5 ms·

I'm no expert, but is extending broadband to the areas that have none really more important than or offering competition in areas that have one? Won't this bri

I'm no expert, but is extending broadband to the areas that have none really more important than or offering competition in areas that have one? Won't this bring the ability to wfh to areas where people who need to wfh have already left? I remember reading several years ago that the cost of a 1gb connection in Seoul was $20/mo. There are lots of places in the US where 1/10 of that costs 3x that. If we're going to subsidize infrastructure (and pretend that municipal broadband is evil), that seems like a better target.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Starlink is the most signifiant rural broadband access development in decades, and the FCC seems somewhat hostile to it. Its only difficulty is that you need almost a totally clear view of the sky since it's not like a geosync satellite where you point to one place in the sky. They need to track satellites in motion, so a single tree will disrupt a bit. I would guess as the flotilla expands they might not need as much of the sky and the "arc" would decrease, and their software will adapt on the fly. Starlink is another example of a "Musk" company with an active software update loop that shows active ongoing improvement. It's not quite as revolutionary in this space but it is nice to see. 5G also has a lot of potential but still requires a lot of towers. Of course the biggest economic revolution in broadband is 5G and Starlink in the third world. Starlink should bring good broadband to all of Africa, rural Asia, etc. Combined with Solar+Storage for independent power, that leaves water and food as the primary necessities for living in places / off grid. Global Warming is of course extremely dangerous, but the amount of habitable land that will be opened in Siberia is enormous. Which is good, because we might need to resettle billions of people there.
noahtallen 5y ago
It’s even worse than that; most rural areas don’t even have a 100gbps option, and what exists is more than $60/mo. My anecdotes put it at 5x the cost for 1/100 the speed. ($100 for a 10mbps option, and I know plenty of people with worse than that!)
- ac29 5y ago
  >most rural areas don’t even have a 100gbps option Do you mean 100Mbps?

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Starlink is the most signifiant rural broadband access development in decades, and the FCC seems somewhat hostile to it. Its only difficulty is that you need almost a totally clear view of the sky since it's not like a geosync satellite where you point to one place in the sky. They need to track satellites in motion, so a single tree will disrupt a bit. I would guess as the flotilla expands they might not need as much of the sky and the "arc" would decrease, and their software will adapt on the fly. Starlink is another example of a "Musk" company with an active software update loop that shows active ongoing improvement. It's not quite as revolutionary in this space but it is nice to see. 5G also has a lot of potential but still requires a lot of towers. Of course the biggest economic revolution in broadband is 5G and Starlink in the third world. Starlink should bring good broadband to all of Africa, rural Asia, etc. Combined with Solar+Storage for independent power, that leaves water and food as the primary necessities for living in places / off grid. Global Warming is of course extremely dangerous, but the amount of habitable land that will be opened in Siberia is enormous. Which is good, because we might need to resettle billions of people there.

noahtallen 5y ago

It’s even worse than that; most rural areas don’t even have a 100gbps option, and what exists is more than $60/mo. My anecdotes put it at 5x the cost for 1/100 the speed. ($100 for a 10mbps option, and I know plenty of people with worse than that!)

ac29 5y ago
>most rural areas don’t even have a 100gbps option Do you mean 100Mbps?