13 ms·

>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. Star

>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.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        The military isn't constrained by market forces - they are constrained by budgets and capabilities. That is, I'm not sure what "market forces" justify being able to cause a city to disappear in nuclear explosions across the world in 20 minutes, but it definitely is a capability the (US, Russian, Chinese, maybe more) military pays for. Meanwhile, GP is saying the military is a huge early investor for Starlink, and they are doing it primarily because they want to consume it.
        chaostheory 5y ago
        Space X was at a severe political disadvantage vs aerospace incumbents. It did not have full government support. It still doesn’t compared to the incumbents. Could be wrong, but the military is not a major factor for Space X especially at the beginning. Why? Elon is not a fan of bribes.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        > but the military is not a major factor for Space X especially at the beginning The US military funded the first two launches of the Falcon 1. Far from "not being a major factor", without that money, Musk and Space X (and likely Tesla) would have gone bankrupt in 200X.
        p_l 5y ago
        Military literally paid for SpaceX to be a thing, and USAF is IIRC something in the range of 25% if not more initial funder for Starlink, and by virtue of very specific requirements, the only stable client who couldn't be easily served by few geostationary or Molniya satellites (operating an ISP in various countries can be... interesting. Elon is also very, very fond of government handout, that's how SpaceX and Tesla got funded pretty much, even if Elon provided certain capital to get things moving at times. For example, how is Starlink going to provide local Ministry of Defense access to the network in time of emergency, which was at least in 2008 a requirement for any ISP in Poland spanning more than one commune (smallest administrative region)? Requirements like that mean that ISPs need to seek waivers or just avoid having customers in specific countries (or break the law - we're talking Elon here after all, just look at latest FSD brouhaha). And they greatly dimnish the value proposal of building a constellation. OTOH, DoD had been shopping around for global satellite provider for last 15-20 years, as bandwidth and availability were often issues just in running bases, but also making it harder to drone strike an usually innocent group.
- parkingrift 5y ago
  We not need wait long. Launching satellites is comically expensive. This endeavor will surely fail just as fast as it started.
- michaelt 5y ago
  I'm not convinced starlink is slightly bad for a great many people. Should a child struggle to access online learning simply because their parents have chosen to live in a rural location? Should a family in a town struggle when several children need to attend classes online, because some inept bureaucrat agreed to a telco monopoly decades ago? The fact starlink is an inconvenience to amateur stargazers doesn't seem very important in comparison.
  - dTal 5y ago
    >The fact starlink is an inconvenience to amateur stargazers doesn't seem very important in comparison. Hm, I recall reading recently that Starlink satellites are hindering detection of near-Earth asteroids though. Can't remember where. It's probably not important.
    - hackeraccount 5y ago
      What's the cost/benefit on the two options (and for all I know there may be more then two) * get rid of starlink and any like minded projects * create work around so you can have Starlink type projects and still detect asteroids. It seems like the second option should be viable - if you know exactly where all the satellites are couldn't you create a filter?
    - edgyquant 5y ago
      Wouldn’t it be better to move the instruments for detection outside of earth’s atmosphere anyway? Same with most telescopes.
      - addicted 5y ago
        Sure. And I'm sure Starlink will be ponying the money for that. Or wait to deploy their satellites until that process is completed.
        edgyquant 5y ago
        Why would they? It isn’t like asteroids are now impossible to detect, just harder, while we don’t actually have any counter for an asteroid that was going to crash into the Earth anyway.
keewee7 5y ago
You're forgetting the "backed by the richest man in the world" benefit that Starlink will enjoy before any significant market correction happens.
- parkingrift 5y ago
  If you don’t care for Elon what more could you ask for than he wastes tens of billions on such a fruitless endeavor? Do you think he’ll just keep launching satellites for fun and pleasure?
  - falcolas 5y ago
    Well, he launched a car out of spite, so, why not?
    - fooqux 5y ago
      It only happened once, which was an obvious marketing stunt that presumably served its purpose. There's not much benefit to doing it over and over again. If he was really doing it "for the lulz" then there would be many more such launches. Cars, a painting of some artist that offended him, etc. We haven't seen that though.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      The alternative was literally a lump of concrete. That was the Falcon Heavy test launch and he wasn’t able to even give away the flight for free to anyone when he offered.
    - bhhaskin 5y ago
      They had a rocket they needed to test (Falcon Heavy) and that requires a test payload. Usually test payloads are boring mass analogs. Instead they decided to use something different and get a bunch of marketing out of it. Everything had to be approved by the appropriate government agencies well ahead of time. So where does the "spite" come from?
      - 5y ago
trasz 5y ago
Unless the government takes them over, like with Iridium.

