top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 210 points 1 year ago (47 children)

all you can eat latency and an oversaturated network on devices with a limited lifespan.. what else could you ask for!

  • source
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [+] 77 points 1 year ago (44 children)
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    ha yeah... not having to make a 340 mile round trip instead of the hundreds of feet to the nearest router will do that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    Uh, how often are you using the Internet to connect to a computer in your home town? Maybe 5% of the time?

    I've never used Starlink, but with a basic understanding of geography and optics, I'm going to bet that in most scenarios the latency difference between Starlink and fiber is negligible, sometimes even being faster on Starlink, depending on the situation.

    That said, I'm not suggesting Starlink is a realistic replacement for fiber, just that latency isn't the big issue. (It has other serious issues)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Much more frequently than you think with CDN endpoints.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    Ok, so actual question, How useful are CDN endpoints these days with https everywhere? Because most encrypted content is unique to a single web user, caching isn't super useful. Also you can't cache live content like video calls or online games. I'd imagine the percentage of cacheable content is actually fairly low these days. But like I said, I don't actually know the answer to this, i'd be curious to hear your take.

    Edit: it's weird to get down votes for a question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    HTTPS / TLS has little to do with it. Don't think of the endpoint as a cache between you and the origin. The DNS name given to the endpoint is the origin from your browser's perspective. How content gets cached on the backend is irrelevant to the browser. Live video that someone else in your area is also watching is cacheable. Images to load a page, very cacheable. The personal stuff is mostly HTML specific to you but that's quite small.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    HTTPS can in fact be cached, and most modern browsers will do so unless given a header or something to tell it not to.

    Source: Devtools network tab + https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Guides/Caching

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

    Browsers partition the cache by "origin" now though, so while it can cache HTTPS content, it can't effectively cache shared content (It'll store multiple independent copies).

    So Youtube still works fine, but Google Fonts is pointless now.

    Edit: Oh yeah, and any form of shared JavaScript/CSS/etc. CDN is now also useless and should be avoided, but that's always been the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, this is the point I was getting at, encrypted content tends to be personalized to individual users, not always I guess. But yeah, I'm not sure how much is left.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    It was an issue for a long time that browsers just ignored the caching headers on content delivered over HTTPS, a baked in assumption that they must be private individual content. That's not the case now, so sites have to specifically mark those pages as uncachable (I think Steam got hit by something like this not that long ago, a proxy was serving up other peoples user pages it had cached).

    But for something like Google Fonts, the whole point of it was that a site could embed a large font family, and then every other visited site that also used it would simply share the first cached copy. Saving the bandwidth and amortizing the initial cost over the shared domains. Except now that no longer holds, instead of dividing the resources by the amount of sites using it, it's multiplying it. So while a CDN might put the contents physical closer to the users, it doesn't actually save any bandwidth (and depending on how it's configured, it can actually slow page loads down)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Just for reference, I get about 45-50 ping playing Marvel Rivals on Starlink.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    On fiber, while I don't play that game, I've never seen a ping longer than 10-13msecs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    The point is, unless you’re playing some hyper competitive game where a 30ms difference in reaction time is noticeable (this is less than 1 frame in a fighting game, for example) Starlink works perfectly well. Lower numbers are better, but for games you only need to compare that number to human reaction times (150-200ms) to see that both are small values less than the reaction time of any person.

    Previous satellite Internet using satellites in geosynchronous orbit had 1500ms latency, for comparison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Previous satellite Internet using satellites in geosynchronous orbit had 1500ms latency, for comparison.

    Yes, and are far more stable, not hyped, and are already at pretty much peak congestion. Starlink will get progressively worse, the more people use it. Right now, it's over provisioned.

    The point is, unless you’re playing some hyper competitive game where a 30ms difference in reaction time is noticeable (

    Ever try a voice call with 30ms of latency?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yes, and are far more stable, not hyped, and are already at pretty much peak congestion. Starlink will get progressively worse, the more people use it. Right now, it’s over provisioned.

    They were not more stable. Any occlusion, including thick clouds, would degrade the signal to being unusable. I used Hughsnet for years, then swapped to cellular (100ms+ latency) and finally to Starlink. Starlink is a pretty solid 100Mb/s, with low jitter, packet loss and latency.

    Ever try a voice call with 30ms of latency?

    Yeah, I use voice chat every day, it's not noticeable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    They were not more stable. Any occlusion, including thick clouds, would degrade the signal to being unusable

    You have the same issue with Starlink...

    Yeah, I use voice chat every day, it’s not noticeable.

