4 ms·

Why not just subsidize consumers in these Areas using Starlink? I feel like money invested in physical links in the past has basically disappeared without much

Why not just subsidize consumers in these Areas using Starlink? I feel like money invested in physical links in the past has basically disappeared without much change to neglected areas.

whalesalad 2y ago
The article touches on this. Starlink is not the answer. It's a short term solution.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  It doesn’t say much, and to me it reads like an emotional anti-Musk take: > ignoring the LEO satellite platform’s capacity constraints, high prices, erratic leadership, and problematic environmental impact I think capacity constraints are nonexistent for most uses, and capacity is increasing all the time. Clearly LEO has enough capacity because there are many other large constellations also launching. The price is not very different than Comcast or whoever, but with much easier installation, better speeds in most areas, and better customer service. The “erratic” leadership has no effect on the problem we’re discussing, and in fact, Musk has done amazing work with SpaceX and Starlink. On the other hand we’ve already spent tens or hundreds of billions on traditional broadband to neglected areas and got very little for it. We would have been better off giving all those people the money directly so they can pay for satellite Internet.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/starlinks-current-problem-capacity https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/starlinks-current-pro... Capacity issues are a common problem for wireless internet users, because the bandwidth provided by a base station / cell / satellite is divided among its users. Corporations have trouble resisting the temptation to over-sell their capacity, as adding subscribers on the same equipment is pure profit.
    - whalesalad 2y ago
      Not to mention - latency. So many people get caught up in bandwidth but if your latency is in the toilet your experience will be miserable. I would much rather see my packets shoot through a glass tube with minimal latency than literally travel into outer space and then back down to earth (assuming no mesh routing is taking place between the satellites). Literal latency nightmare.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        When it comes to low orbit satellites, that thinking is wrong. It's an extra 2 milliseconds or less, four times. It's not enough to matter.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  Per the article, Starlink is not the answer because: > Capacity constraints Take the author's word for it > high prices Odd criticism of Starlink, given this article cites a project in Oswego County, NY as a success... even though they spent $2,400 per connected household! > erratic leadership This is journo for "I don't like the CEO's politics"
  - onlypassingthru 2y ago
    >This is journo for "I don't like the CEO's politics" Or, it's an accurate description of Elon's team using blackmail to get what they want. https://www.reuters.com/business/us-could-cut-ukraines-access-starlink-internet-services-over-minerals-say-2025-02-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/us-could-cut-ukraines-acces...
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      > U.S. negotiators pressing Kyiv for access to Ukraine's critical minerals have raised the possibility of cutting the country's access to Elon Musk's vital Starlink satellite internet system, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. "U.S. negotiators" (not Elon Musk) threatened to cut off Ukraine's access to Starlink, ergo Elon Musk is erratic. Insightful.
  - whalesalad 2y ago
    Doesn't really matter. Fiber is unequivocally better than satellite. We should not be optimizing for "oh hey starlink exists, fuck rural customers they can just use that" that is the situation we have been in forever with Hughes. There is no reason to not have fiber crisscrossing every county in our nation.
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      > Doesn't really matter. Fiber is unequivocally better than satellite. Oh, word? How much of other people's money are you willing to spend to give random people in rural New York access to marginally better internet? $2,400 per household is no problem for you, clearly. Where's the ceiling? > We should not be optimizing for "oh hey starlink exists, fuck rural customers... Please go back to reddit.
kingnothing 2y ago
I used Starlink for 2 months after the hurricanes last year. If it's the only broadband you can get, it's obviously better than dial up, but it isn't very good compared to any modern wire based services. The bandwidth rises and falls based on where the satellites are, and I had at least a few times per day where the service would cut out for a few seconds to a couple minutes. Again, based on how good your view of the sky is and where the satellites are. It might be absolutely perfect if you live on a hill in a desert, but living in real world most-of-America with hills and trees without a 100 ft tall tv antenna structure to mount the dish on, it isn't all it's cracked up to be.
mysteria 2y ago
How about WISP technology for rural areas as something in between Starlink and expensive fiber infra?
wmf 2y ago
Long term (10-20 years) I think fiber will provide better service per dollar. The hard part is the upfront cost.
rsynnott 2y ago
In Ireland in the early noughties there was an initiative to roll out universal rural broadband (previously, apart from very small WISP operators, affordable broadband (by noughties standards) was only really available if you were within ADSL-range of a telephone exchange). In practice this ended up with the state spending huge amounts of money subsidising point-to-point WISPs, terrestrial cellular solutions, and, where unavoidable, satellite. Of course none of this was remotely good enough long-term, and the _current_ strategy is to just roll out fibre everywhere. The US (or at least this particular programme) is wise to start with fibre; you'll only end up there anyway. Money spent on gap-filling half-measures like terrestrial or satellite cellular is money wasted.

