Comment

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

Whoops, there you go again comparing the impact and resolution of a single cable to an entire national network.

That’s… um… how it works? It’s generally one, maybe two, cables connecting continents: dabrownstein.com/…/charting-interconnectedness-in…

I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.

So, generally, “nations” are not connected via undersea cables, continents are.

So, yes, repairing one, maybe two, would be reconnecting an entire national network. Which is STILL cheaper than replacing a mass of Starlink sats… Which, btw, need replacing routinely anyways, because their orbits decay purposefully.

So, every 5 years, we need spend tens of billions to launch another set of trains, just to have them fall into the ocean after 5 years of service. Just to obtain a service that is cheaper, and doesn’t require nearly as much regular investment.

www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html

I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems. And, you also don’t understand that without connected ground stations, served by those “at risk fiber networks on the ground” (That you purport as very risky), Starlink doesn’t work, either.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Jason2357@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
You are comparing a backbone to last mile? Starlink relies on that fiber backbone too. Cutting all the last mile fiber in America would be an insanely difficult attack. Satellites are comparatively vulnerable to a great many attacks. They literally fly over the enemy.

source
Bytemeister@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

That’s… um… how it works? It’s generally one, maybe two, cables connecting continents: dabrownstein.com/…/charting-interconnectedness-in…

I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.

I think you didn’t quite understand. I’m not taking about just undersea cables. An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.

I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.

Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.

I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems.

source
- ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
  
  An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.
  
  Oh, so you mean a very viable attack today (Taking out swaths of constellations) is on par with destroying a sizeable segment of a web of fiber that is very interconnected, and very resilient to outages due to a single fiber?
  
  I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.
  
  It’s viable because we are funding that, with gobs of money, instead of using those gobs of money to fund something that is “Buy once, cry once” instead of Starlinks “must be replaced in total, every 5 years, at billions per train”.
  
  Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.
  
  No, and frankly, you’re digging yourself into a deeper hole.
  
  source
  - Bytemeister@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
    Alright. Let’s clear this up.
    
    Are satellite links easier to take down than a fiber link? No. It takes specialized weapons manfactured by state level actors to take out a a single satellite, let alone a whole constellation. I can take a pair of wire clippers, and take out every cable link in my neighborhood in a afternoon. Russia fairly regularly sabotages undersea cables just by “accidentally” dragging an anchor over them.
    
    Is Starlink funded partially by public money? Absolutely yes, along with every other telecom provider. Hell, we gave them the public TV bands as compensation for builfijg a public fiber network (which they never even fucking did!)
    
    Do Starlink satellite need to be replaced at extreme cost? Yes, but so does terresrrial network infrastructure. There is a reason why your internet isn’t 12kbps anymore… As far as the cost goes, the consumers determine if the cost is worth the benefit, and so far the answer is ‘yes’.
    
    Ever wonder why Ukraine was using Starlink for network connections in the first place? Maybe it’s becuse the vulnerable terrestrial based networks were damaged or taken out of service months ago, and you can’t exactly get a contractor to go into a warzone and lay down new cables.
    
    Your points, that satellites based networks are more vulnerable and prohibitively expensive is simply not compatible with reality.
    
    source
    ubergeek@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago
    
    Are satellite links easier to take down than a fiber link? No
    
    Depends on what we’re talking about.
    
    Is it easy, in any conceivable scenario, to take out an entire nation’s web of cabled infra? No, not at all, and would require the same state actor level threat it would to take out a satellite train. It’s just cheaper to do it in space, and less prone to failing than it would be to try a land-based infra attack.
    
    Do Starlink satellite need to be replaced at extreme cost? Yes, but so does terresrrial network infrastructure.
    
    We do not need to replace all the fiber, and all the coax, and all the transceivers every 5 years, at a cost of 10s of billions. At most? You need to replace stuff in a DC/DSLAM/termination point and the client side. All the fiber and coax in between is still usable for 20 years, even. And the endpoints don’t need to be upgraded physically, most times, it’s a software update pushed.
    
    Ever wonder why Ukraine was using Starlink for network connections in the first place?
    
    Because Russia bombed their power plants, all the cabling, and it was a literal war zone. And relied on infrastructure that was terrestrial outside of the war zone. And to replace all the infra (Outside of the power plants) will still be cheaper than a couple of trains being launched for StarLink.
    
    Your points, that satellites based networks are more vulnerable and prohibitively expensive is simply not compatible with reality.
    
    You do know StarLink can be taken down by targeting their ground stations, right?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments