• skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Going from the most secure, hard wired formats to a con man’s satellites would be a fatal error. Any sort of military conflict and the network is all down, atleast broadband keeps secure networks intact.

  • w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 hours ago

    It shouldn’t be all or nothing. It should be diversified.

    Yeah, there are rural locations where Starlink makes sense but also there are a lot of urban places that it would never work in.

  • bigbabybilly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I sure am sick of super fast, stable internet connections. Let’s all get something that fucks up when it’s cloudy.

  • sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Publicly funded fibre can be provider agnostic. Starlink can’t. Unless Musk is arguing for the nationalization of Starlink, which frankly I could get behind.

    • alekwithak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      8 hours ago

      We paid for it, it should be nationalized. But they only ever socialize their losses, the profits are private.

  • Vile_port_aloo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    SpaceX should deliver the service and access at the cost given and complete before the fiber team put a shovel in that ground.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Low orbit satellites will never replace fiber because physics of latency, bandwidth and error correction.

    As far as things go today well never need less fiber. Even if we cover the sky with satellites eventually we’d need to upgrade to fiber because its literally impossible to beat. Except for scifi tech like quantum entanglement networks which might not even be possible or practical and wouldn’t need the satelites anyway.

    As an infrastructure bet it makes absolutely zero sense except for covering rare niches like war zones or oceans.

    • Justas🇱🇹@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Fiber is like rail transport for the internet: expensive, high throughput infrastructure along a defined path. But when it’s already there, it’s very hard to beat.

      Oh right, Musk stopped the discussion of proposed rail expansion with his Boring tunnels and Hyperloop, now he is doing the same thing to the internet.

  • alekwithak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 hours ago

    To quote Dan Harmon out of context: "If you ask a toaster, “What’s the most important thing in the world?” it’s going to tell you, “Bread.” And if you ask a toaster its opinion of bread, it’s going to tell you, “It’s not toasted enough.”

  • weew@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I mean there is a third option: municipal fiber

      But then the gub’ment is your ISP but at least it’s not making billionaires money.

      I’d suggest the best case scenario to me would be a fourth option like a community run co-op of fiber to the premises and have it be grant funded. But who am I kidding, that’s almost to socialist for rural America like where I live.

    • tehn00bi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

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

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    They’re welcome to say that, as long as their ruler doesn’t enter the political or policy arena and have the moral depravity to act despite a conflict of interest. As long as corporations don’t have undue influence on politics from lobbying or donations.

    We don’t have to listen.

    Our representatives should be representing us. …… alright alright you can stop laughing now