• bitwolf@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    How about no

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

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 day 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.

  • blind3rdeye@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    1 day ago

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

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

  • Lucelu2@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

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

  • Ascrod@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    Story of America, really.

  • uhdeuidheuidhed@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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
        1 day 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
          4
          ·
          17 hours 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
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours 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
      ·
      23 hours 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
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day 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
    22
    ·
    1 day 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
      21
      ·
      1 day 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
    51
    ·
    2 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
      7
      ·
      1 day 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?