    The people on the call do...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You have the same issue with Starlink…

    No, because the Starlink satellites are 350 miles above the Earth while geosynchronous satellites are 13,000 miles above the earth. Because of the Inverse-Square Law they can transmit a signal that is orders of magnitude stronger.

    In addition, geosync satellites are locked at a single fixed position and received by a single dish antenna so any obstruction along the line will disrupt the signal.

    Starlink’s recievers use a 1200 element x-band phased array so it can lock on to multiple sources and track them as they move across the sky. Each satellite link is its own channel. Losing contact with one satellite simply causes the data to be routed to one of the 4-5 other locked satellites.

    The people on the call do…

    30ms of latency is less than 1/3rd of the latency of most Bluetooth headsets that people use every day to talk on their phones. It is not noticeable at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Ever try a voice call with 30ms of latency?

    Lol what? You're not gonna notice a 30ms delay in a voice call...

    @ubergeek@lemmy.today downvote with no reply even though you were painfully wrong. Sad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yeh, 30ms is still inside the haas delay.
    If you are a professional listener (sound engineer, musician, dancer) then you can probably perceive it (in a similar way that eyes theoretically only need 25fps, but 60/120/144 is noticeably better).

    In 30ms, sound can travel 10 meters.
    So, if you've ever had a conversation with someone across a classroom, you've had a conversation with 30ms latency.

    For data, 30ms is 8100 km for electricity over copper, or 6000km for light over fibre.

    Meaning 30ms over fibre (considering no transmission delays) would be roughly the direct distance between US and UK.

    So yeh, 30ms is nothing

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    That’s basically perfect, with regards to online gaming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    So if my ping is currently 90ms on fiber, it’ll become 900ms - 4.5s on starlink?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (12 children)

    That makes a lot of assumptions about what I am pinging, and the networking context.

    In my case I was quoting my average ping in VRChat.

    How can you quote 10-50 times higher and then tell me no when I calculate what that means for me?

    Is it because latency does not scale in that way?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So you were only talking about when testing with ideal servers? Why is my example an exception? Are all games an exception?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)
    1. Run a traceroute like traceroute cnn com
    2. Kill that by ctrl-c at the third line.
    3. Ping that third IP address.

    Don't try to ping UK.battle.net or your numbers will be skewed by everything in between.

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

    About 5ms.

    Based on the various replies, it sounds like the poster I was originally replying to does not mean pings in any context.

    They just mean in this context. Along optimal routes. Right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Of course they don't mean in every case. Yeah, if you have to go halfway around the world from two addresses that are very far away from hubs, Starlink might be better. 99.99999% of the time this isn't happening though and fiber will be better. There are situations for some people where it's worth it. Fiber is better for the average case though, and it's where money should be invested.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    You're probably really far away from the VR Chat server. Try pinging Google or Cloudflare, which will tell you ping to the nearest datacenter (a rough estimate of ping caused by your local ISP).

    Based on their numbers, you could probably expect 50-100ms to Google, and then add an extra 90ms to get from there to your VR Chat server.

    My personal fiber connection gets under 2ms ping on Speedtest

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    It depends on the instance (people can make them in 4 regions of the world) but 90ms is common for US west and east, for me.

    • Cloudflare.com: 5ms
    • Google.com: 24ms
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    That makes sense then. When people talk about their ISP ping, they're usually talking about how long it takes to get out of the ISP's network. So that 5ms Cloudflare ping is likely pretty close to what people would consider your internet's ping.

    Speedtest.net is a really common tool for measuring this, since it will automatically check where the closest server is. For your connection, any ping above 5ms you can probably assume is based on your physical distance to the server, or latency on the server's end. I'm guessing Google doesn't have a server quite as close to you as Cloudflare

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    Thanks for the details! This makes sense now. I started asking questions because it seemed wild that the only ping I pay attention to, the one shown in a game I play, would be up to 4.5 seconds on starlink. I guess it would be ~250ms at the top of the range they quoted.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    My average latency on Starlink over the past year is 32 ms. It varies throughout the day from around 20 to 40 ms.

    If you are getting 90ms on fiber, you are either pinging a server that's a long ways away or something is very wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 104 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Hmmm ditch lightning fast and stable fiber for the mediocre speed and unstable micro satellite internet connection controlled by a petty asshole...

    What to do, what to do?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 1 year ago

    "Give me all your money" says world's richest person, in a fit of originality.

  • source
  • [–] 73 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Basic physics says satellites using Ku-band or whatever they use can't compete with fibre.

