Much like how it's in Tesla's best interests for the US not to invest in high-speed rail (hence Musk's "Hyperloop" stunt to prevent an infrastructure investment), it's in Starlink's best interests for countries not to invest in broadband technologies (whether it's mobile networks or fiber). I'm not aware of any plans to dissuade governments from those investments yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see it. Presumably Musk is too busy with Twitter at the moment.
I have family on a rural network with solar-powered relays setup on islands. New retirees to the area are just buying starlink without even asking about the local net. So it is no longer being expanded to new locations/islands. The new people also dont want relays on thier land. They dont support the local/cheap option it because they have been sold starlink by whatever off-grid company is setting up thier new cabin.
Has your family tried talking to any of them about it?
From my experience it is quite the opposite: they know you have nowhere else to go so you will buy their connection anyway.
Much depends on geography. In the flat areas of the midwest there are tall towers serving expansive areas. Those are the ones with licenses and local monopolies. But in rough or mountainous terrain the net requires lots of little relay stations and is done using non-licensed 2.4ghz spectrum. Those small companies remain friendly because they know anyone can jump in and compete. The one my family is on relies on a chain of relays on islands to connect a couple villages to a local cell tower location where there is fiber. Everyone knows the cell service is bad and there is no wired internet. So when the relay stations need fixing, boats and skilled labor show up to help get the town back online.
>So when the relay stations need fixing, boats and skilled labor show up to help get the town back online.
I'm sure if you factor in the costs of this plus the nontangible costs of downtime, Starlink is far superior, even if it is more expensive.
The US is notorious for its lack of competition in local broadband providers but this is less true for other countries. So while Starlink may disrupt local monopolies of higher prices and worse quality in some places, especially in the US, in the long term it's rational to expect them to aim to replace the monopoly, not to continue having to compete.
Is it that I say that monopolies can increase efficiency (e.g. Apple making their own chips and having their own stores)? Is it that companies often disrupt industries by pricing out competition at a loss before hiking prices? Is it that US broadband providers often operate in effective monopoly positions? Is it that Starlink can be disruptive to those monopolies? Is it that it's rational to expect SpaceX to want to be the new monopoly rather than being stuck in permanent competition?
Heck, I literally use Starlink because cable wasn't available and I didn't want to pay for copper until we'll be connected to fiber hopefully later this year. I'm not arguing Starlink isn't useful to consumers in the short term or that there aren't legitimate use cases that can't be equally served by other existing technologies. That doesn't mean there aren't obvious problems with it.
is referring to the service area, not the number of competitors.
AFAICT that's exactly what Starlink is trying to do. Their satellites are in a low enough orbit to provide sufficient bandwidth for light web browsing, and they certainly have enough satellites to provide reliable coverage (by satellite standards).
Thing is, satcom is still much more expensive, much slower, and much more power-hungry than what folks have gotten used to with broadband home internet, LTE, and 5G. I have the feeling that it will always be that way - it takes a lot more power to blast a signal into space than it does to send it to a tower down the street, or to the router in your living room. The section of the general population that is willing to make such huge tradeoffs in exchange for truly global coverage is quite small. Militaries and certain types of businesses love it, though.
With all software in the cloud now (e.g. WMS) losing connectivity can cause a facility to stop, so having an entirely segregated line on an entirely separate technology platform is worth a lot. Lots of production/warehouse facilities struggle to get truly redundant lines to them, and often are sitting outside of 4G range.
By the way, I think that comment was from the 2023 SpaceX all-hands talk that was posted online if you wish to find it yourself.
You already can.
Tons of people driving the Pan-American Highway from Alaska to Argentina are using Starlink now - it works flawlessly no matter what country you're in.
Same for people driving around Africa, across Central Asia, etc.
Pro Tip - order it in a country like Mexico and the monthly fee is way lower.
> Important: The Google Fi Terms of Service require you to activate and use Google Fi service mainly in the United States (not including territories) for at least one day before using Google Fi abroad. If the majority of your usage occurs outside of the United States over a consecutive 90-day period, we will suspend your international data. Learn more at our Help Center.
That sounds like an absolute distopian nightmare and the last person on earth that I want to be running this service is Elon Musk. In general I find it horrendous how a single american company can pollute the night sky for every human being in the world, whether they can use their services or not. Technologically I'm in awe of what Starlink achieves, it's an incredible feat - and yet I still think it's a travesty that it's allowed to exist at all.
I look at the sky regularly in a low light area and I've not seen any "pollution", but maybe I don't know how to look?
I remember as a kid (far before Starlink existed) that we'd always go stargazing when we were camping (far from any city light pollution). And the longer you'd watch, the more you would see 'stars move'.
The ISS is also very clearly visible. It's pretty wild to see it re-appear every 90 minutes or so. Insane to think how fast that thing is moving.
It was both amazing and disturbing.
After they reach their target orbit they go into dark mode and you will never see them unless you operate like a top 10 in the world telescope.
Given that Musk was the only person with the ambition, capital, and ability to deliver such a project, you're basically saying that you'd rather have Starlink not exist at all than to have Musk in charge.
>it's an incredible feat - and yet I still think it's a travesty that it's allowed to exist at all.
Confirmed: You'd rather have every Starlink customer go dark than have someone you've been told to dislike provide those customers with a service they willingly sign up for.
Dystopia, indeed.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying having Musk in charge makes it distopian, but even without him at the helm I'd rather it didn't exist.
>>Confirmed: You'd rather have every Starlink customer go dark than have someone you've been told to dislike provide those customers with a service they willingly sign up for.
No, I'd rather not have my sky polluted to satisfy an American billionaire's fancy, even if he has willing and paying customers. The night sky is a common good of every single person on earth, and he's playing with it to make money. I'd have the exact same complaint about any competing constallation, and in fact I am going to have it because Amazon is building a competing service themselves.
But that good shouldn't to serve millions of people with something they need.
You rather have it totally unused instead at all.
> I'd have the exact same complaint about any competing constallation, and in fact I am going to have it because Amazon is building a competing service themselves.
I have bad news for you because there are about 10 other major constellation in development and those are only the ones that are a public.
Not a single country has put major effort into stopping it.
Pretty much every country agrees that this space should be used to serve the needs of its people.
That pollution is much much less than the light pollution from cities and aircraft (both visual and noise).
If we’re going to care about pollution of the night sky it seems more effective to take on those cases that are already very intrusive.
Agree that fixing broader light pollution is a separate and important issue.
99.9999% of human who live have never seen a Starlink sat so this pollution is really not all that crazy. In fact most people find it interesting when they accidentally see one.
Also sats have been visible since literally 70 years, and many are more visible then Starlink.
Being overly dramatic just makes you sound silly.
> I find it horrendous how a single american company can pollute the night sky for every human being in the world
Except of course that with the visible eye you never even see Starlink and 99.99% of humanity has never seen a single sat, and don't notice it. And of those who have most have seen a short bus of sats for a few seconds. And somehow those people are still alive.
The sky is fine and not polluted.
There are some concerns about earth based astronomy but they are often overblown. And sats are just one of many things humans do that make astronomy harder.
More regulation to take into account astronomy make some sense, but SpaceX has been a model citizen in that regard.