5 ms·

Would fiber have come so fast without starlink as a threat though

maxerickson 2mo ago
What's the reasoning? That people won't switch away from the more expensive, slower, less reliable service if you get there a bit later? Starlink isn't wildly expensive, nor is it unreliable or slow, but it loses the comparisons.
- christina97 2mo ago
  When a telco provides poor quality service somewhere, people have no choice but to pay them as price takers. When there are options, telcos have to provide better service to win your business. Telcos with monopolies have always been rent-seekers. It happens time and time again that some newcomer comes up, and just the hint of competition gets Verizon/Spectrum/etc to suddenly build new tech and dig some trenches.
  - blooalien 2mo ago
    ^^^ Exactly this. I live in just such an area (one where Cable and DSL providers successfully bribed local officials to get fiber blocked so the two of them could split the city between them). They're both literally the worst Internet service providers I've ever had, but the only two choices besides insanely expensive celphone service providers.
  - maxerickson 2mo ago
    Spectrum here rolled out fiber when other companies did. I'm pretty sure it is because it is the same subsidized last mile fiber and not because they were inspired by competition.
- nomel 2mo ago
  See the reason Google Fiber existed [1]. It wasn't for a product, it was to kick the pants of all the monopolistic broadband providers. Now, you have similar motivation on a global scale. [1] https://gdt.com/blog/whatever-happened-to-google-fiber/ https://gdt.com/blog/whatever-happened-to-google-fiber/
  - Cyberdog 2mo ago
    How ironic that Google wanted to be a monopoly buster.
pclmulqdq 2mo ago
Starlink was an attempt to grab the rural broadband funding that supported that fiber rollout in the US. It was too slow, so the money went to fiber and traditional ISPs instead. Fiber may well have come faster without starlink.
triceratops 2mo ago
Thanks Elon!

What's the reasoning? That people won't switch away from the more expensive, slower, less reliable service if you get there a bit later? Starlink isn't wildly expensive, nor is it unreliable or slow, but it loses the comparisons.

christina97 2mo ago
When a telco provides poor quality service somewhere, people have no choice but to pay them as price takers. When there are options, telcos have to provide better service to win your business. Telcos with monopolies have always been rent-seekers. It happens time and time again that some newcomer comes up, and just the hint of competition gets Verizon/Spectrum/etc to suddenly build new tech and dig some trenches.
- blooalien 2mo ago
  ^^^ Exactly this. I live in just such an area (one where Cable and DSL providers successfully bribed local officials to get fiber blocked so the two of them could split the city between them). They're both literally the worst Internet service providers I've ever had, but the only two choices besides insanely expensive celphone service providers.
- maxerickson 2mo ago
  Spectrum here rolled out fiber when other companies did. I'm pretty sure it is because it is the same subsidized last mile fiber and not because they were inspired by competition.
nomel 2mo ago
See the reason Google Fiber existed [1]. It wasn't for a product, it was to kick the pants of all the monopolistic broadband providers. Now, you have similar motivation on a global scale. [1] https://gdt.com/blog/whatever-happened-to-google-fiber/ https://gdt.com/blog/whatever-happened-to-google-fiber/
- Cyberdog 2mo ago
  How ironic that Google wanted to be a monopoly buster.

pclmulqdq 2mo ago

Starlink was an attempt to grab the rural broadband funding that supported that fiber rollout in the US. It was too slow, so the money went to fiber and traditional ISPs instead. Fiber may well have come faster without starlink.

triceratops 2mo ago

Thanks Elon!