Starlink shouldn’t exist. it’s unnecessary , we have better options… make internet a utility and force the companies we already gave millions to, to actually modernize infostructure and bring internet to undeserved locations that still have 56k
Starlink should 100% exist in some form or another, but it replacing terrestrial landline internet is madness. We can and should absolutely do both things.
Starlink should have been a global effort, so that we didn’t end up with dozens of private companies all vying to put thousands of satellites into orbit.
what you’re describing is called a “technical standard”, it allows things to work together instead of each company shipping its own, private implementation.
Kessler syndrome doesn’t apply because the orbits are too low to be stable. They have a finite shelf life before they deorbit, after which they’ll burn in the atmosphere. Admittedly, the light pollution is a real problem, but one which should be solved by building more orbital telescopes, not by avoiding building orbital infrastructure.
Do you realize the cost of these things? And how much can be achieved with normal telescopes for a fraction of this cost? It’s like saying we won’t build bridges anymore because we have planes.
Kessler syndrome does still apply. There could be runaway collisions and impassable debris in low earth orbit for 5-10 years before enough of it burns up, putting all that metal into the atmosphere.
talking out of your ass here. satellites don’t typically just run out of fuel. they don’t really need fuel once they’re in orbit. the reason why spacex satellites fall down after like 5 years or sth is because they’re in an intentionally low orbit, where atmospheric friction is still relevant.
I literally clapped my cheeks together on the keyboard to write that last comment and couldn’t be bothered to provide the numbers or context that you provided to support my statement.
Rural Japan, is like the suburbs here in the states. Japan is fucking tiny.
We still should have fiber everywhere in the states. And it should be provided by the electric coops that most of our rural areas run off of, but suggesting that Japan’s rural areas are anything like the US’s rural areas is laughable.
Thank again, Japan is the size of California. This is rural Japan not a suberb. And even many of the actual suberbs in California don’t have fiber to the home.
This is about monopolies running rampant and misuse of public money not about the technical feasibility.
Edit: These companies literally bought back their own stock to inflate their market cap instead of building out the infrastructure we funded.
I’m not saying that the USA shouldn’t have fiber everywhere, it should be like water or electric, my point was suggesting that rural japan is even remotely close to rural US is a bit of a stretch.
And cali is slightly larger than japan, not by much but it is, and that’s just one state.
I grew up in rural Ohio and spent time in rural TX as well for a brief period. As a kid, I walked about 20+ minutes to bail hay in my neighbor’s fields in the summer for cash. I am currently farming in rural Tohoku Japan.
Certain things are similar and certain things are different. To call where I live a suburb is just wrong yet we, and those even more rural than us, have fibre. I looked at buying land on the side of a mountain before buying this place and, although I’d have to pay for the run from the nearest point, I could still get fiber. Being Japan, I of course had to apply by fax machine, but the infrastructure is there for most of the country, both urban and rural.
Edit to add: we have multiple fiber companies as well, at least one of which being a fully private company.
If you live somewhere that has electricity coming from the energy grid then by default should also have Internet coming to your house as well. By defining the internet as a utility and treating it like one you would get more funding to build out the network. Something similar happened with phone lines way back in the day if I’m not mistaken.
The isps have been given finding. Multiple times. Then they merge with another ISP and claim they’re not obligated to fulfill the contract despite owning the company that signed the contract… And a greedy politician finds some reasons in their pocket to allow that excuse
Starlink shouldn’t exist. it’s unnecessary , we have better options… make internet a utility and force the companies we already gave millions to, to actually modernize infostructure and bring internet to undeserved locations that still have 56k
Starlink should 100% exist in some form or another, but it replacing terrestrial landline internet is madness. We can and should absolutely do both things.
Starlink should have been a global effort, so that we didn’t end up with dozens of private companies all vying to put thousands of satellites into orbit.
what you’re describing is called a “technical standard”, it allows things to work together instead of each company shipping its own, private implementation.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/starlink-astronomers-light-pollution-standoff-120000884.html?guccounter=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
I disagree that we should haphazardly be putting more stuff into space than needed… when we have alternatives…
Just because we can doesn’t mean we should…
Kessler syndrome doesn’t apply because the orbits are too low to be stable. They have a finite shelf life before they deorbit, after which they’ll burn in the atmosphere. Admittedly, the light pollution is a real problem, but one which should be solved by building more orbital telescopes, not by avoiding building orbital infrastructure.
