• BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 days 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.

  • bitwolf@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    How about no

    How about we take down every starlink satellite so NASA can operate unabated, and our telescopes aren’t interfered with.

  • blind3rdeye@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 days ago

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

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

  • Ascrod@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Oligarch mouthpiece demands diverting of major public funds to oligarchs instead”

    Story of America, really.

  • uhdeuidheuidhed@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Remember how Elon Musk conned Vegas out of millions with the hyperloop.

    Satellite internet is not the future; it’s cell internet.

      • uhdeuidheuidhed@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        We already have physical lines.

        Businesses and governments aren’t going to invest in digging and laying down more cables to give people in rural America access to fiber. They’re already reluctant to do it for major cities.

        • darkangelazuarl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          They actually have invested multiple times. Problem is the companies they give the money to just pocket it and don’t update their infrastructure. Give this money to the local community or coop owned fiber operators. Stop giving money to these huge corps that don’t need it and fund the small coop and community run fiber operators.

        • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Fibre deployment is getting cheaper and easier. Both in terms of cost of materials and in the equipment and labour skills.

          It’s also much more secure from interference and disruption.

          For populated areas, there’s zero justification to rollout wireless over fibre lines. And most major cities already have fibre in most, or many, areas. And the thing with fibre is that the physical lines can be used to deploy faster speeds with upgraded endpoints.

          Tech bros would have you think physical connections aren’t a good choice anymore, because laying down fibre isn’t sexy enough for that VC money.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Conned them and then Nashville, I think it is, is also paying him for it. True stupid, the US isn’t a country of learners, it seems.

  • thatkomputerkat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    No fucking thanks. Gigabit+ fiber > Nazi-ass satellite internet that doesn’t have even remotely near the needed bandwidth for actual dense population centers.

  • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    3 days ago

    Wireless data transmission should only ever be used for nomadic, temporary, and/or sacrificial links.

    They’re useful for quick deployment, but are intrinsically brittle and terrible for resiliency and efficiency.

    The longer the dependence on them for a given use case, the less defensible arguments in support of them become.

    I’m all for the use of satellite delivery of internet services, but only when it’s used in conjunction with a broader roll out of hardwired infrastructure, at which point it can reasonably be relegated to serving as a secondary, backup diverse path.

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      Cory Doctorow described it as anti-futuristic tech. Where fiber networks get better, faster, and cheaper the denser they get, wireless satellite will get slower and less reliable the more people share that spectrum.

  • skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • gramie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days 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?

  • Lucelu2@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    If Intel has to give the US government 5%, Starlink should have to give back 25%.

      • bigbabybilly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 days ago

        Which is why I’m here and not there. It’s the internet: I hope nobody posts their hot takes! Reddit needs to lighten up. Or even better, fuck off.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Some of us were already banned for such comments, but now we are here being bloodthirsty dickheads. I want to put Musks head in a vice and tighten it till the two plates are dry.

        • muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s just ridiculous. The suffering he has inflicted on the rest of the world will be felt for a very long time. Crushing his head would get him out of those consequences.

          Why not something more drawn out?

          I say we fit him with an explosive collar and any time his asset valuation exceeds, let’s say 350% of the federal poverty guideline, its starts screaming an alarm. He would then have 2 hours to reduce his asset valuation or it explodes.

          I would say he should to live as a poor person in the US forever but honestly, the idea of him balancing a bank account like the rest of us is more entertaining.

      • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        i like the alternative saying

        Some make the world better by their passing, others make the world better by their passing.

        it’s vague and passive enough that you have plausible deniability, but the meaning is clear. plus I like the poetry of it.

    • buttnugget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      We should always celebrate whenever male supremacists meet their demise. People who use the term “misandry” unironically, for example.

  • sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Publicly funded fibre can be provider agnostic. Starlink can’t. Unless Musk is arguing for the nationalization of Starlink, which frankly I could get behind.

    • alekwithak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      3 days ago

      We paid for it, it should be nationalized. But they only ever socialize their losses, the profits are private.

      • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Technically, S0aceX should be nationalized by the US based on the volume of money they’ve received in contacts.

  • ubergeek@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Except StarLink cannot possibly provide the same bandwidth, latency, and throughput a fiber connection can. Because of physics.

    I can either share my 10G symmetrical connection with nobody, or with 200 others.

    And, Fiber costs me $70 a month. Starlink, with worse performance, costs 4x more.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s the point. Musk wants control over the entire internet.

        If all the other internet infrastructure was abandoned, he would be the most powerful person in history. Want to regulate him afterwards? He could just shut down the internet in your region until you accept his terms.

        • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          Musk wants control over the entire internet.

