Hacker News Reader

Comment by up2isomorphism | Hacker News Reader

This is a very wasteful way of getting communications to somewhat compensate the lack of competition in US telco market.

View on HN

The star link network is actually remarkably cost effective in getting internet access to rural areas. There's a reason that these areas still have poor connectivity: it's just not cost effective for anyone to build land based infrastructure there.

SpaceX spend a few billions on StarLink. But if you look at how much network operators have spent over the years on cables, base stations, etc. it's not all that much for a network that offers high bandwidth access all over the planet.

Adding 100K more satellites is going to make Star Link a direct competitor to many of these operators.

It occurred to me after reading the original story that if space based internet gets fast enough, we'll stop using any other kind for most purposes. That means, as a platform, SpaceX could carry a significant amount of the entire world's internet traffic. No wonder Elon is interested.

Not enough bandwidth

Yet. I one was one of the first people in Silicon Valley to have DSL when dialup had that same bandwidth problem. I posit it will be solved.

Starlink often struggles in thunder storms.

It has nothing to do with competition. You could have as many competitors as possible and no one is going to put a cell tower up in a remote location.

It has everything to do with the lack of competition. US tax payers paid $4 billion to AT&T in 2004 for fiber to -every- home. And that was never delivered, yet they keep getting more money. This is regulatory capture.

We're not talking about fiber, we are talking about cellphone coverage. As I said, no company will put a tower up in a remote area.

You're dead wrong. AT&T is the largest carrier and they ARE doing it

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/at-t-wins-early-appr...

Your article is about landlines AND they received government approval to end service.

We’re talking about remote areas of the US that have almost no local population.

Why would a company put a cell tower in the middle of federal land where no one is allowed to live?

I've been on tiny Indonesian islands far from anything that could be considered civilization, and they'll have cell towers more often than not.

Because Indonesia has a massive population, far more people than the US and much more densly populated. It's internet users are vastly mobile as opposed to desktop or LAN connections. The US geographic landscape and computer use landscape are entirely different.

Also government subsidised

> Because Indonesia has a massive population

Indonesia has less people, ~280 vs ~340 million for the US.

> much more densly populated.

Technically true, but as I said in my comment I'm talking about remote/small islands, closer to Flores/Papua to the east, not Jawa where the overwhelming majority (as in, literally more than half the country) of the population lives. Jawa alone has ~145 million people, Sumatra around 60 and Sulawesi around 20, the rest are spread out all over the country and the densities are much smaller, not to mention that those smaller regions have much fewer resources available to them to begin with.

> It's internet users are vastly mobile as opposed to desktop or LAN connections.

The comment I was replying to was talking about companies/the gov't being reluctant to erect cell towers though? So I don't see the relevancy here, I was saying that even tiny, sparsely populated islands in some of the poorest regions of Indonesia have cell tower coverage, and with those towers, decent internet.

> The US geographic landscape and computer use landscape are entirely different.

Arguably it's infinitely easier to erect infrastructure when you're not an archipelago. Plus, the US is the richest country on earth, I'm sure you guys can figure out how to string along fiber even in the most rural of areas, you've somehow managed to do it across the atlantic ocean after all.

Eh, I think the economics of rural areas play a role as well, and this “wasteful” way is actually very well suited for serving that long tail.

But the long tail isn't served. The reality of your statement turns out to be that, if there aren't enough customers to justify an expensive tower or wire, no service will be provided at all.

That’s my point, they are serviced by solutions like Starlink because they don’t rely on towers or wires and are just available everywhere.

I’m writing this from a small island in a remote country using Starlink, and it’s very popular over here for people that want reliable internet.

Awesome. So we agree!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com