Again the latency might be not better for fiber. But the difference is small and the other factors are much better so the experience with fiber is a lot more stable .

I do not expect most people to know that non visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum is also similar to visible light. But on technology community on what is a niche enthusiast heavy platform (Lemmy), I expect people to know better to than to upvote something that is blatantly wrong.

It's not blatantly wrong, it's technically wrong but close enough. Fiber is faster than satellite because it uses fiber, not because it uses light. There are a lot of less technical people here, so I think it's close enough.

Yes, but transmission loss causes packet retransmission, which adds to perceived latency, and fiber usually doesn't need to travel as far physically as a satellite, so there's less distance to cover.

So yes, the "speed" of light through fiber is technically slower than via air, the data transfer is usually faster.

Transmission loss/attenuation only informs the power needed on the transmission side for the receiver to be able to receive the signal. The wireless networks I am talking about don't really have packet loss (aside from when the link goes down for reasons like hardware failure).

I mention Chicago to New York specifically because in the financial trading world, we use both wireless network paths and fiber paths between the locations and measured/real latency is a very big deal and measured to the nanoseconds.

So what I mention has nothing to do with human perception as fiber and wireless are both faster than most human's perceptions. We also don't have packet loss on either network path.

High speed/ high frequency Wireless is bound by the curvature of the earth and terrain for repeater locations. Even with all of the repeaters, measured latency for these commercially available wireless links are 1/2 the latency of the most direct commercially available fiber path between Chicago and New York.

Fiber has in-line passive amplifiers, which are a fun thing to read about how they work, so transmission loss/attenuation only applies to where the passive amplifiers are.

You are conflating latency (how long it takes bits to go between locations) with bandwidth (how many bits can be sent per second between locations) in your last line.

You are conflating latency... with bandwidth

That's why I put "speed" in quotes. When lay people say "speed," they mean a mix of latency and bandwidth, and lay people are the target for a discussion comparing Starlink and fiber internet.

Point to point wireless can be incredibly "fast" and reliable, at least until a storm interferes or knocks something out of alignment. We used point to point wireless at a previous company for our internet needs, and it worked really well, and I'm guessing more industrial installations are even better.

But your average person will have a much better experience with fiber to the home than fixed wireless. That's the point I think the OP is making.

It means it burns up on re-entry and doesn't litter the earth

What about all the ones he didn’t plan on having burnt up? Or didn’t you know about those

I'd love to hear more about this conspiracy theory, can you elaborate?

I think it's hilarious that you think some Starlink satellites AREN'T designed to burn up. They all will, someday.

Not a conspiracy theory. Maybe your science needs some brushing up https://www.independent.co.uk/space/starlink-satellites-elon-musk-space-b2759288.html

they all burn up, that article does not dispute that