9 ms·

Starlink is only a benefit for a small dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. Their claim about bringing Internet to poor countries is

Starlink is only a benefit for a small dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. Their claim about bringing Internet to poor countries is bullshit. Countries like Kenya, Nigeria and India have already shown that terrestrial long-distance networking (4G and soon 5G) is the way to reach mass connectivity in developing countries. Why should we let one American ISP pollute our global nigh skies with 42,000 planned satellites? What happens when an European or Chinese competitor launches another 42,000 satellites? We need to stop this madness.

wcoenen 5y ago
Let's say you put a 5G tower with battery+solar in the middle of nowhere to provide coverage for a small village. How is that tower going to connect to the rest of the world? You'd still need to invest in fiber or microwave links to hook it up. Starlink could be a cheaper and simpler alternative to connect the tower.
edhelas 5y ago
Big +1 on this. Elon Musk is not a philanthropist. The goal of Starlink is just to bring Internet to people that can afford an expensive system just for themselves by literally annoying everyone else. It's the same thing with the Boring Company and public transports: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-awkward-dislike-mass-transit/ https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-awkward-dislike-mass-t...
noutella 5y ago
You're absolutely right. It's saddening to see how little regulation there is, or even how little focus there is on regulating business in space. I don't want to sound naive, but it's frustrating that us citizens of any countries have no weight on such important matters. All for the Musks and Bezos' of this world I guess.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Regulations will come with time. Space is the new Wild West, once we have a decent amount of infrastructure (and people) in space governments and regulations will follow.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
For the same reason we can't do anything about people doing things in international waters: it's outside the jurisdiction of most countries. E.g. China might not like satellites flying over their territory but there's not much they can do about it legally. It's not part of their airspace. SpaceX doesn't need permission; just for operating radios on the ground that communicate with those satellites. Which of course a few countries won't be willing to do because they'd instead prefer to use their own satellites. Because SpaceX is of course hardly the only one with plans like this. Like it or not, there will likely be tens or hundreds of thousands satellites in orbit in a few decades. Millions even long term. They are too cheap and useful for that to not happen. It's more a question of when than if other rocket companies get their act together. Lots of them have been inspired by the success SpaceX has had in recent years. The downsides are extremely minor. Nobody ever complains about jets polluting our night skies (as opposed to our atmosphere, which they do of course do bad things to). There are thousands flying at any moment. And they are much bigger than the puny SpaceX satellites. And much closer too. And they are very easy to see because they actually have blinking lights on them that are designed to make the planes more visible. It's a complete non issue.
- axg11 5y ago
  How would the world react if there was a Chinese company that was launching an equivalent number of satellites as Starlink? I except the discussions would be very different, and there would be many more calls to stop SpaceX/Starlink.
  - creato 5y ago
    If we expected Starlink internet to censor any negative opinions of Elon Musk or Tesla, there might be similar calls to stop it.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  I can see the benefits of more competition for politically entrenched ISPs, but I’m afraid of a potential Kessler Effect happening
guest3456789a 5y ago
Russians think there could be some hidden military use of Starlink and there could be some truth in that, as from a business point of view only Starlink somehow does not add up.
parkingrift 5y ago
>Starlink is only a benefit for a small dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. If this is true then you’ve nothing to worry about. Starlink will quickly fail, they’ll close up shop, and the satellites will de-orbit and burn up in the atmosphere. We need not worry about one American ISP or a European or Chinese competitor. As you’ve said, this only serves a dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. No one else would be so stupid to try and enter this market. There is clearly no need, terrestrial cellular will win.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  We don't all subscribe to the philosophy that the only valid limits to something are those imposed by market forces. If something is slightly bad for a great many people we're allowed to just prevent it. We don't have to wait for the market to decide, there's no virtue in doing so it doesn't sanctify our decision.
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    Why? If the market deems that there’s an actual need beyond “a dwindling rural population in high income countries”, Starlink will survive. If there isn’t a need, then it won’t survive. The problem will take care of itself. Legislation has a cost when there are other more pressing issues. A politician’s time is finite.
    - p_l 5y ago
      A huge early investor in Starlink is very not market constrained and will always have politician backing - the military.
      - chaostheory 5y ago
        How exactly is a “huge early investor not market constrained”? For every Starlink, there is likely a Webvan. Investors do not have infinite resources. Military and political backing are also not guaranteed. SpaceX’s origins are a good example of that.
shantara 5y ago
A large market for Starlink are ships and aircraft. It's already been tested in these applications, but commercial usage is pending regulatory approval. Plus there've been some discussions, and even a signed contact regarding Starlink usage as a backhaul on cell towers. Link: https://telecoms.com/511313/kddi-to-use-starlink-for-mobile-backhaul/ https://telecoms.com/511313/kddi-to-use-starlink-for-mobile-...
7952 5y ago
I dont see why spacex has got to target the same niche (rural people in rich countries) everywhere in the world. They could provide low cost backhaul in developing countries for telcos. Offer more expensive access for airlines and ships. Have an offering aimed at organisations who want to run a WiFi network (like schools or offices). The advantage of satellite is that the same infrastructure can offer different services in different places.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  SpaceX bringing internet to rural areas is just another of those Musk stories he tells. Like how SpaceX is “meant to make us a multi planet species” when in reality it’s just another government contractor at this point. Starlinks real business will come from the military, airlines and shipping fleets.
