Hacker News Reader

Comment by AtlasBarfed | Hacker News Reader

This sounds like a wired-centric approach, where people assume that everyone has a fiber connection. And I agree that it is ridiculous that cable companies have such bad upstream.

Can starlink support synchronous up/down? I doubt it. The satellite swarm companies are going to bring the internet to rural/third world/oceania/etc in a way that hasn't been possible before.

Even cellular won't solve deserts, ocean, tundra, and IIRC the tower density to support decent 4G/5G for true broadband just isn't economically feasible outside of suburbs, towns, highways, etc.

But I'm shocked at the support range of LTE in wisconsin and upper peninsula michigan, although the bandwidth is pretty average, so what do I know.

View on HN

I think we need to approach internet connectivity from a wired-is-most-ideal standpoint and spend whatever capital needs to be spent to build it out. In the mean time, underserved communities can be serviced with cellular and satellite options.

I don’t think wireless is the future due to limited spectrum and high latency. The future is still wired, it’s just that private companies can’t be the entities trusted to do the build-out — it has to be a public utilities project.

Depends on the community of course. Sub-Saharan Africa leap-frogged copper and went to 4g/5G. Probably same for broader band.

Not too long ago 10 mbits was ‘broadband’, so, maybe various forms of wireless will be just fine. Certainly more flexible in terms of long term options

Not too long ago, _4 mbits_ was considered broadband in the USA. And it's one of the reasons we have such terrible infrastructure; we poured a ton of money to improve internet access, and now we're left with coaxial in 2021 being sufficient in even downtown areas, since there was no motive to install fiber instead.

The future is still wired, it’s just that private companies can’t be the entities trusted to do the build-out — it has to be a public utilities project.

China did a great job at building out a fiber network. Unfortunately it's compromised by the GFW and other issues. Australia recently attempted to fund a national plan for fiber deployment, but managed to privatise the implementation to the point where it was never delivered and has become a joke. A couple of years ago, you still literally couldn't get a connection right in the middle of Sydney. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network

Their take: There is no significant demand for wired connections above 25 Mbit/s and consideration of upgrading the network will not be undertaken until demand for high-bandwidth services is proven.

I hear New Zealand has significantly better Internet, perhaps Australians should all move there.

Starlink only makes sense in a world of unlimited capital for certain entrepreneurs IMO. I do not believe that service can be profitable without permanent government subsidies. Terrestrial fiber is just a better solution.

Also a world of unlimited microwave spectrum.

Do you have some breakdown of the costs? Because SpaceX can loft them easily enough, and they already have a functional network, and a client base from the former victims/users of viasat at a minimum.

How would terrestrial fiber work in rural america, far north alaska and canada, the sahara, antarctica, siberia, etc?

Once the satellites are aloft, and the customer base established, assuming they get special SpaceX launch rates, what makes the upkeep expensive that would require subsidy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com