6 ms·

> The fact that humanity got to a point where it made more "sense" to shoot dozens of rockets and deploy hundreds of satellites into space instead of running ca

by umvi 5y ago

> The fact that humanity got to a point where it made more "sense" to shoot dozens of rockets and deploy hundreds of satellites into space instead of running cables to cell towers to cover large areas is sad. 1. I think you are grossly underestimating just how many cables and cell towers would be needed to cover just rural North America alone (nevermind less developed places like Africa). 2. LEO satellite internet benefits more than just terrestrial clients. Ships and airplanes can now have more reliable communications.

varelse 5y ago
And yet countries like Vietnam have pulled exactly that off. If we have $1.7T for the f-35 fighter, we have the money to give everyone 100 Mb or better internet, it's just a matter of priority. I'm a satisfied Starlink customer but only because there are no other viable alternatives currently where I live. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07/07/watchdog-group-finds-f-35-sustainment-costs-could-be-headed-off-affordability-cliff/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07/07/watchdog-group-fi... Since the comparison to Vietnam is triggering some people, let's add some hard numbers and really get the downvotes going. Vietnam's GDP is $271B, The US is $21T or ~77x higher with ~3.4x as many people living in a space ~30x bigger than Vietnam. And yet we still cannot deliver cellphone reception and broadband on par with Vietnam. Wonder why? Also wonder why this is such a triggering statement to make but I guess some things will just remain a mystery. And won't you do your part to bring this post to -10? We can do this together.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  Vietnam is smaller than California with a larger population. That cell towers can be made to work is not really in dispute, it's the cost (both initial and ongoing) for reaching the increasingly sparse population areas (like Wyoming and Montana) or geographically hard-to-cover areas (like the Rocky Mountains) that make satellites more economically viable.
  - varelse 5y ago
    Sure but between the current situation and the outskirts of Wyoming and Montana there's plenty of low-hanging fruit. For example, my neighborhood is 1.5 mi away from gigabit internet. Good luck with that last mile and a half so Starlink it is. The study I'm linking here says it would cost $80B to fix the current situation. That's chump change. I am so fed up with the tiny minded thinking that is trapping America in an endless loop of failure. But watch trillions materialize instantly if we have to go to war with someone again. https://www.brookings.edu/research/striking-a-deal-to-strengthen-broadband-access-for-all/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/striking-a-deal-to-streng...
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      I'm having trouble finding how much Starlink has currently cost to deploy, but per wikipedia in 2018 (yes, 4 years old): > The cost of the decade-long project to design, build, and deploy the constellation was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be at least US$10 billion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink] Which would be 1/8th the cost you describe (though probably more by now, I haven't found any figures yet). It also covers a larger geographic area (and therefore a larger number of people) in a shorter time than any cell tower + cable solution would, short of conscripting every possible technician in the US to accomplish the effort. Starlink also gets to piggyback on other SpaceX launches so they aren't eating the entire launch cost themselves, it's subsidized (or can be) by their other customers. This