5 ms·

You don’t need to go rural or sparsely populated for low cost living… places like india have low cost housing, food, internet, and labor. I would think the mark

You don’t need to go rural or sparsely populated for low cost living… places like india have low cost housing, food, internet, and labor. I would think the market for internet in sparsely populated areas is by definition negligible. But, if all cell phones can access starlink in cell phone dead zones, that might make it economically viable, as the market expands to 5 billion plus users.

seizethecheese 4y ago
That’s some funky reasoning. Most Americans will not move overseas to get lower cost of living, so rural areas are a good substitute. Likewise, cost is not the only consideration, also quiet and privacy.
tuatoru 4y ago
The world is around 60% urbanized, so there are still 3 billion people in rural areas. Quite a stretch to call that number negligible.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
Perhaps. But another way to look at it is, now you could live anywhere. Pardon the cliche but Starlink might a game changer, a paradigm shift. I don't disagree with you per se. But in this case the future might be different than the past. We'll have to wait and see.
- palata 4y ago
  Because the only thing preventing you from living anywhere is the Internet connection? What abouy access to water, food, infrastructure, social life?
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    You mean homesteading? Or RV'ing? Yes. That's being done now. However, it's safe to presume some don't want to be completely isolated. There's the safety aspect. There's also, as you noted, the social aspect. Truly ubiquitous internet is not what we have now. And because of that fact we can't presume the future will simply be more of the past.
justapassenger 4y ago
You sound like someone who did many pitches to VC. “Everyone on earth breathes, so our market for oxygen bars is 8 billion plus users”. Profitability of dead zones (especially with speeds lower than 2G) is not exactly high. There’s reason why they’re dead zones in the first place.
- bumbledraven 4y ago
  The profitability of the placing and maintaining physical network infrastructure (cell towers etc) in ”dead zones” is low. The profitability of covering many “dead zones” with a single orbit may be different.

seizethecheese 4y ago

That’s some funky reasoning. Most Americans will not move overseas to get lower cost of living, so rural areas are a good substitute. Likewise, cost is not the only consideration, also quiet and privacy.

tuatoru 4y ago

The world is around 60% urbanized, so there are still 3 billion people in rural areas. Quite a stretch to call that number negligible.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

Perhaps. But another way to look at it is, now you could live anywhere. Pardon the cliche but Starlink might a game changer, a paradigm shift. I don't disagree with you per se. But in this case the future might be different than the past. We'll have to wait and see.

palata 4y ago
Because the only thing preventing you from living anywhere is the Internet connection? What abouy access to water, food, infrastructure, social life?
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  You mean homesteading? Or RV'ing? Yes. That's being done now. However, it's safe to presume some don't want to be completely isolated. There's the safety aspect. There's also, as you noted, the social aspect. Truly ubiquitous internet is not what we have now. And because of that fact we can't presume the future will simply be more of the past.

justapassenger 4y ago

You sound like someone who did many pitches to VC. “Everyone on earth breathes, so our market for oxygen bars is 8 billion plus users”. Profitability of dead zones (especially with speeds lower than 2G) is not exactly high. There’s reason why they’re dead zones in the first place.

bumbledraven 4y ago
The profitability of the placing and maintaining physical network infrastructure (cell towers etc) in ”dead zones” is low. The profitability of covering many “dead zones” with a single orbit may be different.