That’s not “very rural”, in that case.
Comment on Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies
crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 9 months agoI own property in a very rural place and I don’t want it messing up our night sky view.
Guess what, we also have great internet in this very rural place already, too, because they ran cable and put cell towers out there. That’s all it takes.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 9 months ago
troyunrau@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
You are the very definition of privileged, compared to most remote users. And your comment is as close to textbook NIMBY as I’ve ever seen. Plus a healthy dose of “fuck em, I got mine”.
crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
What I’m saying is the most cost effective way to get internet to rural folks is to run cables, it works. You don’t have to put thousands of satellites up, it isn’t easier or better.
troyunrau@lemmy.ca 9 months ago
You sound like you’ve never been anywhere truly remote. For a lot of people in the world, it would be cheaper for the governmet to buy their rural property, bulldoze it, and then buy them a house in a town with internet service – than it is to run a line to their property.
freeman@lemmy.pub 9 months ago
of course that would be cheaper if the government is paying for it…That would also be cheaper than just buying comcast for someone even in suburbs of the US…
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 9 months ago
You’re coming off as something of an out of touch asshole, to be honest. I know people for who getting mains power out to their house would cost them more than the property was worth. And there was mains available at the boundary. THAT’S what remote means, not what you’re describing.
JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 9 months ago
well when your backyard is the night sky for the entire globe you can call me a NIMBY when it comes to starlink’s glowing sattelite trains