Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies::The FCC reaffirmed a decision not to award Starlink a nearly $900 million subsidy for offering 100Mbps/20Mbps low-latency internet service in 35 states.

  • Troy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    In this thread. A bunch of people who’ve never had to use the prior remote internet solutions that existed prior to Starlink. For a good chunk of the world, Starlink is actually game changing.

    I spent the better part of the last decade working in remote locations, including the high arctic and and rural indigenous communities. Starlink is both fast and affordable compared to the prior solutions. Hell, I even personally worked on hundred million dollar fibre optic line projects, that were hundreds of millions over budget, trying to get these communities connected. Starlink is hands down the better choice, unless you really wanted to put your data centre in Fort Good Hope for some unknown reason.

    If Elon wasn’t attached to this project, I’d bet the ratio of negative comments would be lower.

    • cameron_vale@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      some people think reality is a cartoon. Black and white. Good guys and bad guys. Some people are dumb that way. And they get played like a piano because of it.

    • crazyCat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I own property in a very rural place and I don’t want it messing up our night sky view.

      Guess what, we also have great internet in this very rural place already, too, because they ran cable and put cell towers out there. That’s all it takes.

      • ipkpjersi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sure, but there are many places where this is the only option, and that’s not likely to change any time soon.

          • ipkpjersi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I mean, there’s no need to read so literally into my words. There are absolutely remote rural places with very few viable options.

            I was quoted 2.5 million for running a fiber line to my family cottage. Are you telling me that’s a viable option? Other options are high-latency satellite, low-data mobile Internet that ends up being hundreds per month in overages, dial up (if it’s even offered anymore, which I would imagine it’s not), and cable Internet I badgered my ISP nearly every day for over 2 years until they comped the 14k install because I cost them more in support fees. With older neighbors in an older neighborhood, with very limited demand for any decent Internet, progress can take decades or never happen at all.

            You make things sound so simple, but in reality that’s very often not the case.

      • Troy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        You are the very definition of privileged, compared to most remote users. And your comment is as close to textbook NIMBY as I’ve ever seen. Plus a healthy dose of “fuck em, I got mine”.

        • crazyCat@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          What I’m saying is the most cost effective way to get internet to rural folks is to run cables, it works. You don’t have to put thousands of satellites up, it isn’t easier or better.

          • Troy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            You sound like you’ve never been anywhere truly remote. For a lot of people in the world, it would be cheaper for the governmet to buy their rural property, bulldoze it, and then buy them a house in a town with internet service – than it is to run a line to their property.

            • Freeman@lemmy.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              For a lot of people in the world, it would be cheaper for the governmet to buy their rural property, bulldoze it, and then buy them a house in a town with internet service – than it is to run a line to their property.

              of course that would be cheaper if the government is paying for it…That would also be cheaper than just buying comcast for someone even in suburbs of the US…

        • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          well when your backyard is the night sky for the entire globe you can call me a NIMBY when it comes to starlink’s glowing sattelite trains