this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
397 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
59080 readers
3730 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Frankly, in the hardest-to-reach areas, I'm not sure that it makes sense to subsidize terrestrial ISPs at all. Hard-to-reach rural areas are Starlink's bread-and-butter.
Musk is already a problem for national security, if we're going to use Starlink even more, the government needs to just seize the company
I can’t imagine tying my only communications with the outside world to the whims of an unhinged lunatic who has proven that he’s willing to ruin good things just because he feels like it that day.
Other satellite internet options are available (or will be soonish)
Oneweb is live, although they aim more at ISPs and businesses.
The Amazon one might happen if New Glen ever gets of the ground (although it's launching on other providers too)
The upfront cost for Starlink is insane for most people, especially those in rural areas.
It's way less than the cost of running a fiber line out there though!
So potentially subsidise the starling terminal instead.