The FCC decided it wouldn’t be the “best” use of limited funds.

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.

  • crazyCat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    83·
    10 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.

    • ipkpjersiEnglish
      21·
      10 months ago

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

        • ipkpjersiEnglish
          1·
          10 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.caEnglish
      47·
      10 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.worksEnglish
        3·
        10 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.caEnglish
          3·
          10 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.pubEnglish
            2·
            10 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.eeEnglish
        11·
        10 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