• boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Running fiber globaly is very expensive. The satellite solution has its cons, but it’s available to a lot of people who otherwise might not have access.

          It is expensive, but in SOME rural areas it’s still affordable. Obviously not in poorer ones, but it might get cheaper over time. Or it might not. Who knows.

          • diskmaster23@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I recall that the decaying orbit means that they constantly have to put more satellites up. All that energy, all that propellant, and all that space garbage. Billions of dollars wasted. Better spent on fiber. Once installed, baring cuts, it will last for nearly 100 years or more. It has benefits for some, but, IMHO, resources are better spent on fiber.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fiber is too slow when you want to charge billions for letting High Frequency Trading bots running arbitration across different markets to get a few miliseconds advantage over those running through fiber.

          Having a mesh of satellites running on “laser through vacuum” to go around the globe, can get you those billions. Which, let’s be clear, is the real business goal of Starlink.

        • The Doctor@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah, there would have been another stock buyback and the existing “shitty DSL meets all of the FCC requirements for broadband Internet access” would have closed out another hearing.