this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
483 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
59440 readers
3633 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anything is better than Starlink, Starlink is just extreme useless pollution for something that normal ISPs can achieve.
The government needs to step in and make internet more of a utility like in like every other successful country.
There are actual use cases for satellite internet. I heard from an evacuee from the Northwest Territories in Canada here that he was basically only able to get updates on what was happening—i.e. what roads weren't on fire and where evacuation centers were—because of a couple of people with starlinks. There are huge areas up there with little to no internet infrastructure, and this summer much of that was damaged in the fires.
Ground infrastructure is expensive to run out to extreme rural areas, and it's also vulnerable in different ways from satellite infrastructure. In the US, yeah, it's dense enough that ISPs mostly need to get their shit together, but there are very large areas where running a cable has a lot of problems.
That makes sense, but Starlink is also extremely expensive and I don't see the price being comparable honestly.
For your first case while evacuation and such, there are alternatives and you shouldn't need full internet access for situations like that. (obviously this isn't the case right now)
From everything that has been posted on the US and what I've seen with ISPs and such, satellite internet is not necessary. I hate Starlink with a passion for what the consequences are, I hate looking up in a dark night and being able to see a giant row of Starlink satellites and I hate how much it pollutes even outside of the Earth. It's not necessary and I will always be for just other wireless communication or straight up wires.
It's not expensive compared to the alternatives. It costs exactly what I'm paying Comcast for my cable internet here in suburbia at $120. Companies like Hughesnet will charge you $200/mo for 20GB of data at 2Mbps if it isn't cloudy out.
My coworkers mother in rural SW Washington signed up after I recommended it for her to him. Previously, she couldn't even watch Netflix or YouTube with traditional satellite, and now she's getting 300Mbps for less money than she was paying before.
I meant comparable to wired up internet or proper wireless towers in infrastructure cost, the end user cost is absurd anywhere in the US and it's not worth talking about.
That's observably false, though. If infrastructure costs were really that much cheaper, ISPs would already be serving these people at a lower price point.
Which is why I didn't say it was factual, but rather that I didn't see it being comparable.
And no, my point has nothing to do with ISP companies and for a business it would be illogical to dig to more rural areas.
This is something Starlink avoids by being in space obviously, other existing ISPs wouldn't make much money off of it anywhere near as fast for example. This is why the government should handle all of it, like I said.