1176
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
1176 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
73495 readers
2979 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good luck? Most of the world is already there. I had 3g in deep jungles of Thailand last weekend and even in the most remote places in China have wire these days.
The main point is that sat is limited by physics so cell towers and wire are upgrades over sat so it makes much more sense to start with better technology now as we'll never need less connection.
If we can figure out how to put them on the bottom of the ocean and pipelines over just about any terrain, I think we can figure this out
Because building space ports and rocket launches have 0 impact as well.
But you acknowledge this, so what's your point? Why pay a techno billionaire when we can publicly fund cables way cheaper and more friendly?
It's has its place for sure.
But the physics are far more against satalite.
But the reason I don't believe in large scale satalite systems for consumers is because they're disposable. They all fall down or contribute to the growing space junk problem.
So it's not really any better at the end of the day than just burying a fibre cable for 40 years.
How are satellites better if they will never be faster? Do we just accept life in 300ms latency? We will always need better communication so it makes no sense to invest into inferior product even if it's more accessible currently.
Unless quantum communication becomes real thing nothing will match fiber and cell towers in the foreseeable future.
Sat is a fringe technology for war and extreme remote areas, everything else is already solved.
And my OP clearly stated that sat has uses but it's compleyely overhyped otherwise. So I'm not sure what are you even talking about here if not just goal post moving.
Counterpoint: even an hour out from Oslo there are people relying on Starlink
Seems like a skill issue tbh