482
Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
482 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
59648 readers
1490 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not a scam. Satellite internet was extremely expensive and slow last time I checked a few years before starlink. Yeah , musk is garbage but starlink is actually helping a lot of people worldwide.
The FCC decision sounds like a good thing in this case, also because Starlink isn't being managed responsibly
The technology itself is cool, and I hope some other companies can build off that work to meet that need. There are a lot of existing companies that take advantage of those living in rural areas, many of which don't have other options or much disposable income
*billions
Yep almost a trillion dollars. Was 900 billion something.
We share your pain in Canada with our telecom companies
By competition surely you meant oligarchy.
Starlink is currently the only internet functioning for the Ukrainian army.
ITAR...go look it up. And the UA still uses it for good and so does everyone there, they just cannot use it as a direct weapon. Get off the musk hate dick.... it's clouding you and apparently a bunch of people's judgement.
Like most people on the Internet they don't want to hear about laws that cause outcomes different than what they want. The Musk hate over UA and StarLink is just another example of it. ITAR has been around a long time and for DAMN good reasons.
I can't stand the guy either, but there are way more valid reasons to hate on him than what people love to bitch about.
It's probably the most wasteful way of providing internet imaginable since they have to send satellites up by the dozen every year for them to burn in the atmosphere only several years lates. Yeah I don't think it's a good business model at all, especially considering they haven't been able to turn a profit and rely on subsidies.
Yet many towns where I live saw broadband, yes, broadband, not fiber, for the first time in their life thanks to Starlink. It's easy to talk when coming from a place of privilege.
I would not be able to live where I am without starlink. There isn't even cell signal for 14 km...
I don't like that some portion of the money I'm paying goes towards his insanity. But I put up with it to live in a peaceful forest and continue my job.
Demand more of your local government instead of pulling the privilege card.
The government keeps giving money to traditionally ISPs to expand broadband and they simply lie and say they did to take the money. It's private industry fucking us just as much.
I'm not disagreeing, but who can stand up against corporate bullying? The government. Make the government do it. The corporate world gets away with it because the politicians turn a blind eye because they're not held accountable because not enough people stand together. People have bled for the rights that "privileged" people have, it didn't come free.
It's it really a privilege to live in a city? Sounds more like a choice than privilege. Your choice has consequences and the further you live from the other people, the more problems you'll have with certain infrastructure like water, power, internet.
But I can build my own power and water infra. And I have. I can't build my own connection to the internet, which I need to have in order to make money to do the rest of what it takes to live.
What's your point?
That starlink solves the remaining piece of missing infra that a normal person needs, regardless of the choice to live in a city or not. Even if the CEO is a blight on our species.
Starlink only has a business as long as other ISP's do nothing for rural homes.
Once they do, and they will, Starlink is dead.
I would cherish that day!
It will probably happen if this capitalist wet-dream mellows a bit and government is incentivized to provide their own internet infra regardless of profit. But I am 45 and will probably be long decomposed by then.
But in the near-term - I can't see any land-based ISP covering where I live.
The cost to run 15km of lines to town, when even power poles don't exist, just to service me and the one other nutter who decided to live up here would be prohibitive even for govt funded public internet.
If ISPs weren't greedy bastards that don't care the slightest about their users and gave everyone fiber then yeah, it's wasteful. Sadly, for a lot of people in rural and inaccessible areas and on sea, it's the only way to access internet.
Oh no! It's expensive! Wait. Isn't he the chairman of a vertically integrated space shuttle and satellite international conglomerate? Why are Americans footing the bill for any of this?
You might go back and reread the comment you replied to. They stated that legacy satellite internet was expensive to the tune of $200/mo for 2mbps speeds and a 20GB monthly data cap.