Why not just subsidize consumers in these Areas using Starlink? I feel like money invested in physical links in the past has basically disappeared without much change to neglected areas.

whalesalad 2y ago

The article touches on this. Starlink is not the answer. It's a short term solution.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
It doesn’t say much, and to me it reads like an emotional anti-Musk take: > ignoring the LEO satellite platform’s capacity constraints, high prices, erratic leadership, and problematic environmental impact I think capacity constraints are nonexistent for most uses, and capacity is increasing all the time. Clearly LEO has enough capacity because there are many other large constellations also launching. The price is not very different than Comcast or whoever, but with much easier installation, better speeds in most areas, and better customer service. The “erratic” leadership has no effect on the problem we’re discussing, and in fact, Musk has done amazing work with SpaceX and Starlink. On the other hand we’ve already spent tens or hundreds of billions on traditional broadband to neglected areas and got very little for it. We would have been better off giving all those people the money directly so they can pay for satellite Internet.
- michaelt 2y ago
  https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/starlinks-current-problem-capacity https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/starlinks-current-pro... Capacity issues are a common problem for wireless internet users, because the bandwidth provided by a base station / cell / satellite is divided among its users. Corporations have trouble resisting the temptation to over-sell their capacity, as adding subscribers on the same equipment is pure profit.
  - whalesalad 2y ago
    Not to mention - latency. So many people get caught up in bandwidth but if your latency is in the toilet your experience will be miserable. I would much rather see my packets shoot through a glass tube with minimal latency than literally travel into outer space and then back down to earth (assuming no mesh routing is taking place between the satellites). Literal latency nightmare.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      When it comes to low orbit satellites, that thinking is wrong. It's an extra 2 milliseconds or less, four times. It's not enough to matter.
marcusverus 2y ago
Per the article, Starlink is not the answer because: > Capacity constraints Take the author's word for it > high prices Odd criticism of Starlink, given this article cites a project in Oswego County, NY as a success... even though they spent $2,400 per connected household! > erratic leadership This is journo for "I don't like the CEO's politics"
- onlypassingthru 2y ago
  >This is journo for "I don't like the CEO's politics" Or, it's an accurate description of Elon's team using blackmail to get what they want. https://www.reuters.com/business/us-could-cut-ukraines-access-starlink-internet-services-over-minerals-say-2025-02-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/us-could-cut-ukraines-acces...
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    > U.S. negotiators pressing Kyiv for access to Ukraine's critical minerals have raised the possibility of cutting the country's access to Elon Musk's vital Starlink satellite internet system, three sources familiar with the matter told Reuters. "U.S. negotiators" (not Elon Musk) threatened to cut off Ukraine's access to Starlink, ergo Elon Musk is erratic. Insightful.
- whalesalad 2y ago
  Doesn't really matter. Fiber is unequivocally better than satellite. We should not be optimizing for "oh hey starlink exists, fuck rural customers they can just use that" that is the situation we have been in forever with Hughes. There is no reason to not have fiber crisscrossing every county in our nation.
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    > Doesn't really matter. Fiber is unequivocally better than satellite. Oh, word? How much of other people's money are you willing to spend to give random people in rural New York access to marginally better internet? $2,400 per household is no problem for you, clearly. Where's the ceiling? > We should not be optimizing for "oh hey starlink exists, fuck rural customers... Please go back to reddit.

kingnothing 2y ago

I used Starlink for 2 months after the hurricanes last year. If it's the only broadband you can get, it's obviously better than dial up, but it isn't very good compared to any modern wire based services. The bandwidth rises and falls based on where the satellites are, and I had at least a few times per day where the service would cut out for a few seconds to a couple minutes. Again, based on how good your view of the sky is and where the satellites are. It might be absolutely perfect if you live on a hill in a desert, but living in real world most-of-America with hills and trees without a 100 ft tall tv antenna structure to mount the dish on, it isn't all it's cracked up to be.

mysteria 2y ago

How about WISP technology for rural areas as something in between Starlink and expensive fiber infra?

wmf 2y ago

Long term (10-20 years) I think fiber will provide better service per dollar. The hard part is the upfront cost.

rsynnott 2y ago

In Ireland in the early noughties there was an initiative to roll out universal rural broadband (previously, apart from very small WISP operators, affordable broadband (by noughties standards) was only really available if you were within ADSL-range of a telephone exchange). In practice this ended up with the state spending huge amounts of money subsidising point-to-point WISPs, terrestrial cellular solutions, and, where unavoidable, satellite. Of course none of this was remotely good enough long-term, and the _current_ strategy is to just roll out fibre everywhere. The US (or at least this particular programme) is wise to start with fibre; you'll only end up there anyway. Money spent on gap-filling half-measures like terrestrial or satellite cellular is money wasted.