, I can't even get 4G coverage at some places literally on the border of Prague, a major European capital. Not a wilderness by any means. "You are completely delusional." Stop that shit. And do not attack my math, I actually graduated in algebra and number theory. Seriously, to calculate returns on Starlink in the future, you need to assess several variables such as launch cost, manufacture cost, personnel cost and total # of customers. These are not yet known with necessary precision into the future, so we can only guesstimate. If we take Musk's admission that Starlink needs 30 billion USD to survive, 10 million paying end customers worldwide should be more than enough. That is not that much, compared to the world population. And we do not know how much extra money are getting from customers such as the US Army which is really intrigued with Starlink. "Those 20 years serving ARE still made today! Your comparison is invalid. " So yes, they are. Do they provide a service on 2021 quality level? There are steam engines still in operation, but that does not mean that the technology isn't obsolete.