Comment

Comment on SpaceX says states should dump fiber plans, give all grant money to Starlink

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
- Cocodapuf@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
  
  source
  - ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
    
    source
    Cocodapuf@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
source
- Cocodapuf@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.
  
  source
Valmond@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source
- PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 know where.
  
  source
Saleh@feddit.org ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
As fiber is rolled out more, i see less and less why it would be cost prohibitive?

All you need to do to connect a remote place is lay a cable. More expensive if you need dig a trench and put the cable in there. But if it can be done for electricity it can be done for fiber.

source
- Cocodapuf@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Well the companies that want to lay fiber aren’t always the same ones who own the telephone poles. If they have to pay for that, that adds to costs.
  
  Also, above ground cables are more exposed and need to be repaired more frequently. Falling trees can sever cables and simply swinging in the wind puts more wear on the cables over time. All together, it means that burying cables is more cost effective in the long term, but present higher upfront costs. Whereas above ground cables are cheaper upfront, but more expensive over time.
  
  The high upfront costs are the bigger deal, but in general, they just don’t want to lay a mile of cable for a couple of users, regardless of how they’re doing it.
  
  source
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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.

source