3 ms·
If by “whole world” you mean the wilderness, then sure! Otherwise we’ve had no issues laying cables to any place people live, so long as it makes sense to do so
by SllX 5y ago
If by “whole world” you mean the wilderness, then sure! Otherwise we’ve had no issues laying cables to any place people live, so long as it makes sense to do so.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoIf by "makes sense" you mean to ISP shareholders - for ISPs to take federal USF funds and never, ever deliver on the required upgrades or expansions (eg:Frontier@WV,Verizon@PA), due to regulatory capture.
- petschge 5y agoAnd as usual the US is dragging down the entire planet instead of fixing the corruption at home.
- SllX 5y agoI’m not going to be the one to defend the actions of a group of my least favorite companies in America, but you hit on the main point that stands up globally: where it is profitable to lay cables down. So yes, where it makes sense to shareholders. That’s not to discount Starlink, it is a comparative advantage to be able to cover the wilderness, but that and not being an existing ISP people have had lots of experience with are its distinguishing features.