  - 7952 5y ago
    I agree that most revenue will come from military, shipping, airlines etc. But I don't see why that should preclude other uses at other price points. Particulaly as those users can be separated geographically. And the marginal cost of bandwidth could become very low. If the only customer in a footprint is a school in a remote area then you might as well sell to them at a price they can afford. It is more revenue than you would have got otherwise. It's like selling seats on an airline. Most revenue comes from expensive business class seats, but there are still cheap seats. Because most costs are fixed regardless of how many users.
    - edgyquant 5y ago
      No I’m not saying it will preclude the other clients. Just that Musk has a way of selling his companies as doing one thing to the masses while actually making money via the government.
cute_boi 5y ago
I think it is your privilege to give such opinion, however, I can see the various advantage of Starlink. Many ISP in the US simply refuse to provide proper bandwidth and people have to live with ISP shenanigans, Starlink has helped those people. Sometimes submarine cables are destroyed. We saw that in a recent disaster where a volcanic eruption was responsible for an internet blackout, Starlink would have been helpful there. And to counter your same example, in India around 41% of people have access to the internet. I think the internet is a basic right, at least in this century, so we shouldn't deprive people of the internet. I do acknowledge that Starlink might be costly but something is better than nothing.
- shaklee3 5y ago
  India is an extremely poor example since the other 59% can't afford $100/mo. and keep in mind the terminal cost for them is extremely high still.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 5y ago
  I mean, I don't think that your argument justifies why we should trade off near-earth asteroid monitoring with faster internet connections just so we can consume more Instagram and TikTok videos better.
  - cute_boi 5y ago
    To me, internet doesn't means "Instagram and TikTok videos". And, we should focus on how to solve this asteroid detection issue, that doesn't mean we should dismiss whole idea.
  - devoutsalsa 5y ago
    If scanning for near Earth asteroids was really a priority, there's nothing stopping us from building a detection network in space, above the altitude at which Starlink satellites fly.
    - rTX5CMRXIfFG 5y ago
      Isn't it more the case that it is a priority precisely because we have our current methods for detecting near-earth asteroids, but we're letting capitalism get in the way and launch Starlink satellites in space to trade off the safety of our species for more profit that, honestly, isn't even necessary? I mean, of course you can argue that the survival of our species isn't necessary and is not more important than money, but if you believe that, you should state that plainly because that seems to be where we'll have an impasse.
supperburg 5y ago
Somehow I prefer the timeline where the earth is blanketed in internet.
lnsru 5y ago
It fantastically benefits US military providing reliable communication channel and high speed networking everywhere. Not sure if Europeans will want this. Not sure if Russians will be able to afford this. Chinese might want the same very much and they can built all the satellites for sure.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Devil's advocate here- the sky either belongs to everybody or it belongs to nobody. Why do astronomers think that they have sole ownership of the sky?
- RReverser 5y ago
  One is looking at it, another is polluting it and precluding others from looking at it. Surely you see the difference?
SkyPuncher 5y ago
I've been on the edge of buying Starlink, but am currently waiting on a few other things to pan out: * I often have to drive through rural roads with my family. Cell service is limited/spotty here. Starlink would allow me to work on the road (and have an emergency backup). * My wife and I have been eyeing the possibility of purchasing a small plot of land to "get away to" occasionally. Starlink would enable me to work from that plot of land.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  A plot of land to 'get away to' is a great thing to have if you are getting away to it frequently enough to stop it from turning into a jungle. Abandoned land turns into proto forest with amazing speed, and any dwelling on there will be eaten up in record time. If you are serious about this please budget for a local caretaker.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Some people are OK with with proto Forest or or natural environments. I have a getaway that has gone 40 years without meaningful caretaking. Maybe once a decade a few hours are spent pruning trees which encroach on the view or clearing brush for fire safety. Hell, there are miners cabins built in the 1800s that are still habitable without any dedicated caretaking
kitsunesoba 5y ago
> Starlink is only a benefit for a small dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. By the FCC’s estimates[0], there are 26 million people in the US alone, mostly in rural areas, who lack access to adequate high speed internet. I believe that exceeds what most would consider a small dwindling population by quite a large margin. This number could potentially increase too, with the recent advent of full remote work. A fair number of people who live in urban areas do so only because they have to for employment and if they had the option would move somewhere less densely populated. [0]: https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/seventh-broadband-progress-report https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progr...
kingcharles 5y ago
> Starlink is only a benefit for a small dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. I live in downtown Chicago and I can't get wired Internet for less than $70,000 installation. I would have gone with Starlink except they had backorders on the receivers, so I went with T-Mobile 5G Home Internet instead. So, it's not just people in the boondocks that need wire-free Internet.
- shaklee3 5y ago
  if you have access to TMobile 5g there's absolutely no reason to get starlink.
NelsonMinar 5y ago
Starlink with laser links could be providing Internet access in Tonga right now. Sadly they're a year (or more) from having it working, they only just started yet. (I'm posting this message via Starlink. Admittedly I'm a rural person in a rich country. Still grateful for it.)
ctoth 5y ago
> What happens when an European or Chinese competitor launches another 42,000 satellites? Then there are 84,000 satellites in orbit and room for literally millions more? Space is big. Each satellite is smaller than a car. What happens if a company produces 42,000 more cars? Will it blanket the Earth? Of course not! I think you might just be a bit confused when trying to conceptualize just how much room we're talking about here.