is what I'm talking about when I say that presently it's more economically viable. It sucks about your situation (being so close to gigabit Internet without access), I've been there, too. Cable companies and ISPs in the US suck. EDIT: https://www.ft.com/content/4f992537-59f6-4d09-b977-c33945dbac5e https://www.ft.com/content/4f992537-59f6-4d09-b977-c33945dba... More recent, June 2021. Musk is expecting to spend $30 billion to cover 12 countries, and expects to have spent $10 billion before becoming cashflow positive with Starlink. EDIT: Fixed link above, not sure why I ended up with a link to a subheading.
      - emn13 5y ago
        However, starlink isn't a product yet. It's hard to separate the hype from reality; so whether starlink turns out to be a practical alternative still needs practical demonstration. Or to put it another way - I'm sure you've heard of a few of the teething problems early adopters have, but it's not so clear whether those are merely small wrinkles, or just the tip of an iceberg of nasty practical problems that will render the network uneconomical. The idea is definitely very attractive, but it's not quite yet proven itself - and it's definitely unclear how realistic those cost guesstimates are.
- zardo 5y ago
  I think Vietnam is significantly smaller than North America.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    It's about 78% of the size of California. Per a quick search: | Area | Population Vietnam | 128,066 sq mi | 96.2 million California | 163,696 sq mi | 39.2 million USA | 3,797,000 sq mi | 329.5 million
YATA0 5y ago
>1. I think you are grossly underestimating just how many cables and cell towers would be needed to cover just rural North America alone (nevermind less developed places like Africa). Not underestimating at all. Of course it will be a lot, but it has many advantages, and is by far more eco-friendly than shooting rockets into space. >2. LEO satellite internet benefits more than just terrestrial clients. Ships and airplanes can now have more reliable communications. There will always be a need for ship and airplane connectivity, but LEO being more reliable is still up for debate, and other forms of satcomms can be done with and order of magnitude less satellites.
- jamiequint 5y ago
  > is by far more eco-friendly than shooting rockets into space Really? The energy usage is almost certainly much higher to do it terrestrially. If you're concerned about the CO2 generated by the launch burn you could easily offset that and more using carbon removal with the energy saved versus doing the same buildout terrestrially.
- SECProto 5y ago
  > Not underestimating at all. Of course it will be a lot Do you have any data to back this up? Starlink (and other possible future constellations) most effectively serve the low-density or unconnected areas of the world. North America alone has a land area on the order of 25 million square km, with significant topographical and geographical contraints. I have several relatives who had what the government considered "high speed" internet available - one an old adsl 1.5Mbit connection, the other a drastically overprovisioned cell phone wireless that they were lucky if it provided 0.5Mbit real world connections. The providers offered no consolation, and there was zero prospect of them upgrading services. Both relatives are now happily using their starlink at ~200Mbit. > other forms of satcomms can be done with and order of magnitude less satellites. There is effectively a per-satellite maximum bandwidth, as well as distance-based power requirements. The same satellite in low earth orbit can provide much better internet than if it were in GEO. Non-LEO satellites will remain second-class internet (with lower speeds and higher latencies) because of fundamental physical limitations.
- alar44 5y ago

