The star link network is actually remarkably cost effective in getting internet access to rural areas. There's a reason that these areas still have poor connectivity: it's just not cost effective for anyone to build land based infrastructure there.
replySpaceX spend a few billions on StarLink. But if you look at how much network operators have spent over the years on cables, base stations, etc. it's not all that much for a network that offers high bandwidth access all over the planet.
Adding 100K more satellites is going to make Star Link a direct competitor to many of these operators.
It occurred to me after reading the original story that if space based internet gets fast enough, we'll stop using any other kind for most purposes. That means, as a platform, SpaceX could carry a significant amount of the entire world's internet traffic. No wonder Elon is interested.
replyStarlink often struggles in thunder storms.
replyNot enough bandwidth
replyYet. I one was one of the first people in Silicon Valley to have DSL when dialup had that same bandwidth problem. I posit it will be solved.
replyEh, I think the economics of rural areas play a role as well, and this “wasteful” way is actually very well suited for serving that long tail.
replyBut the long tail isn't served. The reality of your statement turns out to be that, if there aren't enough customers to justify an expensive tower or wire, no service will be provided at all.
replyThat’s my point, they are serviced by solutions like Starlink because they don’t rely on towers or wires and are just available everywhere.
replyI’m writing this from a small island in a remote country using Starlink, and it’s very popular over here for people that want reliable internet.
Awesome. So we agree!
replyIt has nothing to do with competition. You could have as many competitors as possible and no one is going to put a cell tower up in a remote location.
replyI've been on tiny Indonesian islands far from anything that could be considered civilization, and they'll have cell towers more often than not.
replyBecause Indonesia has a massive population, far more people than the US and much more densly populated. It's internet users are vastly mobile as opposed to desktop or LAN connections. The US geographic landscape and computer use landscape are entirely different.
replyAlso government subsidised
replyIt has everything to do with the lack of competition. US tax payers paid $4 billion to AT&T in 2004 for fiber to -every- home. And that was never delivered, yet they keep getting more money. This is regulatory capture.
replyWe're not talking about fiber, we are talking about cellphone coverage. As I said, no company will put a tower up in a remote area.
reply