3 ms·

Starlink is actually pretty damn badass. I can use the smaller battery one to get internet anywhere, at speeds much faster than I can imagine. It is insane that

Starlink is actually pretty damn badass. I can use the smaller battery one to get internet anywhere, at speeds much faster than I can imagine. It is insane that we have had fiber tech for 20 years and it's NO WHERE! It has been promised to us for 20 years. Elon went from announcement to production in 4 years - worldwide access. I can't think of a better recipient for federal funds to get people access.

JohnFen 2y ago
Doesn't matter to me. There's zero chance that I'll ever willingly give a dime to any Musk company. Shiny toys are not worth helping him destroy my country.
- almosthere 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    He's been working on it in many ways over the last few years, but the biggest and most recent example is doge.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
acdha 2y ago
Starlink is much slower, less reliable, and has prohibitive scaling issues. There’s been a significant amount of fiber deployed over the last couple of decades but the primary problems there have been monopolists reneging on promised expansions and anti-competitive state and local laws preventing competition. Allowing Starlink is useful for applying competitive pressure but what we really need is more regulatory pressure to push incumbents not to slow-roll deployments or charge so much that many people can’t afford it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- almosthere 2y ago
  I have used Starlink for remote work and I can download anything as fast as providers can serve it (I am nearly 100% dependent on limitations on the providers upload speed). I have had no downtime during power outages (as long as I have my own power - which I do) which makes the unit have much higher resiliency than wired internet. Not sure what you mean by scaling issues, that's exactly what is plaguing fiber. They can't scale without digging up the entire planet.
  - acdha 2y ago
    If you search the forums, they have capacity scaling issues once more than a few people in a region are using it and suffer degradation in bad weather. I’m not saying it’s a terrible service but it’s slower and less scalable than fiber and if you are talking large scale deployments that will matter.
    - inhumantsar 2y ago
      Remember that we're talking about rural deployments here. Scale is not the problem. Or maybe it is, but not in the way you think. The scale of fibre is the problem. Fibre makes sense when you're serving places where a single neighbourhood rivals the population of entire rural towns. They're close to backhauls, technicians, and enough customers to justify the cost. Which is why companies have dragged their feet on it in rural areas where the nearest full-time technician is a half-day's drive away. I mean shit, my mother lives less than an hour outside the capital city of my home province and can't even get DSL. It's too much copper for too few people to justify maintaining it at a price people are able to pay. I've been using Starlink in rural Canada, prairies and mountains, where most people are either using Starlink, horrible past-gen satellite links, or microwave LOS systems. My father's been using a microwave LOS system at his farm for a decade. All of them are affected by weather to some extent, but Starlink is the least affected, and no Starlink user I've talked to has been affected by congestion issues. Yes it's absolutely slower than fibre, it's slower than the DOCSIS 3 cable internet I was using before this. Microwave is usually cheaper, but Starlink is much faster (unless you're wealthy enough to get a beefy uplink). And importantly, Starlink ready to go right now. Rural users often have to choose between nothing and a very expensive something. Fibre would be nice but wiring up every rural customer to fibre is a ridiculously time-consuming and expensive proposition. On the off-chance that a rural town grows instead of dies, then fibre would be better for them but at that point the economics of running fibre would make sense without the need for subsidies. Rural people need alternatives to Starlink but fibre isn't it.

JohnFen 2y ago

Doesn't matter to me. There's zero chance that I'll ever willingly give a dime to any Musk company. Shiny toys are not worth helping him destroy my country.

almosthere 2y ago
[flagged]
- JohnFen 2y ago
  He's been working on it in many ways over the last few years, but the biggest and most recent example is doge.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

acdha 2y ago

Starlink is much slower, less reliable, and has prohibitive scaling issues. There’s been a significant amount of fiber deployed over the last couple of decades but the primary problems there have been monopolists reneging on promised expansions and anti-competitive state and local laws preventing competition. Allowing Starlink is useful for applying competitive pressure but what we really need is more regulatory pressure to push incumbents not to slow-roll deployments or charge so much that many people can’t afford it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
almosthere 2y ago
I have used Starlink for remote work and I can download anything as fast as providers can serve it (I am nearly 100% dependent on limitations on the providers upload speed). I have had no downtime during power outages (as long as I have my own power - which I do) which makes the unit have much higher resiliency than wired internet. Not sure what you mean by scaling issues, that's exactly what is plaguing fiber. They can't scale without digging up the entire planet.
- acdha 2y ago
  If you search the forums, they have capacity scaling issues once more than a few people in a region are using it and suffer degradation in bad weather. I’m not saying it’s a terrible service but it’s slower and less scalable than fiber and if you are talking large scale deployments that will matter.
  - inhumantsar 2y ago
    Remember that we're talking about rural deployments here. Scale is not the problem. Or maybe it is, but not in the way you think. The scale of fibre is the problem. Fibre makes sense when you're serving places where a single neighbourhood rivals the population of entire rural towns. They're close to backhauls, technicians, and enough customers to justify the cost. Which is why companies have dragged their feet on it in rural areas where the nearest full-time technician is a half-day's drive away. I mean shit, my mother lives less than an hour outside the capital city of my home province and can't even get DSL. It's too much copper for too few people to justify maintaining it at a price people are able to pay. I've been using Starlink in rural Canada, prairies and mountains, where most people are either using Starlink, horrible past-gen satellite links, or microwave LOS systems. My father's been using a microwave LOS system at his farm for a decade. All of them are affected by weather to some extent, but Starlink is the least affected, and no Starlink user I've talked to has been affected by congestion issues. Yes it's absolutely slower than fibre, it's slower than the DOCSIS 3 cable internet I was using before this. Microwave is usually cheaper, but Starlink is much faster (unless you're wealthy enough to get a beefy uplink). And importantly, Starlink ready to go right now. Rural users often have to choose between nothing and a very expensive something. Fibre would be nice but wiring up every rural customer to fibre is a ridiculously time-consuming and expensive proposition. On the off-chance that a rural town grows instead of dies, then fibre would be better for them but at that point the economics of running fibre would make sense without the need for subsidies. Rural people need alternatives to Starlink but fibre isn't it.