    Satellite internet has its uses like for ships at sea.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Or rural and remote areas. I think it would be a ton of fun to go backpacking with a foldable solar panel and an antenna.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Fibre is an investment that can be used and upgraded for decades. Starlink is a subscription service forever to a private company.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    And upgrading is piss cheap. Just change transceivers.

    Same fiber cable that does 1gbps can do 100tbps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    That's not true... There are different types of fiber with different throughputs depending on the class of the cable and the length of the installation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It is true.

    Multimode (what I think you're trying to reference) isn't used in distance applications at all, it’s only for short in-building links. Anything that your ISP would provide you would be single-mode. Carrier/Backbone is virtually 100% SMF as well. SMF (OS1 and OS2) don't really have a bandwidth cap. It's all transceivers not the fiber.

    But the point is that fiber that ALREADY in the ground, you can upgrade simply by changing the transceivers. It doesn't matter the length, SMF/MMF, or anything else... you just get a transceiver rated for the length of run (power of the led/laser, and the optics). The length is irrelevant otherwise as the presumption is that the install in the ground has been shown to work in the past already.

    Old standard ITU-G.652 single-mode has been made to push multi-petabit transfers in lab environments. The only change was the transceivers. And to be clear, ITU-G.652 was standardized in 1984. Nobody rips out the fiber from the ground (caveat is that the cable itself hasn't degraded). You just upgrade the optics/transceivers.


    “It's not the fiber that’s limiting—ITU-T G.652 defines physical specs (dispersion, attenuation), not throughput. Field trials over 96.5 km of real-world G.652 fiber showed 56.5 Tb/s using advanced DWDM and modulation

    source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.01873

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Your statement didn't specify an application!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The context of the discussion does...

    SpaceX doesn't provide in rack or in-building connectivity.

    SpaceX is an ISP. You wouldn't have an ISP running multimode.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    ISP's absolutely run multimode. That's how you get fiber into a building or between buildings. Different types of fiber all play a role in a network deployment.

    Broad statements are misleading. OM4 multimode won't push 10gb at 500meters no matter how good your hardware is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Broad statements are misleading.

    Ignoring the context of the discussion is even more misleading. In the context of this conversation, ISPs providing consumer connections and obtaining grant money, my statement is 100% accurate.

    That’s how you get fiber into a building or between buildings.

    You just said multimode can’t do significant speeds at distance, yet claim that buildings separated by distance would be connected with it? That logic doesn’t hold.

    Intrabuilding or intrarack Yes, you’ll find multimode fiber occasionally. But even these rare cases are increasingly replaced by single-mode as costs drop and bandwidth needs rise.

    Everything else (ISP deployments, backbones, FTTH) Single-mode fiber dominates. I haven’t seen a single ISP deploy multimode for consumer-facing services over a typical network radius (~hundreds of meters to kilometers). The only minor exception is MMF from the building network room to an apartment unit, which is irrelevant for this discussion and would be EXCEEDINGLY rare as most buildings would just copper line to the unit. But even in that case... the 20+km from the head end to the building counts for much more than the 20meters to the unit itself.

    For all practical ISP purposes, single-mode fiber is what’s in the ground/on the pole, and upgrades are handled via transceivers, not ripping out the cable.


    OM4 multimode won’t push 10gb at 500meters no matter how good your hardware is.

    But just because you said it...

    https://www.corning.com/catalog/coc/documents/application-engineering-notes/AEN075.pdf

    and OM4 is suitable for distances up to 550 m

    https://www.fs.com/uk/blog/om4-multimode-fiber-faq-highspeed-connectivity-guide-9499.html

    OM4: Supports 10 Gbps up to 550 meters.

    https://www.timbercon.com/resources/calculators/om1-om2-om3-and-om4-fiber/

    OM4 Not specified 500 m* 150 m 150 m
    *The IEEE has yet to officially give a distance for 10GBASE-S on OM4 fiber. The distances are decided by the IEEE in 802.3, not The TIA or ISO/IEC cabling standards. Some glass vendors say 500 m, but most are now quoting “up to 550m.”

    You absolutely can run OM4 at 10gbps at or over 500m depending on your optics/laser.