wcoenen 5y ago

Let's say you put a 5G tower with battery+solar in the middle of nowhere to provide coverage for a small village. How is that tower going to connect to the rest of the world? You'd still need to invest in fiber or microwave links to hook it up. Starlink could be a cheaper and simpler alternative to connect the tower.

edhelas 5y ago

Big +1 on this. Elon Musk is not a philanthropist. The goal of Starlink is just to bring Internet to people that can afford an expensive system just for themselves by literally annoying everyone else. It's the same thing with the Boring Company and public transports: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-awkward-dislike-mass-transit/ https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-awkward-dislike-mass-t...

noutella 5y ago

You're absolutely right. It's saddening to see how little regulation there is, or even how little focus there is on regulating business in space. I don't want to sound naive, but it's frustrating that us citizens of any countries have no weight on such important matters. All for the Musks and Bezos' of this world I guess.

edgyquant 5y ago
Regulations will come with time. Space is the new Wild West, once we have a decent amount of infrastructure (and people) in space governments and regulations will follow.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

For the same reason we can't do anything about people doing things in international waters: it's outside the jurisdiction of most countries. E.g. China might not like satellites flying over their territory but there's not much they can do about it legally. It's not part of their airspace. SpaceX doesn't need permission; just for operating radios on the ground that communicate with those satellites. Which of course a few countries won't be willing to do because they'd instead prefer to use their own satellites. Because SpaceX is of course hardly the only one with plans like this. Like it or not, there will likely be tens or hundreds of thousands satellites in orbit in a few decades. Millions even long term. They are too cheap and useful for that to not happen. It's more a question of when than if other rocket companies get their act together. Lots of them have been inspired by the success SpaceX has had in recent years. The downsides are extremely minor. Nobody ever complains about jets polluting our night skies (as opposed to our atmosphere, which they do of course do bad things to). There are thousands flying at any moment. And they are much bigger than the puny SpaceX satellites. And much closer too. And they are very easy to see because they actually have blinking lights on them that are designed to make the planes more visible. It's a complete non issue.

