3 ms·

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 thi

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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
kalleboo 2y ago
> even though they spent $2,400 per connected household Starlink is $349 up-front, then $120/mo. That $2400 pays back in under 2 years! And Starlink requires a continual investment in launching new satellites to replace de-orbited ones, meaning the prices won't come down. Once that fiber is in the ground, maintenance is minimal.
rsynnott 2y ago
> even though they spent $2,400 per connected household! FTTH is extremely expensive to _install_, but once it's there it's pretty cheap to maintain compared to copper.

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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

kalleboo 2y ago

> even though they spent $2,400 per connected household Starlink is $349 up-front, then $120/mo. That $2400 pays back in under 2 years! And Starlink requires a continual investment in launching new satellites to replace de-orbited ones, meaning the prices won't come down. Once that fiber is in the ground, maintenance is minimal.

rsynnott 2y ago

> even though they spent $2,400 per connected household! FTTH is extremely expensive to _install_, but once it's there it's pretty cheap to maintain compared to copper.