3 ms·

Starlink was never designed to be faster than fibre, and it was certainly never designed or intended for use by people that ave access to fibre (or cable, or LT

by grecy 3y ago

Starlink was never designed to be faster than fibre, and it was certainly never designed or intended for use by people that ave access to fibre (or cable, or LTE for that matter). SpaceX have re-iterated this on many, many occasions. Anyone who things otherwise simply doesn't understand the product. Starlink is designed for people who live in remote areas that have no access to any of that. Go out right now and see how life changing it is for those people. All across Northern Canada & rural Australia I've met dozens of people who previously had access to dial-up AT BEST in 2022, and now have solid broadband connections.

TheAlchemist 3y ago
It was. The V2 that they are deploying is supposedly communicating directly between satellites, making it faster than fiber over long distances. Elon advertised that in 2019 or something already. I don't deny it is life changing for those people ! All I'm saying is that it's not economically viable to provide that to those people. And the only way it is, it's because it's either a business bleeding money, or supported by the government.
- grecy 3y ago
  > It was No. It was never designed or advertised to offer "faster than fibre" connections to end users, and all along Musk and maintained it makes absolutely no sense for a person to use Starlink if they already have access to a ground-based option like fibre or cable or LTE. > All I'm saying is that it's not economically viable to provide that to those people. And the only way it is, it's because it's either a business bleeding money, or supported by the government Those are wild claims. Please post citations about how it's bleeding money or is supported by the government.
- alsodumb 3y ago
  You are obviously giving very biased answers without any substantial proof.
  - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
    The proof is everywhere when you look at products manufactured by Musk companies They are all based on re-inventing the wheel (quite literally) for political purposes and government money extraction. You'll never find the guy developing something that customers really want such as self-checkout system that doesn't suck, because there is no Government money to be extracted from it.
    - alsodumb 3y ago
      Let's see, Tesla is reinventing the wheel for extracting government money extraction? They make a solid profit on each car they sell. You gonna bring up the loan. But that loan was repaid in full by Tesla, ahead of time, where as Ford and other who also got similar loans defaulted on it. You going to bring up EV subsidies - but that's open to every automaker and Tesla is probably the only company that can make a margin on their car even without EV subsidy. Now let's talk SpaceX - people who are not familiar with the space industry don't realize how much SpaceX fundamentally changed the industry - before SpaceX it was like two players in the space launch area, and they used to charge government a shit ton of money for each launch, often using Russian engines. SpaceX made it so cheap that it was hard for anyone to compete, and their offerings are so cheap when compared to anyone else (and sometimes they are the only launch option US) that even competitors are compelled to use SpaceX. You being a Musk hater would argue that all the government launch contracts to SpaceX are 'subsidies' but nope, they launches were gonna happen whether SpaceX existed or not. SpaceX only saved government tens of billions of dollars by reducing the launch costs. I can keep going on but it wouldn't matter to you. Customers really wanted SpaceX. Everyone who uses Starlink really wants it, go talk to actual users. Just because the products the guy is developing doesn't align with your notion of what customers really want doesn't mean if it's something useful. Starlink would exist without this subsidy from the government. That doesn't mean that Starlink should not try to get a share of the subsidy that government offered to all the players in this market. If you have a problem with the subsidy complain about the government, not one of the many beneficiaries just because you hate the guy that owns the company.
      - 3y ago
- laverya 3y ago
  > making it faster than fiber over long distances This does not mean you should use it if you have fiber available at your house. This means you should pay for transit over it if you need to have low-latency overseas connections, for instance for HFT or piloting drones.
  - TheAlchemist 3y ago
    Yes - the HFT space would pay a lot of money to use it if it's available.

by grecy 3y ago

TheAlchemist 3y ago

It was. The V2 that they are deploying is supposedly communicating directly between satellites, making it faster than fiber over long distances. Elon advertised that in 2019 or something already. I don't deny it is life changing for those people ! All I'm saying is that it's not economically viable to provide that to those people. And the only way it is, it's because it's either a business bleeding money, or supported by the government.

grecy 3y ago
> It was No. It was never designed or advertised to offer "faster than fibre" connections to end users, and all along Musk and maintained it makes absolutely no sense for a person to use Starlink if they already have access to a ground-based option like fibre or cable or LTE. > All I'm saying is that it's not economically viable to provide that to those people. And the only way it is, it's because it's either a business bleeding money, or supported by the government Those are wild claims. Please post citations about how it's bleeding money or is supported by the government.
alsodumb 3y ago
You are obviously giving very biased answers without any substantial proof.
- JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
  The proof is everywhere when you look at products manufactured by Musk companies They are all based on re-inventing the wheel (quite literally) for political purposes and government money extraction. You'll never find the guy developing something that customers really want such as self-checkout system that doesn't suck, because there is no Government money to be extracted from it.
  - alsodumb 3y ago
    Let's see, Tesla is reinventing the wheel for extracting government money extraction? They make a solid profit on each car they sell. You gonna bring up the loan. But that loan was repaid in full by Tesla, ahead of time, where as Ford and other who also got similar loans defaulted on it. You going to bring up EV subsidies - but that's open to every automaker and Tesla is probably the only company that can make a margin on their car even without EV subsidy. Now let's talk SpaceX - people who are not familiar with the space industry don't realize how much SpaceX fundamentally changed the industry - before SpaceX it was like two players in the space launch area, and they used to charge government a shit ton of money for each launch, often using Russian engines. SpaceX made it so cheap that it was hard for anyone to compete, and their offerings are so cheap when compared to anyone else (and sometimes they are the only launch option US) that even competitors are compelled to use SpaceX. You being a Musk hater would argue that all the government launch contracts to SpaceX are 'subsidies' but nope, they launches were gonna happen whether SpaceX existed or not. SpaceX only saved government tens of billions of dollars by reducing the launch costs. I can keep going on but it wouldn't matter to you. Customers really wanted SpaceX. Everyone who uses Starlink really wants it, go talk to actual users. Just because the products the guy is developing doesn't align with your notion of what customers really want doesn't mean if it's something useful. Starlink would exist without this subsidy from the government. That doesn't mean that Starlink should not try to get a share of the subsidy that government offered to all the players in this market. If you have a problem with the subsidy complain about the government, not one of the many beneficiaries just because you hate the guy that owns the company.
    - 3y ago
laverya 3y ago
> making it faster than fiber over long distances This does not mean you should use it if you have fiber available at your house. This means you should pay for transit over it if you need to have low-latency overseas connections, for instance for HFT or piloting drones.
- TheAlchemist 3y ago
  Yes - the HFT space would pay a lot of money to use it if it's available.