this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
342 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
70140 readers
2362 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok FCC, then how do you plan on getting internet to me? Choppy terrestrial with 20% packet loss wasn’t working, Verizon lte with 2mbps upload wasn’t working, hughesnet…do we need to even mention it? Verizon dsl with 1.5/.25 isn’t even internet.
So please tell me how you’re going to do something about it other than deny me solutions? Starlink has been the best thing to happen to rural US in a long time.
If you want low latency go to urban areas. Otherwise accept medium latencies and stop to scream at the sky.
Does the International Space Station worthes safety means nothing to countryside people ? Are you so self centered ?
That’s not how it works?
Everyone deserves decent internet access. Restriction to access results in poverty.
It is quite literally how it works.
In addition, Starlink is not a good solution. It requires an infinite amount of rockets sent into low earth orbit forever, at a heavy subsidised cost paid for by American taxpayers.
You should be pushing for long-term solutions, not ones that literally fall out of the sky six months after the subsidies stop.
True.
How are American taxpayers subsidizing Starlink? The gov certainly isn't paying for Starlink launches or satellites . Starlink was also denied the $866 billion for government funded rural broadband/
Where is the tax money you're saying come from?
Well, they were going to get subsidies https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/07/spacex-starlink-wins-nearly-900-million-in-fcc-subsidies-auction.html
Now starlink mad they not https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/spacex-blasts-fcc-as-it-refuses-to-reinstate-starlinks-886-million-grant/
Right, I linked that in my post. So where is the taxpayer subsidy?
They got subsidies and were recently denied some. Don't pretend they never got any thank you.
The DID NOT get the subsidy.
What SpaceX won in 2020 was a bid to receive the $866 million. They did not receive the money at that time. The FCC process after winning a bid is to do extra work showing your product meets program requirements:
"SpaceX’s winning share was one of the largest among the auction’s 180 successful bidders [in 2020], and covered nearly 643,000 homes and businesses in 35 states."
"Auction winners were required to submit paperwork to the FCC to show how they planned to deploy services that meet RDOF conditions to receive the funds over 10 years.""
"The Federal Communications Commission said Aug. 10 [2022] that SpaceX had failed to show it could meet requirements for unlocking the funds, which aim to incentivize expanding broadband services to unserved areas across the United States."
source
...and in 2022 SpaceX's bid was denied for not meeting the product performance rules the FCC had placed on the program.
To make you feel comfortable, I'll adopt your level of snark for the conclusion.
So, no, SpaceX did NOT receive this money, and don't pretend they did, thank you.
As soon as SpaceX gets rid of the lunatic asshole billionaire pretending to run the company, I’ll stop cheering for bad headlines. Sorry about your internet service.
Why starlink exists is because the fcc is failing us.
The FCC and the government at large isn't to blame for this one. The ISPs collected the governments money to run high speed Internet to the rural parts of this country. Blame your ISP for not using the funds as intended. Maybe also blame the government for not holding them accountable for not delivering.
It's a good thing that these are put on the low earth orbit which decays faster. That means it cleans itself of space junk in a relatively short time. Putting them higher up would mean higher latency and more junk in space for longer amount of time.
The alternative is not "higher orbit satellites", it's "put wires on the earth".
Firing infinite rockets that fall out of the sky in a year is a bad, wasteful option that only exists because the American government is not under enough pressure to fix its infrastructure problems.
the rest of the world, even the big countries with lots of remote citizens, they used wires not infinite rockets.
It doesn't make any sense to dig cables into rural areas. It would cost a fortune to connect some remote house to the grid. Going wireless is the obvious solution to this and satellite internet gives you much better connection than cell towers. They didn't dig landlines into poor african countries either but skipped right into mobile phones.
You might have a point if launching rockets was cheaper, but launching infinite rockets forever is not cheaper. The rockets fall out of the sky. So we're talking about one upfront cost or a cost forever.
We'll likely have much better technology in the future and the problem will more or less solve itself. In this day and age satellite internet simply just is the most sensible option and probably cheaper aswell. The amount of diesel machinery you'd need to dig all that cable in the rural USA alone would be mind boggling not to mention the enviromental damage of all that digging. These cables don't last forever either. They too need maintenance and eventually to be dug up and replaced.
Rocket is just the delivery vehicle for the satellites. It's not supposed to stay in orbit itself. Building the rocket is what has made space flight so expensive in the past because they were single-use but now with reusable rockets the cost is much less of an issue. They run with renewable fuel aswell - oxygen and methane.
Space travel is going to be getting much more common in the future and the number of rocket launches is only going to increase either way.
Shockingly, you don't need to dig. And handwaving away the cost, including the environmental cost of infinite rocket launches forever because "oh magical technology will save us some day" does not help your case.
Pay to have fiber run to your house. Your living choice isn't our problem.
Additionally, get mad at the ISPs that took government funding to expand rural internet access and then didn’t. It’s always the governments fault with these people, never the corporations that are working day after day to shaft people
The government and corporations are the same class of people. The government could have prevented that with more conditions and involvement in the grants - but they didn't because they'll get kick-backs from their friends later on.
The article in this post is about the FCC refusing Starlink access to the very low orbit, which is close of the ISS orbit. Starlink wants access to this low orbit, for reduce latency. They don't refuse Starlink to send more satellites, so the internet access is still available.
Nope
Jeez, imagine having this little interest in the needs and desires of the people who literally grow your food.
Edit: not necessarily saying LEO satellites are the best solution; I’m the furthest thing from an expert on the topic. This tone just seems wholly unproductive and spiteful.
What about rural farmers' children who want a good education? What about Cubans who are denied deep-sea cables service by the USA?
This is incredible technology that can help tens of millions of people.
"Just be a rich urban American" isn't a good answer for the rest of the world's population.
How do slightly higher latencies impact any of that?
You don't even notice those unless you play a FPS. Last I checked, pwning b00ns in CS isn't vital to a good education.
To make it competitive with local Internet, so all services work well. On high latency connections lots of stuff like websockets, etc. will struggle too.
It's competitive because as you describe, it's better than all other available forms of Internet access.
I used web sockets exactly once in an interactive piece of software. It worked perfectly fine with over-the-ocean latencies, which are higher than Starlink.
It's a non-problem.
I think Cubans would prefer access to other ressources before low lantecy internet. Because that's what the subject of this article. Starlink wanting access to very low earth orbit for reduce the signal distance, so the latency.
You can still have access to internet with a medium latency.
Then I'm the rest of the world. I live in an area with a density of 100people by km square. And I have fiber. Yes I'm from a west european country. My download is at more than 900mb, my upload the half. And I have a ping of 20ms.
So, what you're saying is, their current setup is working for you, and their new proposal for lower-orbit satellites isn't really necessary?
I love when people use the phrase "So, what you're saying is.." unironically.