you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

If fiber companies used 1% of the money we throw at them to actually build fiber, sattelite internet would never need to exist.

Its the most centralised, short term, low speed, expansive option possible and we are choosing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    Fibre doesn't work in airplanes or remote areas. Ukraine can't use fibre in its very long range drones (they do for the short range ones).

    There different use cases. That said, I still agree with you, we should have more fibre.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (1 child)

    I agree-ish, wartime is something else, but if we have fiber up in Hudson bay we really don't need-need starlink anywhere in 2026 (other than where we've dragged our feet getting fiber).

    airplanes could use an elliptical sattelite for their high speed, low latency requirments. Personally though any connection more than a high orbit satellite provides is a nice to have, but not safety critical by any means.

    Plus LEO is just intentionally wasteful, I wouldn't be surprised if starlibk was a money hole without its military contracts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    I would argue the internet isn't critical, and is in fact harmful, and we would be better without it. I expect downvotes for this- but my point is, critical doesn't really come into the question imo.

    But I'm a bit of a luddite and think technology in general is bad for the human experience. Not inherently, but in practice.

  • source
  • parent