7 ms·

Isn't starlink and its competitors a cheaper way for rural places to get fast internet?

PaulHoule 23d ago
Satellite services make an end run through a lot of bullshit, that’s true, but the long term costs of fiber are overestimated because cable companies want a very fast profit. Whereas thousands and thousands of satellites will need to be replaced year after year and that rate could increase considerably if Kessler syndrome develops.
organsnyder 23d ago
I'm guessing that right now many countries wouldn't like the idea of areas being served solely by an American ISP.
- dguest 23d ago
  There's a lot more when it comes to Starlink: - The obvious political point: that ISP is subject to laws in a country that is testing its legal framework and diplomacy in new (some may say unpredictable) ways. - The first rule of public funding is that the money goes back to the public. Roughly all (if not all) of the jobs for Starlink go to the US, whereas fiber installation in France employs French people. - Paying for Starlink is a terrible investment because the entire constellation is disposable. Every satellite will burn up in roughly 5 years and the whole network would go dead without more launches. Fiber, once installed, is at least serviceable. - Another political point, but the only company that can launch replacements economically is also subject to laws in that same country. Starlink hands an awesome amount of semi-soft power to whatever country controls it. It doesn't really matter what country that is: it's a huge strategic liability to anyone who doesn't hold the keys. Until there's at least another player in the game I'd expect a lot of countries to be wary. Ironically, that could mean Starlink/SpaceX really needs a competitor before it can become a universal solution.
upboundspiral 23d ago
the advantage of local infrastucture is that the local government can have input on the price of the good. If starlink does something you don't like good luck doing anything about it.
swiftcoder 23d ago
StarLink tops out in the 300mbit range, and has anaemic uplink speeds, whereas most fibre rollouts offer symmetrical gigabit. The latency over StarLink is also 2-5x higher than rural fibre. StarLink beats the hell out of the copper phone lines / DSL connections a bunch of these rural communities were running on before the fibre rollout, but it's no match for proper fibre. And assuming France has price controls like Spain, the fibre will be cheaper into the bargain
thefz 23d ago
Not even remotely comparable in terms of quality
oliwarner 23d ago
I think we pay something like €30/month for 2gbps with ~8ms latency back to the UK. I think that answers that.
rsynnott 23d ago
We’re on about our third attempt at rural internet in Ireland. The first two involved wasting a lot of money subsidising dubious cellular and satellite stuff which was arguably marginally good enough 20 years ago, but not now. Thankfully on the third go the government decided to stop screwing around and just do 10gbit-capable fibre to all rural premises. Ultimately if you half-ass this you just end up doing it again later. This is one reason I’m kind of baffled by spacex’s valuation; its long term market would seem to be countries who are too poor to build out fibre. It’s unclear that there’s a trillion dollar industry in that.
- M95D 22d ago
  It's probably more for the rich people: planes, boats, cruise ships... private island...
  - rsynnott 22d ago
    … yeah, I mean there’s not a multi-trillion market in that!
    - deleted 20d ago
      [deleted]
tzs 23d ago
If you need to get internet to rural places quickly then such services are great. But if you are trying to get something that could last for decades and handle the expected growth in the speed and bandwidth that the average family might expect then fiber is the way to go. You don't necessarily need to go right to every rural house at first. There are many places where fiber to a terrestrial wireless access point and wireless to the homes would work well. Fiber can then be expanded out from those access points later.

Satellite services make an end run through a lot of bullshit, that’s true, but the long term costs of fiber are overestimated because cable companies want a very fast profit. Whereas thousands and thousands of satellites will need to be replaced year after year and that rate could increase considerably if Kessler syndrome develops.

organsnyder 23d ago

I'm guessing that right now many countries wouldn't like the idea of areas being served solely by an American ISP.

dguest 23d ago
There's a lot more when it comes to Starlink: - The obvious political point: that ISP is subject to laws in a country that is testing its legal framework and diplomacy in new (some may say unpredictable) ways. - The first rule of public funding is that the money goes back to the public. Roughly all (if not all) of the jobs for Starlink go to the US, whereas fiber installation in France employs French people. - Paying for Starlink is a terrible investment because the entire constellation is disposable. Every satellite will burn up in roughly 5 years and the whole network would go dead without more launches. Fiber, once installed, is at least serviceable. - Another political point, but the only company that can launch replacements economically is also subject to laws in that same country. Starlink hands an awesome amount of semi-soft power to whatever country controls it. It doesn't really matter what country that is: it's a huge strategic liability to anyone who doesn't hold the keys. Until there's at least another player in the game I'd expect a lot of countries to be wary. Ironically, that could mean Starlink/SpaceX really needs a competitor before it can become a universal solution.

upboundspiral 23d ago

the advantage of local infrastucture is that the local government can have input on the price of the good. If starlink does something you don't like good luck doing anything about it.

swiftcoder 23d ago

StarLink tops out in the 300mbit range, and has anaemic uplink speeds, whereas most fibre rollouts offer symmetrical gigabit. The latency over StarLink is also 2-5x higher than rural fibre. StarLink beats the hell out of the copper phone lines / DSL connections a bunch of these rural communities were running on before the fibre rollout, but it's no match for proper fibre. And assuming France has price controls like Spain, the fibre will be cheaper into the bargain

thefz 23d ago

Not even remotely comparable in terms of quality

oliwarner 23d ago

I think we pay something like €30/month for 2gbps with ~8ms latency back to the UK. I think that answers that.

rsynnott 23d ago

We’re on about our third attempt at rural internet in Ireland. The first two involved wasting a lot of money subsidising dubious cellular and satellite stuff which was arguably marginally good enough 20 years ago, but not now. Thankfully on the third go the government decided to stop screwing around and just do 10gbit-capable fibre to all rural premises. Ultimately if you half-ass this you just end up doing it again later. This is one reason I’m kind of baffled by spacex’s valuation; its long term market would seem to be countries who are too poor to build out fibre. It’s unclear that there’s a trillion dollar industry in that.

M95D 22d ago
It's probably more for the rich people: planes, boats, cruise ships... private island...
- rsynnott 22d ago
  … yeah, I mean there’s not a multi-trillion market in that!
  - deleted 20d ago
    [deleted]

tzs 23d ago

If you need to get internet to rural places quickly then such services are great. But if you are trying to get something that could last for decades and handle the expected growth in the speed and bandwidth that the average family might expect then fiber is the way to go. You don't necessarily need to go right to every rural house at first. There are many places where fiber to a terrestrial wireless access point and wireless to the homes would work well. Fiber can then be expanded out from those access points later.