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.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      The military isn't constrained by market forces - they are constrained by budgets and capabilities. That is, I'm not sure what "market forces" justify being able to cause a city to disappear in nuclear explosions across the world in 20 minutes, but it definitely is a capability the (US, Russian, Chinese, maybe more) military pays for. Meanwhile, GP is saying the military is a huge early investor for Starlink, and they are doing it primarily because they want to consume it.
      - chaostheory 5y ago
        Space X was at a severe political disadvantage vs aerospace incumbents. It did not have full government support. It still doesn’t compared to the incumbents. Could be wrong, but the military is not a major factor for Space X especially at the beginning. Why? Elon is not a fan of bribes.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        > but the military is not a major factor for Space X especially at the beginning The US military funded the first two launches of the Falcon 1. Far from "not being a major factor", without that money, Musk and Space X (and likely Tesla) would have gone bankrupt in 200X.
        p_l 5y ago
        Military literally paid for SpaceX to be a thing, and USAF is IIRC something in the range of 25% if not more initial funder for Starlink, and by virtue of very specific requirements, the only stable client who couldn't be easily served by few geostationary or Molniya satellites (operating an ISP in various countries can be... interesting. Elon is also very, very fond of government handout, that's how SpaceX and Tesla got funded pretty much, even if Elon provided certain capital to get things moving at times. For example, how is Starlink going to provide local Ministry of Defense access to the network in time of emergency, which was at least in 2008 a requirement for any ISP in Poland spanning more than one commune (smallest administrative region)? Requirements like that mean that ISPs need to seek waivers or just avoid having customers in specific countries (or break the law - we're talking Elon here after all, just look at latest FSD brouhaha). And they greatly dimnish the value proposal of building a constellation. OTOH, DoD had been shopping around for global satellite provider for last 15-20 years, as bandwidth and availability were often issues just in running bases, but also making it harder to drone strike an usually innocent group.
parkingrift 5y ago
We not need wait long. Launching satellites is comically expensive. This endeavor will surely fail just as fast as it started.
michaelt 5y ago
I'm not convinced starlink is slightly bad for a great many people. Should a child struggle to access online learning simply because their parents have chosen to live in a rural location? Should a family in a town struggle when several children need to attend classes online, because some inept bureaucrat agreed to a telco monopoly decades ago? The fact starlink is an inconvenience to amateur stargazers doesn't seem very important in comparison.
- dTal 5y ago
  >The fact starlink is an inconvenience to amateur stargazers doesn't seem very important in comparison. Hm, I recall reading recently that Starlink satellites are hindering detection of near-Earth asteroids though. Can't remember where. It's probably not important.
  - hackeraccount 5y ago
    What's the cost/benefit on the two options (and for all I know there may be more then two) * get rid of starlink and any like minded projects * create work around so you can have Starlink type projects and still detect asteroids. It seems like the second option should be viable - if you know exactly where all the satellites are couldn't you create a filter?
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    Wouldn’t it be better to move the instruments for detection outside of earth’s atmosphere anyway? Same with most telescopes.
    - addicted 5y ago
      Sure. And I'm sure Starlink will be ponying the money for that. Or wait to deploy their satellites until that process is completed.
      - edgyquant 5y ago
        Why would they? It isn’t like asteroids are now impossible to detect, just harder, while we don’t actually have any counter for an asteroid that was going to crash into the Earth anyway.

keewee7 5y ago

You're forgetting the "backed by the richest man in the world" benefit that Starlink will enjoy before any significant market correction happens.

parkingrift 5y ago
If you don’t care for Elon what more could you ask for than he wastes tens of billions on such a fruitless endeavor? Do you think he’ll just keep launching satellites for fun and pleasure?
- falcolas 5y ago
  Well, he launched a car out of spite, so, why not?
  - fooqux 5y ago
    It only happened once, which was an obvious marketing stunt that presumably served its purpose. There's not much benefit to doing it over and over again. If he was really doing it "for the lulz" then there would be many more such launches. Cars, a painting of some artist that offended him, etc. We haven't seen that though.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    The alternative was literally a lump of concrete. That was the Falcon Heavy test launch and he wasn’t able to even give away the flight for free to anyone when he offered.
  - bhhaskin 5y ago
    They had a rocket they needed to test (Falcon Heavy) and that requires a test payload. Usually test payloads are boring mass analogs. Instead they decided to use something different and get a bunch of marketing out of it. Everything had to be approved by the appropriate government agencies well ahead of time. So where does the "spite" come from?
    - 5y ago

trasz 5y ago

Unless the government takes them over, like with Iridium.