On one hand, Musk.
On the other hand… Telecos.
You can either give billions more to the world’s richest asshole, or you can give billions to companies that already received that money last time and did absolutely fuckall with it.
Lose-lose
SpaceX says states should dump fiber plans, give all grant money to Starlink
Submitted 7 months ago by tonytins@pawb.social to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
weew@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
billwashere@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I mean there is a third option: municipal fiber
But then the gub’ment is your ISP but at least it’s not making billionaires money.
I’d suggest the best case scenario to me would be a fourth option like a community run co-op of fiber to the premises and have it be grant funded. But who am I kidding, that’s almost to socialist for rural America like where I live.
Jason2357@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Fourth option: Municipal fiber, but open access to those lines for private ISPs of all types.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
Third option: municipal fibre
Geodad@lemmy.world 7 months ago
We have that here. 🥰
billwashere@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I should really read before I post… :)
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
Thats illegal most placss.
So twice as cool as well as functionally superior.
tehn00bi@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Not really. Most of the rural plans in the US are run by utilities companies that are local.
Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
lol. Of course it does.
pyre@lemmy.world 7 months ago
what do you mean fiber “plans”? do you guys not have fiber?
Squirrelanna@lemmynsfw.com 7 months ago
HahahahahaHHAHAHAAHSHAHAHAHDHDGF Country wide fiber in the US?? Think of the local monopolies gouging hundreds of dollars out of you for what amounts to dial up compared to fibre! Do you expect them to upgrade their infrastructure when they can do nothing and continue to make money??
Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
I live in a backwater northern U.K. town. We have fibre. I’d have thought somewhere like USA was rolling it out to most places.
ChetManly@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Nope… i don’t have cable or even great cell service and I live 45 minutes from a major city. Current ETA on fiber is mid 26.
pyre@lemmy.world 7 months ago
oh my god… I can’t believe I’m still getting surprised by how terrible things are in the US. it is the richest, poorest country.
morphballganon@mtgzone.com 7 months ago
Hey uh Musk how’s that there hyperloop comin’?
Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That’s insane.
PlasmaTrout@lemmy.wtf 7 months ago
I’ve been WFH for at least 10 years and live in rural area. Starlink was like 150-200$ a month for an unpredictable 5-150mbps and did meh. When I finally got fiber it was sub 100$ a month for 2gbps stable. Not a hard decision :)
ubergeek@lemmy.today 7 months ago
Except StarLink cannot possibly provide the same bandwidth, latency, and throughput a fiber connection can. Because of physics.
I can either share my 10G symmetrical connection with nobody, or with 200 others.
And, Fiber costs me $70 a month. Starlink, with worse performance, costs 4x more.
utopiah@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Because of physics.
Pfff, physics, pesky detail! Clearly you are not a true visionary like Musk! /s
billwashere@lemmy.world 7 months ago
In principle I agree with you, but as a network guy, somewhere, between you and the server you are connected to, the bandwidth is shared. The only question is just where and how much bandwidth (well network throughput) there is to share. I work for a large university and our main datacenter has 10GbE and 25/100GbE connections between all the local machines. But we only have about a 3-5gb connection out to the rest of the world.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’d 100% rather have a symmetrical fiber connection to the ISP than something shared like radio or DOCSIS. I used to live in a neighborhood where everyone had Spectrum and about 5-6 PM the speed would plummet because cable internet is essentially just fancy thinnet all over again. Yes I’m old since I used to set up thinnet :)
PS: I would kill for $70 fiber where I am now. Used to have it but we moved to the sticks and I miss it terribly.
CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 7 months ago
somewhere, between you and the server you are connected to, the bandwidth is shared.
But the difference here is that on a fibre connection the shared portion goes over higher speed trunks which gives you most of that 1Gbps bandwidth. A wireless connection has a limited number of slices in the same band that it can share.
It’s the same issue with too many people on a single WiFi connection.
Jason2357@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Technically correct. The best kind of correct ;). He should have said not sharing that last mile connection, like one would share with a satellite downlink.
ChetManly@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Starlink is 120/mo. Over the past 30 days my average DL is 144Mb, UL 18Mb, with a 27ms ping. It suuuuuuuuuuuuucks, but the only other option is a literal 4Mb DSL for 80$/mo
ubergeek@lemmy.today 7 months ago
And, wait until Starlink hits saturation… Your speeds will be 1mb down, 300kb up, and latency hitting 100ms…
You’re only benefiting from early adoption at this time. It can only get worse the more they onboard.
Starlink is 120/mo.
How much for install?
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
That’s good for Starlink and all other ISPs, intuitively, the less internet people have, the more they will pay for more, simple supply and demand !
The best financial move for SpaceX and Starlink would be to have a few “unfortunate accidents” where tesla crash into telephone poles which happen to also hold critical fiber junctions.
Now that is profit driven innovation !
HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 7 months ago
TIL 120 is 4 x 70…
ubergeek@lemmy.today 7 months ago
So, not 4x, but 2x.
BTW, did you know HughesNet is cheaper, and works just as well. Or, it will work just as well once Starlink reaches the saturation HughesNet faces.