axg11 5y ago
How would the world react if there was a Chinese company that was launching an equivalent number of satellites as Starlink? I except the discussions would be very different, and there would be many more calls to stop SpaceX/Starlink.
- creato 5y ago
  If we expected Starlink internet to censor any negative opinions of Elon Musk or Tesla, there might be similar calls to stop it.
chaostheory 5y ago
I can see the benefits of more competition for politically entrenched ISPs, but I’m afraid of a potential Kessler Effect happening

guest3456789a 5y ago

Russians think there could be some hidden military use of Starlink and there could be some truth in that, as from a business point of view only Starlink somehow does not add up.

parkingrift 5y ago

>Starlink is only a benefit for a small dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. If this is true then you’ve nothing to worry about. Starlink will quickly fail, they’ll close up shop, and the satellites will de-orbit and burn up in the atmosphere. We need not worry about one American ISP or a European or Chinese competitor. As you’ve said, this only serves a dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. No one else would be so stupid to try and enter this market. There is clearly no need, terrestrial cellular will win.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
We don't all subscribe to the philosophy that the only valid limits to something are those imposed by market forces. If something is slightly bad for a great many people we're allowed to just prevent it. We don't have to wait for the market to decide, there's no virtue in doing so it doesn't sanctify our decision.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  Why? If the market deems that there’s an actual need beyond “a dwindling rural population in high income countries”, Starlink will survive. If there isn’t a need, then it won’t survive. The problem will take care of itself. Legislation has a cost when there are other more pressing issues. A politician’s time is finite.
  - p_l 5y ago
    A huge early investor in Starlink is very not market constrained and will always have politician backing - the military.
    - chaostheory 5y ago
      How exactly is a “huge early investor not market constrained”? For every Starlink, there is likely a Webvan. Investors do not have infinite resources. Military and political backing are also not guaranteed. SpaceX’s origins are a good example of that.

shantara 5y ago

A large market for Starlink are ships and aircraft. It's already been tested in these applications, but commercial usage is pending regulatory approval. Plus there've been some discussions, and even a signed contact regarding Starlink usage as a backhaul on cell towers. Link: https://telecoms.com/511313/kddi-to-use-starlink-for-mobile-backhaul/ https://telecoms.com/511313/kddi-to-use-starlink-for-mobile-...

7952 5y ago

I dont see why spacex has got to target the same niche (rural people in rich countries) everywhere in the world. They could provide low cost backhaul in developing countries for telcos. Offer more expensive access for airlines and ships. Have an offering aimed at organisations who want to run a WiFi network (like schools or offices). The advantage of satellite is that the same infrastructure can offer different services in different places.

edgyquant 5y ago
SpaceX bringing internet to rural areas is just another of those Musk stories he tells. Like how SpaceX is “meant to make us a multi planet species” when in reality it’s just another government contractor at this point. Starlinks real business will come from the military, airlines and shipping fleets.
- 7952 5y ago
  I agree that most revenue will come from military, shipping, airlines etc. But I don't see why that should preclude other uses at other price points. Particulaly as those users can be separated geographically. And the marginal cost of bandwidth could become very low. If the only customer in a footprint is a school in a remote area then you might as well sell to them at a price they can afford. It is more revenue than you would have got otherwise. It's like selling seats on an airline. Most revenue comes from expensive business class seats, but there are still cheap seats. Because most costs are fixed regardless of how many users.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    No I’m not saying it will preclude the other clients. Just that Musk has a way of selling his companies as doing one thing to the masses while actually making money via the government.

cute_boi 5y ago

I think it is your privilege to give such opinion, however, I can see the various advantage of Starlink. Many ISP in the US simply refuse to provide proper bandwidth and people have to live with ISP shenanigans, Starlink has helped those people. Sometimes submarine cables are destroyed. We saw that in a recent disaster where a volcanic eruption was responsible for an internet blackout, Starlink would have been helpful there. And to counter your same example, in India around 41% of people have access to the internet. I think the internet is a basic right, at least in this century, so we shouldn't deprive people of the internet. I do acknowledge that Starlink might be costly but something is better than nothing.

