4 ms·

true, but those are included of the natural cost of doing business. these additional occlusions are because a private entity has chosen to take the space for th

by tejtm 5y ago

true, but those are included of the natural cost of doing business. these additional occlusions are because a private entity has chosen to take the space for their profit with zero consequence or compensation for our loss.

dantheman 5y ago
You don't think availability of internet around the world isn't compensation?
gitfan86 5y ago
And you are asking people in rural areas to give up cheap/fast internet access without compensating them for that loss.
- CaptArmchair 5y ago
  It's not a zero sum game. That would be ignoring a host of reasons why some people do have fast Internet access, and others don't have any at all. Finding an Internet connection on the market in the U.S. isn't equitable at all. Market consolidation and disparate regulations across the country are creating artificial scarcity which has little to do with the geography. That's just the U.S. Then there's outside of the U.S. which is a wholly different ballgame. This is a U.S. enterprise providing access to the Internet to millions in other sovereign countries. Which doesn't sit well strategically with local stakeholders. India already has already refused giving a commercial license to Starlink. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/5/elon-musks-starlink-hits-a-wall-in-india https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/5/elon-musks-starli... When we're talking "rural" areas outside of the Western countries, we're discussing areas which just don't have same level of development or wealth. Starlink costs 499 USD for equipment + 99 USD per month for a subscription. The average monthly salary in India was about 430 USD; add to that the urban-rural wage gap and you'll quickly conclude that Internet access via satellite is prohibitively expensive in India for millions. And that's discounting the fact that hundreds of millions of people in these rural areas don't have proper access to the electricity grid to begin with. It's not just India, is many other regions in the world where - unlike the U.S. or Europe - the economics, the lack of infrastructure or the politics just aren't favorable to ventures like this. Sure, all of this might and likely will change and the next decade or two. But that's a big gamble to make. In the mean time, Starlink's profitability remains a large question mark. You have to question whether Starlink is ultimately just playing a home match on Western markets where Internet access has become a commodity that fits in larger strategic interests of large capital investments. Starlink is a commercial venture after all, it only keeps winning if it gets to dot the roofs of millions with dishes. It's business model isn't fundamentally different from ground-based ISP's in that regard. Perception matters, and regardless of how you spin this: outside of this online bubble, a large portion of humanity simply doesn't take kindly to the appropriation of a common good such as the night sky for profiteering.
  - gitfan86 5y ago
    "profiteering". Are you suggesting that most people don't think that businesses that use public assets like the sky shouldn't be able to make a profit? Airlines, Airports, Cell Phone companies that use public radio waves, Farms that take water from public water ways, factories that cause noise and light pollution. Most people don't want those companies to exist?
    - CaptArmchair 5y ago
      I'm not willing to debate someone who's only cherry picking and ignoring the comment in it's entirety.

by tejtm 5y ago

dantheman 5y ago

You don't think availability of internet around the world isn't compensation?

gitfan86 5y ago

And you are asking people in rural areas to give up cheap/fast internet access without compensating them for that loss.

CaptArmchair 5y ago
It's not a zero sum game. That would be ignoring a host of reasons why some people do have fast Internet access, and others don't have any at all. Finding an Internet connection on the market in the U.S. isn't equitable at all. Market consolidation and disparate regulations across the country are creating artificial scarcity which has little to do with the geography. That's just the U.S. Then there's outside of the U.S. which is a wholly different ballgame. This is a U.S. enterprise providing access to the Internet to millions in other sovereign countries. Which doesn't sit well strategically with local stakeholders. India already has already refused giving a commercial license to Starlink. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/5/elon-musks-starlink-hits-a-wall-in-india https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/5/elon-musks-starli... When we're talking "rural" areas outside of the Western countries, we're discussing areas which just don't have same level of development or wealth. Starlink costs 499 USD for equipment + 99 USD per month for a subscription. The average monthly salary in India was about 430 USD; add to that the urban-rural wage gap and you'll quickly conclude that Internet access via satellite is prohibitively expensive in India for millions. And that's discounting the fact that hundreds of millions of people in these rural areas don't have proper access to the electricity grid to begin with. It's not just India, is many other regions in the world where - unlike the U.S. or Europe - the economics, the lack of infrastructure or the politics just aren't favorable to ventures like this. Sure, all of this might and likely will change and the next decade or two. But that's a big gamble to make. In the mean time, Starlink's profitability remains a large question mark. You have to question whether Starlink is ultimately just playing a home match on Western markets where Internet access has become a commodity that fits in larger strategic interests of large capital investments. Starlink is a commercial venture after all, it only keeps winning if it gets to dot the roofs of millions with dishes. It's business model isn't fundamentally different from ground-based ISP's in that regard. Perception matters, and regardless of how you spin this: outside of this online bubble, a large portion of humanity simply doesn't take kindly to the appropriation of a common good such as the night sky for profiteering.
- gitfan86 5y ago
  "profiteering". Are you suggesting that most people don't think that businesses that use public assets like the sky shouldn't be able to make a profit? Airlines, Airports, Cell Phone companies that use public radio waves, Farms that take water from public water ways, factories that cause noise and light pollution. Most people don't want those companies to exist?
  - CaptArmchair 5y ago
    I'm not willing to debate someone who's only cherry picking and ignoring the comment in it's entirety.