Inucune@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Starlink has no answer to dark fiber.
iridebikes@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It’s not secure either. The next world war will involve efforts to sabotage satellites.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That’s the point. Musk wants control over the entire internet.
If all the other internet infrastructure was abandoned, he would be the most powerful person in history. Want to regulate him afterwards? He could just shut down the internet in your region until you accept his terms.
Smoogs@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’m so glad other countries are coming up with their own satellites just for the expressed interest to boycott musk.
sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Telsat Lightspeed, from the Canadian company that invented commercial domestic satellite communications in 1971.
queermunist@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
Kessler syndrome here we come!
Smoogs@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Ok then You Go yell at musk about it.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
No, please no
We don’t need thousands of satellites to provide internet, the entire idea and design of Starlink is utterly stupid.
I can look up at the sky not and see stars and… Those fucking star link satellites.
We’re already close enough to a Kessler effect scenario without adding thousands of satellites, and with governments world wide now ready to just shoot satellites (seriously, can everyone please stop voting for dumb fucks while we’re at it?) can we please PLEASE stop this?
Just use fiber internet or where not possible, use geostationary satellites. We don’t need semi low latency everywhere
Smoogs@lemmy.world 7 months ago
There are areas of the planet where there is no signal or fibre. Clearly you and I are not in one of these dead spots but they do exist.
Just something to think about before you run around talking down with privilege of where you’re speaking about it.
PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 7 months ago
SpaceX can suck my cock
betanumerus@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
SpaceX should dump all their space plans and give back their grant money.
Enzyoo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
Nah we don’t support nazis
Jason2357@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Isn’t there an army walking the national capital, and masked goons grabbing people off the street into unmarked vans paid for with a budget /almost/ as big as Canada’s entire military?
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 months ago
glances at the state of the nation
What would things look like if we did?
regedit@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
What’s dumb about this statement is all Elon would have to do is market to all the places where broadband companies refuse to go and be affordable. tRump already killed the rural broadband initiatives. There’s literally no competition and word-of-mouth could probably pull in more who are unhappy with their broadband provider.
However, capitalism and greed are cancers that know no limit…
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 7 months ago
Like cancer, greed doesn’t know that it is killing its host.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 7 months ago
Fiber all the way, especially if it is owned by the community. That would simply ensure that Musk nor TelCos can’t fuck around with people. Fast speed, no data caps, low prices, and not being at the mercy of some wealthy jackhole would be wins across the board.
Also, if America has a 2nd Civil War, fiber will be much more safe than relying on sats - those can be shot down, or worse, Musk can cut off the good guys from having internet. It is simply harder to sabotage if the wires are underground and cannot be readily seen by hostile actors. As seen in Ukraine, the fucker has absolutely no compunctions against disabling the internet at key moments.
ulterno@programming.dev 7 months ago
And blockchain DNS?
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 7 months ago
“fiber will be much more safe than relying on sats”
Spoken like someone who has never had some idiot in a backhoe chop a fiber bundle…multiple times in a week.
We have a saying in IT. Always carry a 1ft section of single-mode fiberoptic when hiking. If you ever get lost, just bury that sucker and some dipshit in a backhoe will be out there in a hour to cut it in half.
queermunist@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
So, just to clarify, are you in favor of replacing all fiber with Starlink?
ubergeek@lemmy.today 7 months ago
Spoken like someone who has never had some idiot in a backhoe chop a fiber bundle…multiple times in a week.
And, when it happens, it generally gets repaired in hours. You cannot launch a new constellation in hours.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 months ago
“Give me all your money” says world’s richest person, in a fit of originality.
thermal_shock@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Well I say starlink and f’elon can suck my ass.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Musk = POS Nazi.
Redex68@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Lol, lmao even
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Goat says garden needs more carrots.
RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yeah, because all the gamers love to play online with a 3 second latency.
Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
Those dial up days on avp2 were peak gaming though. I don’t want them to return, but I remember those days very well.
Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Of course. In a month or two he can tell trump Dem statez are stupid and he should force them to do that.
uairhahs@lemmy.world 7 months ago
While trump looks down and says “don’t take it out of your mouth again”
baronofclubs@lemmy.world 7 months ago
A society grows great when old men plant fiber whose speed they know they shall never download from.
_lilith@lemmy.world 7 months ago
That will work out as well as the death tunnel (formerly hyperlink)
buddascrayon@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Hmmm ditch lightning fast and stable fiber for the mediocre speed and unstable micro satellite internet connection controlled by a petty asshole…
What to do, what to do?
d00ery@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Just think how much control he can have if he owns the medium which people access the internet.
And he’d only do good things with that power /s
Jason2357@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
I mean, you don’t have to guess. He’s interfered in a war and turned a social network into his personal bullhorn.
Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
I would burn the money before giving it to the nazi
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 7 months ago
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sagan_Wept@lemmynsfw.com 7 months ago
That’s a dumb ass idea
MNByChoice@midwest.social 7 months ago
Alternative Headline: Billionaire Signals States Should Speed Fiber Rollout
ABetterTomorrow@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Fiber fucking rules
etherphon@piefed.world 7 months ago
Yeah! I want my internet run by a man baby who turns off your access if he doesn't like you!
abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
“Humans should give me chicken” says Cat.