Disclaimer - I have a starlink terminal. I feel that the complaints should be made to the various governments that haven’t mandated modern terrestrial technologies to those of us outside metro areas.
I live 14km/9m from a town with underground fibre optic. The best I can hope for is geo-synch satellite with data caps and latency around 600ms. I will never see fibre optic rolled out here. I can sort of understand, it’s quite expensive and needs to be balanced against income from operations to justify it. But they rolled out electricity, and they rolled out PSTN, so the justification was found in those cases.
So, Starlink found a need and filled it. Had governments filled the need instead, the problem wouldn’t exist.
While I don’t begrudge you your choice, I don’t think this is a good defence of Starlink. It sounds too close to defence of leaded gasoline.
Someone else not solving a problem isn’t a good defence for someone who creates a solution to that one problem that ends up being a net negative for humanity as a whole, and it’s definitely not a defence of a second generation that makes a known problem with the technology even worse.
Not a fan of Starlink. But net negative to humanity? Idk about that.
Let say we do lose that band of the em spectrum. Does that take away more than we gain by improving the life of the dude above and many like him?
As much as I like science and space, shouldn’t “humanity’s” first concern be the well-being of humans? I’d say we live at a time where Internet access should be a public utility, not having it marks a dramatic difference in opportunity. Starlink isn’t that, but it’s better than nothing.
Having scientists looking at space is important, but it doesn’t help everyday joe, who needs the most help.
That being said. I agree it is up to governments to find their balls and regulate the use of space. Like they did with gasoline.
There are so technological advances that have saved many, many lives thanks to our space science. Starlink doesn’t just endanger astronomical observation - it endangers other forms of space communication as well as our practical ability to put up (or use) other satellites. This means less accurate earth science too, including making it harder to predict extreme weather events, track climate change, etc. Things that save lives are being put in jeopardy.
But they rolled out electricity, and they rolled out PSTN, so the justification was found in those cases.
Yeah, the justification was the federal government basically forcing providers to do that. Remember back in 2008 when we handed a bunch of money to telecom companies to expand their networks? Then they laughed at us and just kept the money and basically said fuck you? That also was a part of this act, or at least related to it, since broadband was added to it as an amendment in 2008.
Anyways, point being the companies didn’t roll our electricity and pstn to rural areas out of the goodness of their heart or even a strict profit motive. It took a literal act of congress for it to happen.
I will never see fibre optic rolled out here. I can sort of understand, it’s quite expensive and needs to be balanced against income from operations to justify it. But they rolled out electricity, and they rolled out PSTN, so the justification was found in those cases.
Yeah, but you see, the electricity and telephone rollouts were done in the New Deal era or shortly thereafter. The government has been subjected to way too much regulatory capture since then to ever consider doing something that would help the public at the expense of corporate profits nowadays.
While I don’t begrudge you your choice, I don’t think this is a good defence of Starlink. It sounds too close to defence of leaded gasoline.
Someone else not solving a problem isn’t a good defence for someone who creates a solution to that one problem that ends up being a net negative for humanity as a whole, and it’s definitely not a defence of a second generation that makes a known problem with the technology even worse.
Disclaimer - I have a starlink terminal. I feel that the complaints should be made to the various governments that haven’t mandated modern terrestrial technologies to those of us outside metro areas.
I live 14km/9m from a town with underground fibre optic. The best I can hope for is geo-synch satellite with data caps and latency around 600ms. I will never see fibre optic rolled out here. I can sort of understand, it’s quite expensive and needs to be balanced against income from operations to justify it. But they rolled out electricity, and they rolled out PSTN, so the justification was found in those cases.
So, Starlink found a need and filled it. Had governments filled the need instead, the problem wouldn’t exist.
The problem isn’t that they are filling a niche, the problem is that they are doing it carelessly and ruining other people’s work in the process.
While I don’t begrudge you your choice, I don’t think this is a good defence of Starlink. It sounds too close to defence of leaded gasoline.
Someone else not solving a problem isn’t a good defence for someone who creates a solution to that one problem that ends up being a net negative for humanity as a whole, and it’s definitely not a defence of a second generation that makes a known problem with the technology even worse.
Not a fan of Starlink. But net negative to humanity? Idk about that.
Let say we do lose that band of the em spectrum. Does that take away more than we gain by improving the life of the dude above and many like him?
As much as I like science and space, shouldn’t “humanity’s” first concern be the well-being of humans? I’d say we live at a time where Internet access should be a public utility, not having it marks a dramatic difference in opportunity. Starlink isn’t that, but it’s better than nothing.
Having scientists looking at space is important, but it doesn’t help everyday joe, who needs the most help.
That being said. I agree it is up to governments to find their balls and regulate the use of space. Like they did with gasoline.
There are so technological advances that have saved many, many lives thanks to our space science. Starlink doesn’t just endanger astronomical observation - it endangers other forms of space communication as well as our practical ability to put up (or use) other satellites. This means less accurate earth science too, including making it harder to predict extreme weather events, track climate change, etc. Things that save lives are being put in jeopardy.
Yeah, the justification was the federal government basically forcing providers to do that. Remember back in 2008 when we handed a bunch of money to telecom companies to expand their networks? Then they laughed at us and just kept the money and basically said fuck you? That also was a part of this act, or at least related to it, since broadband was added to it as an amendment in 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act
Anyways, point being the companies didn’t roll our electricity and pstn to rural areas out of the goodness of their heart or even a strict profit motive. It took a literal act of congress for it to happen.
Yeah, but you see, the electricity and telephone rollouts were done in the New Deal era or shortly thereafter. The government has been subjected to way too much regulatory capture since then to ever consider doing something that would help the public at the expense of corporate profits nowadays.
While I don’t begrudge you your choice, I don’t think this is a good defence of Starlink. It sounds too close to defence of leaded gasoline.
Someone else not solving a problem isn’t a good defence for someone who creates a solution to that one problem that ends up being a net negative for humanity as a whole, and it’s definitely not a defence of a second generation that makes a known problem with the technology even worse.