• Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Honestly, I think starlink is a fantastic idea in general, but this is clearly bullshit. Starlink works well in tandem with fiber, not as a replacement.

    It’s just never going to be as cost effective as installed fiber. Fiber is obviously the right technology to use in heavily populated areas i.e. for the vast majority of Internet users. And where the population is sparse and laying fiber for individual customers is cost prohibitive, that is where satellite connectivity shines. If SpaceX or anyone else is pretending otherwise, they’re being blatantly deceitful and malicious. That’s not in Internet users’ best interest.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Starlink works well in tandem with fiber, not as a replacement.

      It doesn’t even work well in tandem.

      Starlink has a single benefit going for it right now: Lack of uptake.

      They only have a swath of spectrum, and that has a physical upper limit to how much information it can carry, in total. So does fiber. But, Starlink gets to share that with all users (Much like how cable internet works, its shared bandwidth for everyone on the loop). Fiber, you get your dedicated pipe.

      This isn’t even getting to view obstruction (A plane will cause a drop out), latency, jitter, etc. These are all physics problem that just cannot be solved without violating the laws of physics. Latency, at a minimum, is 2.6 ms, and that’s just for the first leg.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        It’s crazy to say it doesn’t work well in tandem… I mean, it’s demonstrable, If it didn’t work, people wouldn’t use it, but they do. And there is no other way to reach users in some places. Starlink can reach users that only a long range wireless solution can work for. There are some other long range wireless solutions, but this one does work.

        Look, I don’t like Elon, I don’t like monopolies, I’m not a secret shill for SpaceX, but I can admit the truth right in front of me. You don’t have to stretch the truth to say Starlink isn’t a good system for the vast majority of people, so why do it? Why create a false narrative? Why get all defensive about a technology?

        And finally, I do not see any reason to care about an extra 5 ms latency.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          And there is no other way to reach users in some places.

          There is, if we decided to instead of giving Elon billions every few months, we used that money to expand the fiber networks.

          Starlink can reach users that only a long range wireless solution can work for. There are some other long range wireless solutions, but this one does work.

          There are myriad technology solutions that are both viable, and already being used. Capitalism means we don’t deploy them. Oligarchy means we instead choose to do things that are more expensive, but happen to benefit a friendly oligarch.

          You don’t have to stretch the truth to say Starlink isn’t a good system for the vast majority of people, so why do it?

          Except, it isn’t. Its just the one with the hype.

          • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            35 minutes ago

            Some people live in places that aren’t connected to large electrical grids, they have local generation and micro grids for a small community. Isolated mountains or small islands, or deserts are good examples of these situations. So if connecting to the electrical grid wasn’t realistic I’m willing to bet that a fiber connection also isn’t realistic.

            It’s hard to believe you think fiber can work for literally everything. I really don’t know why you’re bothering to dig in on this issue, it’s so easy to prove otherwise. I hadn’t even mentioned the use case of vehicles yet, boats, planes, trains, trucks, campers, obviously you can’t run fiber to a vehicle. Or truly remote locations where people don’t live, but researches work there, Antarctic bases, etc.

            Also, I think you misunderstood my last line. I’m saying Starlink isn’t right for most people. I’m just not making things up to say that.

            • ubergeek@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              20 minutes ago

              So if connecting to the electrical grid wasn’t realistic I’m willing to bet that a fiber connection also isn’t realistic.

              If fiber isn’t possible due to electrical grids being non-existent… A power hungry sat transceiver will likely be a non-starter, too.

              It’s hard to believe you think fiber can work for literally everything.

              I don’t think it can. I also don’t think Starlink can work for literally everything, either. There are better, and faster, and cheaper solutions like Microwave backhauls and cellular data service for the last mile.

              I hadn’t even mentioned the use case of vehicles yet, boats, planes, trains, trucks, campers, obviously you can’t run fiber to a vehicle.

              Boats are the one outlier here, that cannot be reach via cell service, with a fraction of the cost of Starlink. And sure, boats can use it, and boats should pay the full cost of the package. No need for government money to fund them, they didn’t need it before, and don’t need it now. Boaters were quite satisfied paying their Iridium bills in the past.

    • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Starlink still requires ground stations, and those ground stations can and are a limiting factor. I was up at a cabin that had Starlink, and service is still in the “better than nothing” phase.

      There is concern for fucking up things like radio telescopes. Also, creating a Kessler syndrome event. “But LEO wouldn’t have an issue with that because it would burn up”. Two things:

      • Everything in LEO being destroyed is still really bad. Astronauts would likely die.
      • Objects in lower orbits can get ejected into higher orbits and hit things there. Kessler sydrome in LEO could potentially start a chain reaction in higher orbits.

      Plus, the EU and China are understandably worried about Musk being the only game up there and want to deploy their own equivalent systems. So now there’s not just one system of satellites threatening Kessler syndrome, but possibly three.

      Just roll out fiber everywhere like we have with electricity.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        While it is possible for objects in orbit to be knocked into a higher orbit, it’s certainly not common. It basically requires a collision with another object in a highly elliptical orbit, this is not a kind of orbit we use very often.

        Also, these low orbit constellations are simply nowhere near the majority of satellites, up in geostationary orbit. It’s not realistic to imagine any debris from LEO ever reaching GSO, the distance between is just too vast. In general, Kessler syndrome would only extend downward from higher orbit, extending up to a higher orbit would be extremely unlikely.

        Also, while astronauts could die, we keep enough emergency escape vehicles docked for the entire iss crew. NASA is full of smart people and they’re generally risk adverse these days, I don’t think anyone would die, but it would certainly be a shame to evacuate the iss.

        Plus, the EU and China are understandably worried about Musk being the only game up there and want to deploy their own equivalent systems. So now there’s not just one system of satellites threatening Kessler syndrome, but possibly three.

        This is in fact a worrying situation. Not because I think Kesler syndrome is a realistic concern, but because there’s only so much space in low earth orbit. I really don’t like one company having a monopoly on low orbit communications, but having layers and layers of satellite constellations also seems like a dangerous situation.

        Just roll out fiber everywhere like we have with electricity.

        I’m all for that in theory, but whenever we dedicate funds to that cause… telecoms just walk away with it. If the US isn’t interested in holding them accountable, I don’t really see any reason to throw more money their way. That said, Starlink is doing fine, I see no reason to throw money at them either.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      In France they authorised air hanging fiber, so they just use electric poles and hang the fiber under the 220 volt lines, as a last resort.

      Cheap as hell. Or, where there’s a will there is a way.

      • PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        We do this in some parts of America too. My grandmother’s local electric co-op provided fiber to her house this way in the middle of no where.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

      lets get down to the real reason he wants to do this. he would be able to turn off connection for millions if they piss him off, or hand over the data to said political actors like putin or trump, also to manipulate future elections like he did last time.