• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    Despite that, ISPs claim that prices for the low-cost option should be calculated based on “the economic realities of deploying and operating networks in the highest cost, hardest-to-reach areas.”

    Frankly, in the hardest-to-reach areas, I’m not sure that it makes sense to subsidize terrestrial ISPs at all. Hard-to-reach rural areas are Starlink’s bread-and-butter.

    • Infynis@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Musk is already a problem for national security, if we’re going to use Starlink even more, the government needs to just seize the company

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      I can’t imagine tying my only communications with the outside world to the whims of an unhinged lunatic who has proven that he’s willing to ruin good things just because he feels like it that day.

      • Nighed
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Other satellite internet options are available (or will be soonish)

        Oneweb is live, although they aim more at ISPs and businesses.

        The Amazon one might happen if New Glen ever gets of the ground (although it’s launching on other providers too)

    • jawa21@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      The upfront cost for Starlink is insane for most people, especially those in rural areas.

      • Nighed
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s way less than the cost of running a fiber line out there though!

        So potentially subsidise the starling terminal instead.