Wireless data transmission should only ever be used for nomadic, temporary, and/or sacrificial links.
They’re useful for quick deployment, but are intrinsically brittle and terrible for resiliency and efficiency.
The longer the dependence on them for a given use case, the less defensible arguments in support of them become.
I’m all for the use of satellite delivery of internet services, but only when it’s used in conjunction with a broader roll out of hardwired infrastructure, at which point it can reasonably be relegated to serving as a secondary, backup diverse path.
No fucking thanks. Gigabit+ fiber > Nazi-ass satellite internet that doesn’t have even remotely near the needed bandwidth for actual dense population centers.
I got a better idea: a civil war against oligarchs
I have a better idea: don’t do that.
You cannot actually serve hundreds of millions in the US even if you invested the 75B it would cost to give every household a satellite it just can’t support the bandwidth.
Going from the most secure, hard wired formats to a con man’s satellites would be a fatal error. Any sort of military conflict and the network is all down, atleast broadband keeps secure networks intact.
Gotta gear up for America’s century of humiliation.
I say that Emma Stone should divorce her husband and marry me instead.
One day he’s gonna get assassinated and it will be a global holiday
I should buy some fireworks
We should always celebrate whenever male supremacists meet their demise. People who use the term “misandry” unironically, for example.
You’d be instantly banned on reddit for this comment lol
Some of us were already banned for such comments, but now we are here being bloodthirsty dickheads. I want to put Musks head in a vice and tighten it till the two plates are dry.
Which is why I’m here and not there. It’s the internet: I hope nobody posts their hot takes! Reddit needs to lighten up. Or even better, fuck off.
i like the alternative saying
Some make the world better by their passing, others make the world better by their passing.
it’s vague and passive enough that you have plausible deniability, but the meaning is clear. plus I like the poetry of it.
I’m going to start the celebration from now
ding dong the witch is dead
That was fast.
Publicly funded fibre can be provider agnostic. Starlink can’t. Unless Musk is arguing for the nationalization of Starlink, which frankly I could get behind.
We paid for it, it should be nationalized. But they only ever socialize their losses, the profits are private.
It shouldn’t be all or nothing. It should be diversified.
Yeah, there are rural locations where Starlink makes sense but also there are a lot of urban places that it would never work in.
Problem with Starlink is that the satellites need to be replaced every 5 years or so.
Yeah, please… give me shitty satellite internet instead of a fast fiber line…
I sure am sick of super fast, stable internet connections. Let’s all get something that fucks up when it’s cloudy.
Except StarLink cannot possibly provide the same bandwidth, latency, and throughput a fiber connection can. Because of physics.
I can either share my 10G symmetrical connection with nobody, or with 200 others.
And, Fiber costs me $70 a month. Starlink, with worse performance, costs 4x more.
It’s not secure either. The next world war will involve efforts to sabotage satellites.
That’s the point. Musk wants control over the entire internet.
If all the other internet infrastructure was abandoned, he would be the most powerful person in history. Want to regulate him afterwards? He could just shut down the internet in your region until you accept his terms.
He has already meddled in the Ukraine war doing things like this, too. He turned off Starlink during an offensive Ukrainian mission. He claims he had to because civilian systems aren’t allowed to be used for a foreign incursion into Russia and that he’d face consequences. Which is a complete lie.
Because of physics.
Pfff, physics, pesky detail! Clearly you are not a true visionary like Musk! /s
In principle I agree with you, but as a network guy, somewhere, between you and the server you are connected to, the bandwidth is shared. The only question is just where and how much bandwidth (well network throughput) there is to share. I work for a large university and our main datacenter has 10GbE and 25/100GbE connections between all the local machines. But we only have about a 3-5gb connection out to the rest of the world.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’d 100% rather have a symmetrical fiber connection to the ISP than something shared like radio or DOCSIS. I used to live in a neighborhood where everyone had Spectrum and about 5-6 PM the speed would plummet because cable internet is essentially just fancy thinnet all over again. Yes I’m old since I used to set up thinnet :)
PS: I would kill for $70 fiber where I am now. Used to have it but we moved to the sticks and I miss it terribly.
That’s good for Starlink and all other ISPs, intuitively, the less internet people have, the more they will pay for more, simple supply and demand !
The best financial move for SpaceX and Starlink would be to have a few “unfortunate accidents” where tesla crash into telephone poles which happen to also hold critical fiber junctions.
Now that is profit driven innovation !
Starlink has no answer to dark fiber.
Starlink is 120/mo. Over the past 30 days my average DL is 144Mb, UL 18Mb, with a 27ms ping. It suuuuuuuuuuuuucks, but the only other option is a literal 4Mb DSL for 80$/mo
And, wait until Starlink hits saturation… Your speeds will be 1mb down, 300kb up, and latency hitting 100ms…
You’re only benefiting from early adoption at this time. It can only get worse the more they onboard.
Starlink is 120/mo.
How much for install?
Dish, router, and long ass cable was on sale for 300. Another 70 for a roof bracket if memory serves.
TIL 120 is 4 x 70…
Edit to add everything below this line
Downvotes for facts. I pay 120/mo. It’s either this, 3Mbps DSL, or T-Mobile home 5G that works when it feels like it.
I’m on the mid tier fiber plan(3gbps) with my ISP which is $100 a month. Here’s the results from the daily speed test my router does.
StarLink is very expensive for the service provided. Its only advantage is the location availability which is essentially anywhere. If they installed fiber to rural areas then its usefulness falls dramatically. I’d rather they invest in more fiber rather than more StarLink satellites that only last about 5 years.
I’d rather have fiber, too. But until it’s available here, this is the next best thing.
So, not 4x, but 2x.
BTW, did you know HughesNet is cheaper, and works just as well. Or, it will work just as well once Starlink reaches the saturation HughesNet faces.
Physics says otherwise.
Geostationary orbit, which is where hughesnet satellites are, is approximately 22 THOUSAND miles away.
That’s a round trip of 44 thousand miles.
That’s a ping time of 236ms just for the satellite connection, before any other connections are added in.
That’s worse than my dialup latency was in the 90s
Meanwhile, my Starlink ping averages less than 40ms, because these satellites are MUCH MUCH closer.
Wonder how your starlink will work once it reaches it’s peak market saturation?
It’s cute that you’re worried about me. But it’s still better than whatever else is currently available at my house. And it will always be better than anything using geostationary orbit.
deleted by creator
To quote Dan Harmon out of context: "If you ask a toaster, “What’s the most important thing in the world?” it’s going to tell you, “Bread.” And if you ask a toaster its opinion of bread, it’s going to tell you, “It’s not toasted enough.”
