• topinambour_rex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    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 ?

    • nivenkos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.

        • nivenkos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

      • topinambour_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

    • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      34
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s not how it works?

      Everyone deserves decent internet access. Restriction to access results in poverty.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

              • echo64@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                They got subsidies and were recently denied some. Don’t pretend they never got any thank you.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  They got subsidies and were recently denied some.

                  The DID NOT get the subsidy.

                  Don’t pretend they never got any thank you.

                  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.

              • MisterMoo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              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.

              • echo64@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  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.

                  • echo64@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    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.

          • Deello@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

      • topinambour_rex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

      • Clent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        Pay to have fiber run to your house. Your living choice isn’t our problem.

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          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

          • nivenkos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

        • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.