It will never be commercially viable to run a cable into the extreme rural reaches of North America. People just don’t understand the scale of the expanse.
Comment on SpaceX Might Have Lost 200+ Starlink Satellites In Just 2 Months Shows Data
Kichae@kbin.social 9 months agoThe idea has merit for anyone living in remote areas (northern Canada, war-torn areas, etc.)
I will grant you war torn areas, and remote islands, but rural continental communities are better served with terrestrial infrastructure. Just because someone's willing to fill the sky with space junk as a means of masturbation doesn't mean it's the best solution for public infrastructure.
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 9 months ago
virr@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Neither was running phone lines or electricity in the rural US, but we did it anyway because it was better for the country.
CoderKat@lemm.ee 9 months ago
I agree for many definitions of rural, but I don’t know if you have an idea on just how remote rural can mean. Try looking around northern Ontario in Google maps if you’ve never done it before. It’s fascinating. So many tiny towns that are only reachable by boat or plane. They’re not islands, but they might as well be, with how isolated they are.
Abnorc@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Satellite internet has existed for some time now for those areas. I wonder if star link is really worse than those alternatives, or if people just love to hate Musk.
AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de 9 months ago
The previous satellite internet was more expensive, had much higher ping times and lower transfer Speeds. You could use email and some websites, but bloated news sites with Autoplay ads, video calls or online games not so much…
PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Building rural infrastructure is incredibly expensive. I grew up about 25 miles from the nearest city, and to this day there are still no cell towers or broadband in the area. Just dial up internet that maxes out at 28.8 baud.
My parents inquired with the local telco, and for 7 miles of fiber I believe they wanted to charge somewhere around $13 million for their rural neighborhood - just for the trenching. For like 20 farms.
AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I lived in a semi-rural area that had fiber access 1 mile away on the same road and they refused to run it unless i paid them $20k. The area was separated by a railroad track, which required permits and they didn’t want to deal with it.
atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Money is no object? Sure. Running fiber to every cabin in the woods though? That’s going to run up a cost…
virr@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Yes it will. Just like doing the exact same thing for power and phone lines to every single place in the entire US ran prices up. Difference is we paid for it and enforced companies do to it. For internet access we just paid for it and then never made them provide the internet access to everyone everywhere.
aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Laying 200km of fiber for a town of ~1000 will always be more expensive than it is worth (for an ISP) and that math only gets worse when you look at last-leg hookups for people spread out ~5km apart around the area and not living directly in the town.
Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
… which is maybe why things that are essentially critical to a developed country’s lifestyle probably shouldn’t simply be companies. If we go off of “it’s not profitable”, public transport wouldn’t be any good, postal services would suck, etc.
The internet should be a public service like mail.
Also, in the US they paid the ISPs to hook everyone up to fiber, and then they just… didn’t.
geosoco@kbin.social 9 months ago
Terrestrial includes wireless solutions, which are better suited for many last-leg hookups in situations like these.
Sure, there's a lot of places where these won't work (eg. mountainous areas), but there are also questions about whether people living that remotely even want broadband or wireless.
deleted@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Do you think xfinity grade router would do 5km?
Also, serving a community of 2k people as far as 1000 km might cost hundreds of millions. So I don’t believe the 2k community would be happy to pay $5k each monthly to make it profitable for the ISP.
Look up LMG when linus wanted to connect to warehouses meters apart with entry level networking solution.
geosoco@kbin.social 9 months ago
First, no one is talking about standard home-grade routers, though there is technology to make those work at longer distances. We're talking about say a cellular network, which is considered broadband in most of the US and has an existing infrastructure. Many of these areas are already going to have cellular access, and upgrades to existing networks are significantly cheaper and easier to maintain. There are long-range wifi solutions, and those work too, but most require line-of-sight, so as i stated, aren't suited for say mountanous area.
Name one community that is stretched out over 1000k. That's not community, that's a fucking state or territory. Seriously, that's more than 10x the width or height of Rhode Island.
Again, as I said, it's questionable whether those people even want high-speed internet in the first place. You're probably not living remotely to be on-the-grid.
The LMG video is irrelevant. Linus is far from an expert.
virr@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Over a long enough term it will be worth it. But as a said elsewhere neither electricity nor phone being run to rural US homes was cost effective for companies. So the US decided that was shit and paid for it to get done. Started to do the same for internet access. Phone companies refused, used the money for other purposes, inflated prices faster the inflation, etc. and yet neither FTC nor congress held them accountable. Other countries have done the same thing for power and phone, there is nothing fundamentally different about physical internet access stopping anyone from doing the same thing.