Comment on SpaceX Might Have Lost 200+ Starlink Satellites In Just 2 Months Shows Data

• geosoco@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

  source

  • I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    In on starlink because it's now the only half decent option. There is a fairly strong 4g tower reception but it's underprovisioned and gives less than 3mbps downloads. 25 up though. We did have ADSL for a long time but they've shut that network down.

    I'm on a farm 15km from town in hilly terrain.

    source

    • virr@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      And the country should fix this just like during electrification and running phone lines to everywhere.

      In the US we paid for internet to be run everywhere (like we did for electricity and phone lines), then the phone companies just didn’t do it. Neither congress nor FTC followed through with any consequences for companies not doing this. So here we are in the US.

      source

      • I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It's arguably less environmentally damaging to use starlink rather than to run a fixed fibre line to each rural property.

        source
  • deleted@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Sorry English isn’t my first language so I meant 1000 km far from networking infrastructure. Not stretched out over 1000 km.

    Linus isn’t professional. I just want you to have an idea of the cost. Specifically the fiber optic cables.

    That doesn’t include maintenance, professional installation, and hardware to distribute the connection to multiple users / houses.

    Even wireless solutions would not make it viable. I am not an expert but I would assume you need 100 towers for 1000 km (a tower for each 10 km) to relay data to keep speed and stable connection in check.

    The average cost of a barebone cellular tower in USA is $250k without networking hardware. This would result in $25,000,000 just for towers.

    If each person in the town of 1000 subscribed and paid $100 monthly it’d be $100k a month which I don’t think would cover the operation expenses of the service.

    source

    • geosoco@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I understand a lot more about this than you’re assuming.

      I’ve seen this Linus video, plus I’ve seen projects like these work and have a good grasp on the cost. The Linus video can’t explain any of that, And he’s pretty clueless in general.

      There’s a reason google and other companies use wireless and cell for this exact reason. Building ands maintenance is cheaper than satellites.

      Your estimates assume totally new infrastructure, but that’s not the case for most rural communities. They have existing infrastructure that can be upgraded. You’re also wrongly assuming they’re going to put up towers across this distance. They would only put them where needed.

      More importantly this is in comparison to satellites, which are even more expensive and this particular low orbit has a short lifespan.

      It’s not a solution for the cabin in the top of Mount Everest or the middle of the ocean, but as i said in my original reply they are best for the vast majority of people.

      There is a need for satellite communication comms, but we have it already today. I’m just not convinced this particular project is worth the cost.

      Again most importantly, there’s not a ton of evidence that people living in remote areas want broadband.

      source

      • deleted@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Totally agree.

        They must have cellular coverage to begin with so they don’t probably need towers.

        source