• sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    29 minutes ago

    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.

    • alekwithak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 minutes ago

      We paid for it, it should be nationalized. But they only ever socialize their losses, the profits are private.

  • weew@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    46 minutes ago

    On one hand, Musk.

    On the other hand… Telecos.

    You can either give billions more to the world’s richest asshole, or you can give billions to companies that already received that money last time and did absolutely fuckall with it.

    Lose-lose

    • tehn00bi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      45 minutes ago

      Not really. Most of the rural plans in the US are run by utilities companies that are local.

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 minutes ago

      I mean there is a third option: municipal fiber

      But then the gub’ment is your ISP but at least it’s not making billionaires money.

      I’d suggest the best case scenario to me would be a fourth option like a community run co-op of fiber to the premises and have it be grant funded. But who am I kidding, that’s almost to socialist for rural America like where I live.

  • alekwithak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    18 minutes ago

    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.”

  • ubergeek@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 minutes ago

      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.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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 !

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

    • ChetManly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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

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

        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?

    • HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • JordanZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 minutes ago

        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.

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

        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.

  • PlasmaTrout@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I’ve been WFH for at least 10 years and live in rural area. Starlink was like 150-200$ a month for an unpredictable 5-150mbps and did meh. When I finally got fiber it was sub 100$ a month for 2gbps stable. Not a hard decision :)

    • Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      58 minutes ago

      I live in a backwater northern U.K. town. We have fibre. I’d have thought somewhere like USA was rolling it out to most places.

    • ChetManly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Nope… i don’t have cable or even great cell service and I live 45 minutes from a major city. Current ETA on fiber is mid 26.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 minutes ago

        oh my god… I can’t believe I’m still getting surprised by how terrible things are in the US. it is the richest, poorest country.

        EDIT: holy shit i just saw a 2019 OECD report that says the us had less than 20% of its fixed internet users connected by fiber which is way below the average for the 37 countries studied in the report, which was 27%.

        funny thing is i remember reading about this very report in a news article, which was about how my country was way below the average; noting countries like japan, south korea and a bunch of european countries had above 50%. but i think the number for my country was something like 22%. we’re not even in the EU and we had higher coverage than the US? that’s crazy.

  • Smoogs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I’m so glad other countries are coming up with their own satellites just for the expressed interest to boycott musk.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Why? That won’t accomplish much.

          I just want people to know we are Fucked. This stupid fucking satellite Internet race is going to destroy Earth’s orbital infrastructure.

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

            Oh hell no. Fuck off with this won’t stand up to the bully but will stand on everyone else you think you can bully bullshit.

            You are being the exact reason we are fucked.

            Coward.

            • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              We have to stand up together, there’s literally nothing I can do by myself. That’s why I need to let people know, so they stand with me.

              I’m sorry if you feel like you’re being bullied.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      No, please no

      We don’t need thousands of satellites to provide internet, the entire idea and design of Starlink is utterly stupid.

      I can look up at the sky not and see stars and… Those fucking star link satellites.

      We’re already close enough to a Kessler effect scenario without adding thousands of satellites, and with governments world wide now ready to just shoot satellites (seriously, can everyone please stop voting for dumb fucks while we’re at it?) can we please PLEASE stop this?

      Just use fiber internet or where not possible, use geostationary satellites. We don’t need semi low latency everywhere

      • Smoogs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        There are areas of the planet where there is no signal or fibre. Clearly as you and I are capable of posting on an online social; you and I are not in one of these dead spots but they do exist. And some of these areas have to exist in order to provide sustainable lifestyle for the other more built up areas (farmland gets left in the dark much of the time)

        Just something to think about before you run around running your mouth talking down with privilege of where you’re speaking about it.

        And before you even utter the phrase ‘they should…’ or ‘someone should’

        No. Stop. You first. you’re someone. You up end your life and go live there and fix it ‘sustainably’ and bump into all the problems with your online solutions and work it out and fix it before you talk about what everyone else should be doing in areas and lifestyles you don’t care to exist in enough to empathize or understand yet still benefit from.

        And why is it only a problem with OTHER COUNTRIES do it while you sit there mute as musk does it?? So it’s all ok that he does it under the name of capitalism but should any other country act in their own agency you suddenly get all crunchy about it?

        No. Absolutely not buying this ‘ok for me but not ok for thee’ bull rap.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          58 minutes ago

          There are areas of the planet where there is no signal or fibre.

          So, we should take the billions per train launch, and install microwave backhauls and cellular service to cover those dead zones.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    8 hours ago

    “Give me all your money” says world’s richest person, in a fit of originality.