    But Multimode was never the point of discussion as the whole thread is based around broadband services (virtually none of it serviced by multimode, if any at all) and grant money for rural area coverage. Any fiber upgrade in this scenario will 100% be SMF with no qualifiers. In my past 30 years of IT career all buried and pole mounted fiber is SMF that I've ever seen for an ISP. I can tell you for certainty that ever fiber I've buried in the past 10 years for several companies has been SMF. I'm not even sure that I've touched MMF in the past 5 years even in intra-rack setups, I think I might have gotten some with a government auction win about 8 years ago I wanna say? With costs of SMF at near parity for the cable itself and getting closer every year in the modules... it's a dying form factor and was never really in use for ISP services to begin with.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    My fiber ISP runs single mode to my home. And it means it's all single mode on the pole for the neighborhood.

    Multimode just isn't used all that much anymore. We replaced all fiber links in our DCs with single mode recently. It's just cheaper, and as the other person said: Its far more future proof.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Just have a look at what's going on in ukraine. Once they started using drones, the drone were attacked through their wireless connections. Now they trail fiber optic cables for control. What does that say about the relative reliability and security?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago

    A society grows great when old men plant fiber whose speed they know they shall never download from.

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago

    Fiber fucking rules

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago

    American taxpayers paid for both Starlink and Space X. Overpaid, actually, that's why he's the richest man in the world. None of his businesses are profitable, he just skims hundreds of billions off the enormous government grants he gets.

    Since we overpaid for that tech, we should just confiscate it from him. He can be thankful that he doesn't go to prison for misappropriating government funds.

    He can keep Tesla. It'll be bankrupt in 2 years anyway.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I say this as someone who actively pays for starlink out of necessity.

    Fuck you, no. Fiber is much better for everyone. Eat shit muskrat.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I had Starlink for over 2 years while waiting for my fiber to be installed. Worlds better than the marginal DSL I had available before (5 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up), but I'm far happier with the fiber I have now.

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

    I feel that man. Right now I load balance between tmobile and starlink cause the towers near me suck. I work from home so having consistent internet is really important and in my area, the fiber build out is really slow and expensive. Luckily I'm moving here soon but its been a pain in the ass to say the least.

    Starlink is great for what it is. Very important tech but yea, I'm sure most everyone would be happier with fiber.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago

    Company says that everyone should give them money and stop using competing products.

    Obvious thing to say in the land of self-interest.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago

    This country is so cooked

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago

    "Oligarch mouthpiece demands diverting of major public funds to oligarchs instead"

    Story of America, really.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago

    I got a better idea: a civil war against oligarchs

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nah we don't support nazis

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Isn’t there an army walking the national capital, and masked goons grabbing people off the street into unmarked vans paid for with a budget /almost/ as big as Canada’s entire military?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Honestly, I think starlink is a fantastic idea in general, but this is clearly bullshit. Starlink works well in tandem with fiber, not as a replacement.

    It's just never going to be as cost effective as installed fiber. Fiber is obviously the right technology to use in heavily populated areas i.e. for the vast majority of Internet users. And where the population is sparse and laying fiber for individual customers is cost prohibitive, that is where satellite connectivity shines. If SpaceX or anyone else is pretending otherwise, they're being blatantly deceitful and malicious. That's not in Internet users' best interest.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    lets get down to the real reason he wants to do this. he would be able to turn off connection for millions if they piss him off, or hand over the data to said political actors like putin or trump, also to manipulate future elections like he did last time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    In France they authorised air hanging fiber, so they just use electric poles and hang the fiber under the 220 volt lines, as a last resort.

    Cheap as hell. Or, where there's a will there is a way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Starlink works well in tandem with fiber, not as a replacement.

    It doesn't even work well in tandem.

    Starlink has a single benefit going for it right now: Lack of uptake.

    They only have a swath of spectrum, and that has a physical upper limit to how much information it can carry, in total. So does fiber. But, Starlink gets to share that with all users (Much like how cable internet works, its shared bandwidth for everyone on the loop). Fiber, you get your dedicated pipe.

    This isn't even getting to view obstruction (A plane will cause a drop out), latency, jitter, etc. These are all physics problem that just cannot be solved without violating the laws of physics. Latency, at a minimum, is 2.6 ms, and that's just for the first leg.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's crazy to say it doesn't work well in tandem... I mean, it's demonstrable, If it didn't work, people wouldn't use it, but they do. And there is no other way to reach users in some places. Starlink can reach users that only a long range wireless solution can work for. There are some other long range wireless solutions, but this one does work.

    Look, I don't like Elon, I don't like monopolies, I'm not a secret shill for SpaceX, but I can admit the truth right in front of me. You don't have to stretch the truth to say Starlink isn't a good system for the vast majority of people, so why do it? Why create a false narrative? Why get all defensive about a technology?

