CmdrShepard

This isn't much different than smart TVs pushing their shitty outdated apps on you versus using something like a Roku or Firestick which is third party and updated regularly. This is a classic GM move of taking the exact wrong action on something and expecting great results. This is why they keep going bankrupt.

Same here. I work long shifts and know that some 200MAh batteries aren't going to cut it for long before being thrown in the trash. I have some nice BT headphones that I use at home or on flights but my primary pair are still wired.

This is the reason why I never bought an Asus phone despite hating our primary options in the US (Samsung, Apple, Google) and really wanting one. It seems most manufacturers forget that T-mobile bands exist despite them being nearly tied for #2 in marketshare in the US.

How are we fucking up our ability to go to space with these LEO satellites? That's quite comical coming from someone calling other people's statements a "smooth-brained take."

It absolutely is NIMBY when you sit here on the internet arguing that rural folks should have their internet access revoked because it's "spoiling your view." What difference would it make to any of your listed points if it were an international endeavor rather than a private one?

Hopefully. I want to get one that makes my farts sound like a circa 2005 Fast and Furious Honda Civic.

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.

The US government can easily step in, it's just hard to imagine that ever happening.

Which is why it isn't a legitimate solution. Starlink exists now.

Why are you so concerned about pollution in LEO but not pollution from digging a million miles of wire and trenches or chopping down forests full of trees, all of which regularly sustain damage and need replacement?

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.

Bruh, are you really going to prioritize a singular type of hobby photography over access to a vital service such as the internet for millions of people? That's prime NIMBYism.

They've done plenty to help mitigate issues with terrestrial observatories. You could just as easily argue their rocketry advancements have made space much more accessible for the human race, which offsets any remaining harm to research telescopes.

Can achieve but don't and won't. You might as well be arguing that rural people don't deserve access to the internet because that's the only legitimate alternative.

You might go back and reread the comment you replied to. They stated that legacy satellite internet was expensive to the tune of $200/mo for 2mbps speeds and a 20GB monthly data cap.