shaklee3 5y ago
India is an extremely poor example since the other 59% can't afford $100/mo. and keep in mind the terminal cost for them is extremely high still.
rTX5CMRXIfFG 5y ago
I mean, I don't think that your argument justifies why we should trade off near-earth asteroid monitoring with faster internet connections just so we can consume more Instagram and TikTok videos better.
- cute_boi 5y ago
  To me, internet doesn't means "Instagram and TikTok videos". And, we should focus on how to solve this asteroid detection issue, that doesn't mean we should dismiss whole idea.
- devoutsalsa 5y ago
  If scanning for near Earth asteroids was really a priority, there's nothing stopping us from building a detection network in space, above the altitude at which Starlink satellites fly.
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 5y ago
    Isn't it more the case that it is a priority precisely because we have our current methods for detecting near-earth asteroids, but we're letting capitalism get in the way and launch Starlink satellites in space to trade off the safety of our species for more profit that, honestly, isn't even necessary? I mean, of course you can argue that the survival of our species isn't necessary and is not more important than money, but if you believe that, you should state that plainly because that seems to be where we'll have an impasse.

supperburg 5y ago

Somehow I prefer the timeline where the earth is blanketed in internet.

lnsru 5y ago

It fantastically benefits US military providing reliable communication channel and high speed networking everywhere. Not sure if Europeans will want this. Not sure if Russians will be able to afford this. Chinese might want the same very much and they can built all the satellites for sure.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Devil's advocate here- the sky either belongs to everybody or it belongs to nobody. Why do astronomers think that they have sole ownership of the sky?

RReverser 5y ago
One is looking at it, another is polluting it and precluding others from looking at it. Surely you see the difference?

SkyPuncher 5y ago

I've been on the edge of buying Starlink, but am currently waiting on a few other things to pan out: * I often have to drive through rural roads with my family. Cell service is limited/spotty here. Starlink would allow me to work on the road (and have an emergency backup). * My wife and I have been eyeing the possibility of purchasing a small plot of land to "get away to" occasionally. Starlink would enable me to work from that plot of land.

jacquesm 5y ago
A plot of land to 'get away to' is a great thing to have if you are getting away to it frequently enough to stop it from turning into a jungle. Abandoned land turns into proto forest with amazing speed, and any dwelling on there will be eaten up in record time. If you are serious about this please budget for a local caretaker.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Some people are OK with with proto Forest or or natural environments. I have a getaway that has gone 40 years without meaningful caretaking. Maybe once a decade a few hours are spent pruning trees which encroach on the view or clearing brush for fire safety. Hell, there are miners cabins built in the 1800s that are still habitable without any dedicated caretaking

kitsunesoba 5y ago

> Starlink is only a benefit for a small dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. By the FCC’s estimates[0], there are 26 million people in the US alone, mostly in rural areas, who lack access to adequate high speed internet. I believe that exceeds what most would consider a small dwindling population by quite a large margin. This number could potentially increase too, with the recent advent of full remote work. A fair number of people who live in urban areas do so only because they have to for employment and if they had the option would move somewhere less densely populated. [0]: https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/seventh-broadband-progress-report https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progr...

kingcharles 5y ago

> Starlink is only a benefit for a small dwindling population of rural people in high income countries. I live in downtown Chicago and I can't get wired Internet for less than $70,000 installation. I would have gone with Starlink except they had backorders on the receivers, so I went with T-Mobile 5G Home Internet instead. So, it's not just people in the boondocks that need wire-free Internet.

shaklee3 5y ago
if you have access to TMobile 5g there's absolutely no reason to get starlink.

NelsonMinar 5y ago

Starlink with laser links could be providing Internet access in Tonga right now. Sadly they're a year (or more) from having it working, they only just started yet. (I'm posting this message via Starlink. Admittedly I'm a rural person in a rich country. Still grateful for it.)

ctoth 5y ago

> What happens when an European or Chinese competitor launches another 42,000 satellites? Then there are 84,000 satellites in orbit and room for literally millions more? Space is big. Each satellite is smaller than a car. What happens if a company produces 42,000 more cars? Will it blanket the Earth? Of course not! I think you might just be a bit confused when trying to conceptualize just how much room we're talking about here.