    And finally, I do not see any reason to care about an extra 5 ms latency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    And there is no other way to reach users in some places.

    There is, if we decided to instead of giving Elon billions every few months, we used that money to expand the fiber networks.

    Starlink can reach users that only a long range wireless solution can work for. There are some other long range wireless solutions, but this one does work.

    There are myriad technology solutions that are both viable, and already being used. Capitalism means we don't deploy them. Oligarchy means we instead choose to do things that are more expensive, but happen to benefit a friendly oligarch.

    You don’t have to stretch the truth to say Starlink isn’t a good system for the vast majority of people, so why do it?

    Except, it isn't. Its just the one with the hype.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Some people live in places that aren't connected to large electrical grids, they have local generation and micro grids for a small community. Isolated mountains or small islands, or deserts are good examples of these situations. So if connecting to the electrical grid wasn't realistic I'm willing to bet that a fiber connection also isn't realistic.

    It's hard to believe you think fiber can work for literally everything. I really don't know why you're bothering to dig in on this issue, it's so easy to prove otherwise. I hadn't even mentioned the use case of vehicles yet, boats, planes, trains, trucks, campers, obviously you can't run fiber to a vehicle. Or truly remote locations where people don't live, but researches work there, Antarctic bases, etc.

    Also, I think you misunderstood my last line. I'm saying Starlink isn't right for most people. I'm just not making things up to say that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    So if connecting to the electrical grid wasn’t realistic I’m willing to bet that a fiber connection also isn’t realistic.

    If fiber isn't possible due to electrical grids being non-existent... A power hungry sat transceiver will likely be a non-starter, too.

    It’s hard to believe you think fiber can work for literally everything.

    I don't think it can. I also don't think Starlink can work for literally everything, either. There are better, and faster, and cheaper solutions like Microwave backhauls and cellular data service for the last mile.

    I hadn’t even mentioned the use case of vehicles yet, boats, planes, trains, trucks, campers, obviously you can’t run fiber to a vehicle.

    Boats are the one outlier here, that cannot be reach via cell service, with a fraction of the cost of Starlink. And sure, boats can use it, and boats should pay the full cost of the package. No need for government money to fund them, they didn't need it before, and don't need it now. Boaters were quite satisfied paying their Iridium bills in the past.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Starlink still requires ground stations, and those ground stations can and are a limiting factor. I was up at a cabin that had Starlink, and service is still in the "better than nothing" phase.

    There is concern for fucking up things like radio telescopes. Also, creating a Kessler syndrome event. "But LEO wouldn't have an issue with that because it would burn up". Two things:

    • Everything in LEO being destroyed is still really bad. Astronauts would likely die.
    • Objects in lower orbits can get ejected into higher orbits and hit things there. Kessler sydrome in LEO could potentially start a chain reaction in higher orbits.

    Plus, the EU and China are understandably worried about Musk being the only game up there and want to deploy their own equivalent systems. So now there's not just one system of satellites threatening Kessler syndrome, but possibly three.

    Just roll out fiber everywhere like we have with electricity.

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

    While it is possible for objects in orbit to be knocked into a higher orbit, it's certainly not common. It basically requires a collision with another object in a highly elliptical orbit, this is not a kind of orbit we use very often.

    Also, these low orbit constellations are simply nowhere near the majority of satellites, up in geostationary orbit. It's not realistic to imagine any debris from LEO ever reaching GSO, the distance between is just too vast. In general, Kessler syndrome would only extend downward from higher orbit, extending up to a higher orbit would be extremely unlikely.

    Also, while astronauts could die, we keep enough emergency escape vehicles docked for the entire iss crew. NASA is full of smart people and they're generally risk adverse these days, I don't think anyone would die, but it would certainly be a shame to evacuate the iss.

    Plus, the EU and China are understandably worried about Musk being the only game up there and want to deploy their own equivalent systems. So now there's not just one system of satellites threatening Kessler syndrome, but possibly three.

    This is in fact a worrying situation. Not because I think Kesler syndrome is a realistic concern, but because there's only so much space in low earth orbit. I really don't like one company having a monopoly on low orbit communications, but having layers and layers of satellite constellations also seems like a dangerous situation.

    Just roll out fiber everywhere like we have with electricity.

    I'm all for that in theory, but whenever we dedicate funds to that cause... telecoms just walk away with it. If the US isn't interested in holding them accountable, I don't really see any reason to throw more money their way. That said, Starlink is doing fine, I see no reason to throw money at them either.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    2 comments in c/FuckThis@europe.pub view that post