“building orbital telescopes”
Do you realize the cost of these things? And how much can be achieved with normal telescopes for a fraction of this cost? It’s like saying we won’t build bridges anymore because we have planes.
E: grammar, a little bit
Orbital telescopes are also far more powerful and useful than terrestrial telescopes, because they don’t need to look through the atmosphere.
Kessler syndrome does still apply. There could be runaway collisions and impassable debris in low earth orbit for 5-10 years before enough of it burns up, putting all that metal into the atmosphere.
Running fiber to low density areas is expensive but there’s no way it can be as expensive as launching all those satellites.
Even if it is, the ROI has got to be way worse for satellites.
There’s also the cost of relaunching satellites once they run out of fuel. The maintenance cost is also higher compared to fiber.
talking out of your ass here. satellites don’t typically just run out of fuel. they don’t really need fuel once they’re in orbit. the reason why spacex satellites fall down after like 5 years or sth is because they’re in an intentionally low orbit, where atmospheric friction is still relevant.
I literally clapped my cheeks together on the keyboard to write that last comment and couldn’t be bothered to provide the numbers or context that you provided to support my statement.
don’t worry :P
What’s better than Starlink in the boonies?
Posting from my fiber-to-the-home connection in rural bumfuck Japan presently for no particular reason.
Rural Japan, is like the suburbs here in the states. Japan is fucking tiny.
We still should have fiber everywhere in the states. And it should be provided by the electric coops that most of our rural areas run off of, but suggesting that Japan’s rural areas are anything like the US’s rural areas is laughable.
Thank again, Japan is the size of California. This is rural Japan not a suberb. And even many of the actual suberbs in California don’t have fiber to the home.
This is about monopolies running rampant and misuse of public money not about the technical feasibility.
Edit: These companies literally bought back their own stock to inflate their market cap instead of building out the infrastructure we funded.
I’m not saying that the USA shouldn’t have fiber everywhere, it should be like water or electric, my point was suggesting that rural japan is even remotely close to rural US is a bit of a stretch.
And cali is slightly larger than japan, not by much but it is, and that’s just one state.
Not even close to as small as people think.
Japan is 146k sq miles
Cali is 163.5k sq miles
Sure Japan’s not small but it’s not anywhere near the size of the US.
Japan is much more spread out which would also increase the logistics of getting fiber to rural areas.
The majority of Japan lives in the cities though. It’s a reason smaller villages are dying.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/15/in-japans-ageing-countryside-communities-are-facing-extinction
The younger population is moving to the cities.
The US has people moving to rural areas now, as it’s cheaper than cities.
https://dailyyonder.com/migration-to-rural-america-resulted-in-population-growth-last-year-census-shows/2025/04/21/#%3A~%3Atext=Net+Migration+in+2024&text=Thousands+of+people+moved+to%2Cnet+migration+of+240%2C000+residents.
We’re doing the opposite of what Japan is doing though.
I grew up in rural Ohio and spent time in rural TX as well for a brief period. As a kid, I walked about 20+ minutes to bail hay in my neighbor’s fields in the summer for cash. I am currently farming in rural Tohoku Japan.
Certain things are similar and certain things are different. To call where I live a suburb is just wrong yet we, and those even more rural than us, have fibre. I looked at buying land on the side of a mountain before buying this place and, although I’d have to pay for the run from the nearest point, I could still get fiber. Being Japan, I of course had to apply by fax machine, but the infrastructure is there for most of the country, both urban and rural.
Edit to add: we have multiple fiber companies as well, at least one of which being a fully private company.
Posting from a fiber connection in rural vietnam. Also have 6GB 5g/day for <7USD/mo
Doesn’t fucking matter when you have as much money as we do.
I’m not suggesting it is. That’s part of my reply
If you live somewhere that has electricity coming from the energy grid then by default should also have Internet coming to your house as well. By defining the internet as a utility and treating it like one you would get more funding to build out the network. Something similar happened with phone lines way back in the day if I’m not mistaken.
The isps have been given finding. Multiple times. Then they merge with another ISP and claim they’re not obligated to fulfill the contract despite owning the company that signed the contract… And a greedy politician finds some reasons in their pocket to allow that excuse
Proper infrastructure development to bring them fiber?
https://www.ntia.gov/funding-programs/high-speed-internet-programs/broadband-equity-access-and-deployment-bead-program
There is a lot of controversy around this … and recently trump changed it to allow things like starlink… make of that what you will