by umvi 5y ago

varelse 5y ago

And yet countries like Vietnam have pulled exactly that off. If we have $1.7T for the f-35 fighter, we have the money to give everyone 100 Mb or better internet, it's just a matter of priority. I'm a satisfied Starlink customer but only because there are no other viable alternatives currently where I live. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07/07/watchdog-group-finds-f-35-sustainment-costs-could-be-headed-off-affordability-cliff/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/07/07/watchdog-group-fi... Since the comparison to Vietnam is triggering some people, let's add some hard numbers and really get the downvotes going. Vietnam's GDP is $271B, The US is $21T or ~77x higher with ~3.4x as many people living in a space ~30x bigger than Vietnam. And yet we still cannot deliver cellphone reception and broadband on par with Vietnam. Wonder why? Also wonder why this is such a triggering statement to make but I guess some things will just remain a mystery. And won't you do your part to bring this post to -10? We can do this together.

Jtsummers 5y ago
Vietnam is smaller than California with a larger population. That cell towers can be made to work is not really in dispute, it's the cost (both initial and ongoing) for reaching the increasingly sparse population areas (like Wyoming and Montana) or geographically hard-to-cover areas (like the Rocky Mountains) that make satellites more economically viable.
- varelse 5y ago
  Sure but between the current situation and the outskirts of Wyoming and Montana there's plenty of low-hanging fruit. For example, my neighborhood is 1.5 mi away from gigabit internet. Good luck with that last mile and a half so Starlink it is. The study I'm linking here says it would cost $80B to fix the current situation. That's chump change. I am so fed up with the tiny minded thinking that is trapping America in an endless loop of failure. But watch trillions materialize instantly if we have to go to war with someone again. https://www.brookings.edu/research/striking-a-deal-to-strengthen-broadband-access-for-all/ https://www.brookings.edu/research/striking-a-deal-to-streng...
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    I'm having trouble finding how much Starlink has currently cost to deploy, but per wikipedia in 2018 (yes, 4 years old): > The cost of the decade-long project to design, build, and deploy the constellation was estimated by SpaceX in May 2018 to be at least US$10 billion. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink] Which would be 1/8th the cost you describe (though probably more by now, I haven't found any figures yet). It also covers a larger geographic area (and therefore a larger number of people) in a shorter time than any cell tower + cable solution would, short of conscripting every possible technician in the US to accomplish the effort. Starlink also gets to piggyback on other SpaceX launches so they aren't eating the entire launch cost themselves, it's subsidized (or can be) by their other customers. This is what I'm talking about when I say that presently it's more economically viable. It sucks about your situation (being so close to gigabit Internet without access), I've been there, too. Cable companies and ISPs in the US suck. EDIT: https://www.ft.com/content/4f992537-59f6-4d09-b977-c33945dbac5e https://www.ft.com/content/4f992537-59f6-4d09-b977-c33945dba... More recent, June 2021. Musk is expecting to spend $30 billion to cover 12 countries, and expects to have spent $10 billion before becoming cashflow positive with Starlink. EDIT: Fixed link above, not sure why I ended up with a link to a subheading.
    - emn13 5y ago
      However, starlink isn't a product yet. It's hard to separate the hype from reality; so whether starlink turns out to be a practical alternative still needs practical demonstration. Or to put it another way - I'm sure you've heard of a few of the teething problems early adopters have, but it's not so clear whether those are merely small wrinkles, or just the tip of an iceberg of nasty practical problems that will render the network uneconomical. The idea is definitely very attractive, but it's not quite yet proven itself - and it's definitely unclear how realistic those cost guesstimates are.
zardo 5y ago
I think Vietnam is significantly smaller than North America.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  It's about 78% of the size of California. Per a quick search: | Area | Population Vietnam | 128,066 sq mi | 96.2 million California | 163,696 sq mi | 39.2 million USA | 3,797,000 sq mi | 329.5 million

YATA0 5y ago

>1. I think you are grossly underestimating just how many cables and cell towers would be needed to cover just rural North America alone (nevermind less developed places like Africa). Not underestimating at all. Of course it will be a lot, but it has many advantages, and is by far more eco-friendly than shooting rockets into space. >2. LEO satellite internet benefits more than just terrestrial clients. Ships and airplanes can now have more reliable communications. There will always be a need for ship and airplane connectivity, but LEO being more reliable is still up for debate, and other forms of satcomms can be done with and order of magnitude less satellites.

jamiequint 5y ago
> is by far more eco-friendly than shooting rockets into space Really? The energy usage is almost certainly much higher to do it terrestrially. If you're concerned about the CO2 generated by the launch burn you could easily offset that and more using carbon removal with the energy saved versus doing the same buildout terrestrially.
SECProto 5y ago
> Not underestimating at all. Of course it will be a lot Do you have any data to back this up? Starlink (and other possible future constellations) most effectively serve the low-density or unconnected areas of the world. North America alone has a land area on the order of 25 million square km, with significant topographical and geographical contraints. I have several relatives who had what the government considered "high speed" internet available - one an old adsl 1.5Mbit connection, the other a drastically overprovisioned cell phone wireless that they were lucky if it provided 0.5Mbit real world connections. The providers offered no consolation, and there was zero prospect of them upgrading services. Both relatives are now happily using their starlink at ~200Mbit. > other forms of satcomms can be done with and order of magnitude less satellites. There is effectively a per-satellite maximum bandwidth, as well as distance-based power requirements. The same satellite in low earth orbit can provide much better internet than if it were in GEO. Non-LEO satellites will remain second-class internet (with lower speeds and higher latencies) because of fundamental physical limitations.
alar44 5y ago