• gramathy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It does have some downsides (orbital clutter in particular) but conceptually I agree

      • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Orbital pollution and atmosphere pollution from the launches. All to avoid laying some fiber :/

        • Mobile_Audience@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d be ecstatic if ISPs laid more fiber where I live. But I’d be even happier if they laid any sort of internet cables at all to the outskirts of towns. Back where my family used to live (smaller town) there were plenty of houses on the outskirts of town that don’t have any internet unless they pay out the nose for satellite. It’s literally not worth the ISP’s money to lay any sort of cable out that way since there isn’t enough customer density for the amount of cable they’d need to lay.

          • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            34
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fun part is that the US tax payer already paid the ISPs to lay cable to those houses, but they just pocketed the money, didn’t lay the cable, and faced no consequences.

          • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which is why it is the role of the government to handle that. Are there streets ? Why are there streets? They aren’t worth it, right? So how come there are streets? Government can force ISP to lay the cables. “You want to lay any cable in that city? Then lay all of the cable in the region” easy

            • Mobile_Audience@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wish. afaik in the USA, the major ISPs have been told by the government to expand internet coverage. Even got paid boatloads of money to do so. But the ISPs did jack diddly squat. So they got fined and that’s the end of the story as I know it.

            • pascal@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Don’t use your Chinese propaganda for that.

              Almost every corner of Europe is capitalist as well, but they have better and faster (and sometimes even cheaper) internet than most of America.

              It’s not capitalism, it’s greed and bribery.

              • Relo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Don’t use your Chinese propaganda for that.

                Chinese propaganda? China is the most capitalistic countries of em all…

                It’s not capitalism, it’s greed and bribery.

                The government not building infrastructure and rather hand the task over to the private sector is not a problem of capitalism? Dude… It’s a prime example of downsides of capitalism and it goes hand in hand with greed and bribery. Don’t get me wrong because I think capitalism is a reality we live in and it has some upsides aswell.

                I live in Germany and we have very bad internet compared to some eastern European country’s. That’s because the conservative party decided in the 80s that our internet would have to use copper instead of fiber optic cables.

                20 years later we learned that decision was made because the private sector had huge interest in laying copper so they could sell cable TV.

        • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          the fact that there has to be a shitton of them is the clutter. Deorbiting them after their service life doesn’t change the fact that at any one point there’s a fuckton of satellites up there, messing up astronomy. And this is just the first of what will probably be several constellations.

          • Relo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes but see…

            The users of starlink just pay for the costs Elon had to bring those satellites up there and keep them running.

            The global costs aka total costs on society will be payed by us all.

    • Tar_alcaran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ehhhhhh.

      Starlink has a major problem in durability as a result of the low orbit (required for low latency), meaning it’s extremely expensive in upkeep.

      The satellites inability to talk to eachother, combined with the narrow transmission angle means the system scales very poorly and has numerous bottlenecks (both the satellite and the uplink station). Yes, Starlink is “working on it”, but the laser-link solution is very complex in terms of engineering.

      Starlink has some amazing usecases, but those usecases can’t possible cover the cost. It runs almost entirely on subsidies and venture capital.

      • Apollo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sheeet, I never realised they can’t talk to one another.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think they were supposed to, kind of weird that they don’t already do so given that to fix the issue all the satellites need to be relaunched.