The FCC revoked that award before it was given because starlink wasn’t meeting the speeds they needed to meet by the deadline 3 years in the future.
Comment on We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink
bulwark@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoThey’re just following in the footsteps of Comcast. The FCC gave SpaceX/Starlink $885.5 million to provide rural broadband after they gave Comcast over $1 billion less than 5 years ago to do the same thing. Starlink actually works out there from what I understand, so I guess that’s something.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Works is a strong word. It’s a better choice than dialup or Hughesnet, but that’s damning with extremely faint praise. If you need to rely on it you might be in trouble. There are still gaps in the coverage where you will be dropped for a while.
Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we’re talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth’s atmosphere, not being recycled.
Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.
bulwark@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I didn’t realize how temporary and disposable Starlink’s satellites were. They incinerate 4 or 5 a day by de-orbiting them into the ozone. Here’s a pretty good CNET article that talks about how they “dispose” of them. IDK, doesn’t seem sustainable. They also mention the bandwidth gains are being diminished with the influx of new users, so their solution is more temporary satellites.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yeah, if they want to make satellites last longer, they could go a bit higher in their orbits. The option is there.
skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
But they specifically don’t want to do that because ensuring a 5 year service life means you are required to continue buying more satellites from them every 5 years. Literally burning resources into nothingness just to pursue a predatory subscription model.
It also helps their case that LEO has much lower latency than mid or high orbit but I refuse to believe that that is their primary driving concern behind this and not the former.
Venator@lemmy.nz 3 weeks ago
That would also make latency worse and the signal weaker.
Thorry84@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
You are right in how wasteful it is, especially since it turned out a lot of those satellites don’t even make it to 4 years.
However there is zero risk of space trash with Starlink. They orbit so low, it’s basically within the atmosphere still. They need to constantly boost themselves, otherwise they fall down and burn up. So these satellites are coming down within years all on their own, even without any controlled disposal.
It’s insanely wasteful, but it keeps SpaceX in business launching every week, which is kind of the point. But at least there isn’t a Kessler syndrome waiting to happen.
trailee@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Even though it’s not a space trash problem, it is a regular upper atmosphere polluter of aluminum oxide ash. We don’t yet know the long term consequences.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
It’s not enough, but I would bet it might have a cooling effect as it reflects more light in the upper atmosphere.
But we should really still make sure, and more importantly not trust Elon with any data flowing over those satellites.
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Starlink provides service to areas where fiber is impossible. Like the middle of the ocean and actual rural areas where fiber runs could be tens of miles or more between homes. Those are area where no one will build out fiber unless the homeowner is paying for it themselves, the various government programs would never cover those actual rural areas despite what they claim. At best they might cover city outskirts for new infrastructure, where fiber nodes are already relatively close by. They’re never adding fiber to existing rural farms and ranches.
They are not a 1:1 service comparison. You would need to compare It to other satellite providers, and there isn’t a comparison because all of those are dogshit in comparison to Starlink.
There’s a reason it’s as popular as it is so quickly despite satellite internet in general not being new. The low earth satellite constellation means a massive difference in capability compared to conventional geostationary satellites. Multiple second latency, slow downloads nowhere near advertised double digit Mbps speeds, single digit Mbps upload speeds and often monthly data limits as low as 50GB per month are what the conventional satellite providers offer.
burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
i dont feel the cost and waste of all the rocket launches and debris justifies remote areas having satellite Internet
BagOfHeavyStones@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
I think if you consider the cost to manufacture then bury a fibre optic cable for everyone who lives 10km from a town centre, I think it's still a net positive. It's not great for sure, but amortised over a huge population it's probably the best option we have at this time.
CybranM@feddit.nu 3 weeks ago
I doubt the Ukrainians would agree with you
Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Those places can get internet from satellites outside of low earth orbit that is simply slower with higher latency.
kautau@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If only we could adjust the plot of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes to where it’s mostly just cleaning up dead starlink satellites.
In any case, highly recommended as a fantastic anime. And for those that haven’t seen it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZESIHA0qK3U
That’s a dubbed trailer, but those of you looking for a Japanese language trailer know where to find it or probably have already watched it lol
IanTwenty@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m checking this out!
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m not sure what isn’t viable about it, I mean it’s demonstrably viable, it’s working now.