4 ms·

"...it’s generally more economically and environmentally sound to prioritize the deployment of fiber..." Um. Wat? Cannot wait to hear the same author howling

"...it’s generally more economically and environmentally sound to prioritize the deployment of fiber..." Um. Wat? Cannot wait to hear the same author howling about environmental destruction as the most awful of the megacorps dig millions of miles of trenches to lay down fiber. Also, unlike our scumbag trad ISPs, who constantly return to the subsidy trough and provide nothing of value, consider that maybe the financial calculus has been done by the people putting their own, actual dollars in on this one. Finally, since the author is so concerned with the needs of the underprivileged, where's their outrage over the $14.4 BILLION dollars[0] that were wasted in a failed attempt to get the rural areas of the country connected? [0] https://www.fcc.gov/acp https://www.fcc.gov/acp

cozzyd 2y ago
Really it just probably makes sense to upgrade cellular networks with enough backhaul bandwidth. (And deploy cell towers to cover people who are currently not covered yet, though I imagine that's a fairly small fraction of people at this point). For truly isolated communities without roads and such, satellite probably remains the best option.
- natch 2y ago
  FYI they misquoted the price for Starlink service. They used the city price which is higher. In the country Starlink makes it cheaper. So essentially city users who don’t really need Starlink are subsidizing the rural users, which is kind of awesome imho. Sad that journalists can’t get a level of nuance and accuracy about this kind of stuff, but they’re happy to misuse the wrong price to try to make a false dig against Starlink.
- ElectronCharge 2y ago
  I’d like to see a map showing US cell coverage that offers minimum 20 mbps rates (current bar for ‘high speed’ internet). I expect the vast majority of rural locations aren’t covered. Other countries will be far worse on average. Cell internet is also quite expensive. Starlink offers 10x the minimum bandwidth. Running fiber everywhere it needs to go for backhaul would be fabulously expensive, and involve major environmental impacts.
  - cozzyd 2y ago
    Sure, some cell networks suck. That's not an immutable law of nature though. There is plenty of bandwidth available for terrestrial cellular networks. And backhauls can be point to point microwave rather than fiber.

cozzyd 2y ago

Really it just probably makes sense to upgrade cellular networks with enough backhaul bandwidth. (And deploy cell towers to cover people who are currently not covered yet, though I imagine that's a fairly small fraction of people at this point). For truly isolated communities without roads and such, satellite probably remains the best option.

natch 2y ago
FYI they misquoted the price for Starlink service. They used the city price which is higher. In the country Starlink makes it cheaper. So essentially city users who don’t really need Starlink are subsidizing the rural users, which is kind of awesome imho. Sad that journalists can’t get a level of nuance and accuracy about this kind of stuff, but they’re happy to misuse the wrong price to try to make a false dig against Starlink.
ElectronCharge 2y ago
I’d like to see a map showing US cell coverage that offers minimum 20 mbps rates (current bar for ‘high speed’ internet). I expect the vast majority of rural locations aren’t covered. Other countries will be far worse on average. Cell internet is also quite expensive. Starlink offers 10x the minimum bandwidth. Running fiber everywhere it needs to go for backhaul would be fabulously expensive, and involve major environmental impacts.
- cozzyd 2y ago
  Sure, some cell networks suck. That's not an immutable law of nature though. There is plenty of bandwidth available for terrestrial cellular networks. And backhauls can be point to point microwave rather than fiber.