5 ms·

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 awa

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.
  - thallium205 5y ago
    What are you talking about it's definitely a product. I use it right now in my rural area (USPS doesn't even deliver here) and I'm getting 30ms latency with a 150/40 Mbps link. Rock solid for months straight even during snow storms.
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      And varelse, the one who I was responding to, is also using it right now. There are around 145k current users of the system. Which is certainly not enough to keep it afloat if it fails to grow in customer base, but it is a real thing being used by real people.
      - emn13 5y ago
        Yeah, that's what I meant - there's a beta out (i.e. a development tool), not a self-sustaining product. The scale is still too small; for this to be economically viable they need to show they can scale much larger and at competitive prices. I'm not saying that won't happen; but let's not go counting chickens before they hatch either.
    - shaklee3 5y ago
      that's not what it means to be a product. it's a beta service that's nowhere near capacity. it would be like saying a website that served a hundred people is clearly capable of providing the same service to a million.
- varelse 5y ago
  You say we can't wire up America, but what's your source? I'm not personally seeing a problem with a TVA-level engagement to bring high-speed Internet to as many people as possible. Starlink looks like it will be half the price, but Musk has gone on record saying this is for rural areas. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/musk-says-starlink-isnt-for-big-cities-wont-be-huge-threat-to-telcos/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/musk-... Further, I was getting 150 Mb a few months back, but now I'm down to 30 Mb. This isn't a polished product yet and it's in danger of losing federal funding. https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/12/starlink-download-speeds-fell-below-new-federal-broadband-standard-in-q3-ookla-data-show/ https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/12/starlink-download-spe...
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    > You say we can't wire up America, but what's your source? I did not say that, reread what I wrote and quote where you think I said that. > I'm not personally seeing a problem with a TVA-level engagement to bring high-speed Internet to as many people as possible. That's basically what I was getting at with this: >> short of conscripting every possible technician in the US to accomplish the effort. But, sadly, it is politically not viable in the US. If it were, I suspect we would have seen such an effort (though probably not telecom focused) post 2007/2008 financial crisis. Instead, a crap ton of money was dumped into the hands of contractors to spend on infrastructure that barely went anywhere. Just like a crap ton of money has been dumped into ISPs that still can't be bothered to cover the last 1.5 miles to your home. What I did write: >> [Starlink] also covers a larger geographic area (and therefore a larger number of people) in a shorter time than any cell tower + cable solution would The first part is pretty obviously true, but the parenthetical does remain to be seen. It depends on how effective the fleet actually scales with connecting additional users, and they're only at ~145k right now.

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.
- thallium205 5y ago
  What are you talking about it's definitely a product. I use it right now in my rural area (USPS doesn't even deliver here) and I'm getting 30ms latency with a 150/40 Mbps link. Rock solid for months straight even during snow storms.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    And varelse, the one who I was responding to, is also using it right now. There are around 145k current users of the system. Which is certainly not enough to keep it afloat if it fails to grow in customer base, but it is a real thing being used by real people.
    - emn13 5y ago
      Yeah, that's what I meant - there's a beta out (i.e. a development tool), not a self-sustaining product. The scale is still too small; for this to be economically viable they need to show they can scale much larger and at competitive prices. I'm not saying that won't happen; but let's not go counting chickens before they hatch either.
  - shaklee3 5y ago
    that's not what it means to be a product. it's a beta service that's nowhere near capacity. it would be like saying a website that served a hundred people is clearly capable of providing the same service to a million.
varelse 5y ago
You say we can't wire up America, but what's your source? I'm not personally seeing a problem with a TVA-level engagement to bring high-speed Internet to as many people as possible. Starlink looks like it will be half the price, but Musk has gone on record saying this is for rural areas. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/musk-says-starlink-isnt-for-big-cities-wont-be-huge-threat-to-telcos/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/musk-... Further, I was getting 150 Mb a few months back, but now I'm down to 30 Mb. This isn't a polished product yet and it's in danger of losing federal funding. https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/12/starlink-download-speeds-fell-below-new-federal-broadband-standard-in-q3-ookla-data-show/ https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/12/starlink-download-spe...
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > You say we can't wire up America, but what's your source? I did not say that, reread what I wrote and quote where you think I said that. > I'm not personally seeing a problem with a TVA-level engagement to bring high-speed Internet to as many people as possible. That's basically what I was getting at with this: >> short of conscripting every possible technician in the US to accomplish the effort. But, sadly, it is politically not viable in the US. If it were, I suspect we would have seen such an effort (though probably not telecom focused) post 2007/2008 financial crisis. Instead, a crap ton of money was dumped into the hands of contractors to spend on infrastructure that barely went anywhere. Just like a crap ton of money has been dumped into ISPs that still can't be bothered to cover the last 1.5 miles to your home. What I did write: >> [Starlink] also covers a larger geographic area (and therefore a larger number of people) in a shorter time than any cell tower + cable solution would The first part is pretty obviously true, but the parenthetical does remain to be seen. It depends on how effective the fleet actually scales with connecting additional users, and they're only at ~145k right now.