I'm well aware of those issues as well, which is why I'm not pro-starlink replacing all terrestrial networks.

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 !

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.

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.

I feel that man. Right now I load balance between tmobile and starlink cause the towers near me suck. I work from home so having consistent internet is really important and in my area, the fiber build out is really slow and expensive. Luckily I'm moving here soon but its been a pain in the ass to say the least.

Starlink is great for what it is. Very important tech but yea, I'm sure most everyone would be happier with fiber.

And there is no other way to reach users in some places.

There is, if we decided to instead of giving Elon billions every few months, we used that money to expand the fiber networks.

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.

There are myriad technology solutions that are both viable, and already being used. Capitalism means we don't deploy them. Oligarchy means we instead choose to do things that are more expensive, but happen to benefit a friendly oligarch.

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?

Except, it isn't. Its just the one with the hype.

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

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.

And that's why I asked! I didn't want to presume, but it was hard to tell without the clarification.

Previous satellite Internet using satellites in geosynchronous orbit had 1500ms latency, for comparison.

Yes, and are far more stable, not hyped, and are already at pretty much peak congestion. Starlink will get progressively worse, the more people use it. Right now, it's over provisioned.

The point is, unless you’re playing some hyper competitive game where a 30ms difference in reaction time is noticeable (

Ever try a voice call with 30ms of latency?

An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.

Oh, so you mean a very viable attack today (Taking out swaths of constellations) is on par with destroying a sizeable segment of a web of fiber that is very interconnected, and very resilient to outages due to a single fiber?

I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.

It's viable because we are funding that, with gobs of money, instead of using those gobs of money to fund something that is "Buy once, cry once" instead of Starlinks "must be replaced in total, every 5 years, at billions per train".

Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.

No, and frankly, you're digging yourself into a deeper hole.

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?

lol. Of course it does.

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.

There are areas of the planet where there is no signal or fibre.

So, we should take the billions per train launch, and install microwave backhauls and cellular service to cover those dead zones.

Alright. Let's clear this up.

Are satellite links easier to take down than a fiber link? No. It takes specialized weapons manfactured by state level actors to take out a a single satellite, let alone a whole constellation. I can take a pair of wire clippers, and take out every cable link in my neighborhood in a afternoon. Russia fairly regularly sabotages undersea cables just by "accidentally" dragging an anchor over them.

Is Starlink funded partially by public money? Absolutely yes, along with every other telecom provider. Hell, we gave them the public TV bands as compensation for builfijg a public fiber network (which they never even fucking did!)

Do Starlink satellite need to be replaced at extreme cost? Yes, but so does terresrrial network infrastructure. There is a reason why your internet isn't 12kbps anymore... As far as the cost goes, the consumers determine if the cost is worth the benefit, and so far the answer is 'yes'.

Ever wonder why Ukraine was using Starlink for network connections in the first place? Maybe it's becuse the vulnerable terrestrial based networks were damaged or taken out of service months ago, and you can't exactly get a contractor to go into a warzone and lay down new cables.

Your points, that satellites based networks are more vulnerable and prohibitively expensive is simply not compatible with reality.

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

Not really. Most of the rural plans in the US are run by utilities companies that are local.

"Humans should give me chicken" says Cat.

Third option: municipal fibre