          This is the number one reason my friend and I refused to even consider StarLink. We don’t live in the US and do not want all our traffic going through there.

        • iridebikes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 days ago

          He has already meddled in the Ukraine war doing things like this, too. He turned off Starlink during an offensive Ukrainian mission. He claims he had to because civilian systems aren’t allowed to be used for a foreign incursion into Russia and that he’d face consequences. Which is a complete lie.

    • utopiah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      Because of physics.

      Pfff, physics, pesky detail! Clearly you are not a true visionary like Musk! /s

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      In principle I agree with you, but as a network guy, somewhere, between you and the server you are connected to, the bandwidth is shared. The only question is just where and how much bandwidth (well network throughput) there is to share. I work for a large university and our main datacenter has 10GbE and 25/100GbE connections between all the local machines. But we only have about a 3-5gb connection out to the rest of the world.

      Now don’t get me wrong, I’d 100% rather have a symmetrical fiber connection to the ISP than something shared like radio or DOCSIS. I used to live in a neighborhood where everyone had Spectrum and about 5-6 PM the speed would plummet because cable internet is essentially just fancy thinnet all over again. Yes I’m old since I used to set up thinnet :)

      PS: I would kill for $70 fiber where I am now. Used to have it but we moved to the sticks and I miss it terribly.

      • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        somewhere, between you and the server you are connected to, the bandwidth is shared.

        But the difference here is that on a fibre connection the shared portion goes over higher speed trunks which gives you most of that 1Gbps bandwidth. A wireless connection has a limited number of slices in the same band that it can share.

        It’s the same issue with too many people on a single WiFi connection.

        • billwashere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yep very true.

          To me the main benefit of the direct fiber connection is the symmetry. With cable here I’m “supposed” to get “up to” 1000mbs down but my upload speed is at best 40. Moving large files back and forth to work is very painful.

          • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            With cable here I’m “supposed” to get “up to” 1000mbs down but my upload speed is at best 40.

            Man, you get 40 up? I’m stuck on 30 up. And the funny thing is that just on the other side of the creek on the other side of my street is where they stopped the fibre rollout.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Technically correct. The best kind of correct ;). He should have said not sharing that last mile connection, like one would share with a satellite downlink.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s good for Starlink and all other ISPs, intuitively, the less internet people have, the more they will pay for more, simple supply and demand !

      The best financial move for SpaceX and Starlink would be to have a few “unfortunate accidents” where tesla crash into telephone poles which happen to also hold critical fiber junctions.

      Now that is profit driven innovation !

    • ChetManly@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Starlink is 120/mo. Over the past 30 days my average DL is 144Mb, UL 18Mb, with a 27ms ping. It suuuuuuuuuuuuucks, but the only other option is a literal 4Mb DSL for 80$/mo

      • ubergeek@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        And, wait until Starlink hits saturation… Your speeds will be 1mb down, 300kb up, and latency hitting 100ms…

        You’re only benefiting from early adoption at this time. It can only get worse the more they onboard.

        Starlink is 120/mo.

        How much for install?

        • ChetManly@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Dish, router, and long ass cable was on sale for 300. Another 70 for a roof bracket if memory serves.

    • HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      TIL 120 is 4 x 70…

      Edit to add everything below this line

      Downvotes for facts. I pay 120/mo. It’s either this, 3Mbps DSL, or T-Mobile home 5G that works when it feels like it.

      • JordanZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        I’m on the mid tier fiber plan(3gbps) with my ISP which is $100 a month. Here’s the results from the daily speed test my router does.

        StarLink is very expensive for the service provided. Its only advantage is the location availability which is essentially anywhere. If they installed fiber to rural areas then its usefulness falls dramatically. I’d rather they invest in more fiber rather than more StarLink satellites that only last about 5 years.

          • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            You lack individual choice by design. You should choose whatever is best for you, obviously, but you can be pissed there’s no fiber running alongside your electricity service.

      • ubergeek@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        So, not 4x, but 2x.

        BTW, did you know HughesNet is cheaper, and works just as well. Or, it will work just as well once Starlink reaches the saturation HughesNet faces.

        • HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Physics says otherwise.

          Geostationary orbit, which is where hughesnet satellites are, is approximately 22 THOUSAND miles away.

          That’s a round trip of 44 thousand miles.

          That’s a ping time of 236ms just for the satellite connection, before any other connections are added in.

          That’s worse than my dialup latency was in the 90s

          Meanwhile, my Starlink ping averages less than 40ms, because these satellites are MUCH MUCH closer.

            • HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              It’s cute that you’re worried about me. But it’s still better than whatever else is currently available at my house. And it will always be better than anything using geostationary orbit.