Hacker News Reader

Comment by YATA0 | Hacker News Reader

>1. I think you are grossly underestimating just how many cables and cell towers would be needed to cover just rural North America alone (nevermind less developed places like Africa).

Not underestimating at all. Of course it will be a lot, but it has many advantages, and is by far more eco-friendly than shooting rockets into space.

>2. LEO satellite internet benefits more than just terrestrial clients. Ships and airplanes can now have more reliable communications.

There will always be a need for ship and airplane connectivity, but LEO being more reliable is still up for debate, and other forms of satcomms can be done with and order of magnitude less satellites.

View on HN

> Not underestimating at all. Of course it will be a lot

Do you have any data to back this up? Starlink (and other possible future constellations) most effectively serve the low-density or unconnected areas of the world. North America alone has a land area on the order of 25 million square km, with significant topographical and geographical contraints.

I have several relatives who had what the government considered "high speed" internet available - one an old adsl 1.5Mbit connection, the other a drastically overprovisioned cell phone wireless that they were lucky if it provided 0.5Mbit real world connections. The providers offered no consolation, and there was zero prospect of them upgrading services. Both relatives are now happily using their starlink at ~200Mbit.

> other forms of satcomms can be done with and order of magnitude less satellites.

There is effectively a per-satellite maximum bandwidth, as well as distance-based power requirements. The same satellite in low earth orbit can provide much better internet than if it were in GEO. Non-LEO satellites will remain second-class internet (with lower speeds and higher latencies) because of fundamental physical limitations.

> is by far more eco-friendly than shooting rockets into space

Really? The energy usage is almost certainly much higher to do it terrestrially. If you're concerned about the CO2 generated by the launch burn you could easily offset that and more using carbon removal with the energy saved versus doing the same buildout terrestrially.

You're massively underestimating how many miles of cable would need to be run to cover the US with 4G. You're talking on the order of a million miles of cable. Not to mention building even more towers than the satellites they are launching. Raw materials alone are likely an order of magnitude more. Plus all the labor involved. Do you know how trenching works? There's no way that's more economical. Not a damn chance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com