Private infrastructure owned by that megalomaniac is not good.
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
392 points (97.3% liked)
Technology
59080 readers
3800 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why do you hate the free market?
/s
If there was another option I'd take it. As it is though, I'm travelling around Australia and it's freaking brilliant. Australia has zero coverage for most of the country outside of the towns and city regions. I can park up in total outback with no phone reception and get anywhere from 150 to 400 Mbps. I couldn't do this without it, so I'll take it, as it's the only option
Although in the case of Starlink, one company is already putting enough space junk in LEO to affect astronomy research and photography. I can't imagine if there were more than one competitor.
Starlink is perfect for nationalization. Internet is. Infact, nationalize all utilities. Yes, internet should be a utility at this point. It should not be run for profit.
After Musk disabled Starlink to aid Russia, a hostile state in their efforts to invade a sovereign democracy, it should have been clear to everyone that Musk poses a very real security threat, and Starlink should have been seized and nationalised.
This fiasco is a glaring example that no one indvidual shold be able to accrue enough wealth to affect entire countries.
One of many, sadly. With the strong trend toward wealth consolidation they're not going to slow down any time soon.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Its insane to live through Gilded Age 2. The cycle repeats.
Complete with another unsuccessful Business Plot. But this time, some of the ringleaders may be punished.
load more comments
(1 replies)
As someone who lives in a country that formerly had a nationalized phone company in the internet age, and currently has a nationalized power company and airline. Dear God fuck no!
I say we let him build up a huge satellite fleet and then force him to sell a huge chunk of it under antitrust law.
You mean the same government that allowed XM and Sirius to merge with no other satellite radio competition would go after Starlink when they have competition (Hughesnet)?
load more comments
(1 replies)
In my country, the main backbone is built, owned and operated by the government. The services on it are privatized
I was the perfect target for the service, the wife and I went as far as downloading the app to get telemetry from our house, we were like 20% covered and decided to hold off just a little while longer. Then musk went jacking it on the corner in San Diego levels crazy, we pay just about as much for our current Internet (and it's mobile hotspot backup plan in case the internet goes out and we have vital work that needs to be done, or I need some low latency gaming time) which is 5 mb/s on its best days, and we're very happy to not be supporting that Russian stooge.
load more comments
(1 replies)
My internet where I live is through cable and it's terrible. Bad. Outtages all of the time. Down for days at times. So I switched to starlink. It's fine. Works great EXCEPT WHEN IT RAINS HEAVILY.
Heavy rain blocks the signal. Elon Musk owns it.
Now, I have a t-mobile hotspot. It's only $50 per month as opposed to the $110 for Starlink.
If you have no other decent option, Starlink is amazing. If you have other options, don't give Musk your money.
I get 150 down, 15 up with T-Mobile out in the boondocks, so much better than Starlink when you consider it's $50/month versus $150/month. Starlink also raised prices on me.
I'm in the sticks and have no T-Mobile signal at all. I have to rely on wifi calling when I'm at home.
I only can get DSL, and only at the lowest tier since I'm at the edge of the delivery area, I checked the signal to noise that the modem reports and it's not good (apparently)
I was considering getting starlink but I would probably need to place it on a big ass tower https://www.amazon.com/Rohn-25-40-Basic-Tower/dp/B077ZF7V1Q/ref=mp_s_a_1_8_sspa?crid=3MNO34QHYV0Q5&keywords=self+supporting+tower&qid=1694711820&sprefix=self+supp%2Caps%2C235&sr=8-8-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9waG9uZV9zZWFyY2hfbXRm&psc=1&smid=A34PUGV9QVBZZY
And from my understanding, they EXPECT the network to become clogged and unusable, and it is already starting to happen...
At this point I have to pray for municipal network which is never going to happen.
Starlink really is great if you can give it full view of the sky. Other than Musk's anti democratic stances and heavy rain cutting it out, it works so well.
Interesting, I had satellite Internet through explorer and only the heaviest of blizzards would cut access to the internet. Had an uptime of probably 99% through the year. Wonder why satellites further away wouldn't have a problem with rain but starlink ones do.
Different wave lengths.
Shorter wave lengths are more affected by rain.
I would hazard a guess that they were running a geostationary setup rather than Starlinks LEO approach.
load more comments
(1 replies)
“ I think that you will be able to fall asleep in a Tesla, is about two years away” Elon Musk, 2017
Yeah you shouldn’t believe anything this guy or his companies say lol
I think that you will be able to fall asleep in a Tesla, is about two years away
I mean, you can do that. It's just not a good idea if you're the driver
You can do that now. But you’ll probably wake up dead. Same in two years.
I've definitely seen articles proving this was an accurate comment. He didn't specify what the outcome would be though.
Anybody else read the post about Elon musk raw dogging his data center migration ?
Yeah, I've worked in data centers a fair amount in my day and I can't believe they allowed Musk to do any of that to begin with. Every data center experience I've ever had was met with a thousand rules that were meant to keep the customer safe and I cannot believe they were authorized to do this in any fashion.
It's not about whether they owned the equipment or not, it's about the fact that they violated policies and procedures that were put in place to safeguard other clients and the privacy of their data. Total bullshit if you ask me and I'd be suing the data center afterwards if I was one of their primary clients for the breach of trust.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Lol, sure Elon. Take all my data. Not in a million years.
They're about to lose another one. We finally got fiber run to our area, so now I have internet that doesn't zone out every 5 - 10 minutes to find another satellite. Canceling Starlink next week. Fuck you Elon.
I was hyped when I first learned about starlink, finally I wouldn't be stuck with 1 Mbps from ATT, then my power co-op announced it would be running gig fiber to all customers homes.
One thing this article doesn’t get into is whether it is an issue of customer demand or incorrect estimates on how many customers Starlink can handle.
Musk is a dumbass, unserious douche. But from everyone I’ve heard from who has Starlink and NEEDS it, it’s a godsend. For rural and mobile users (van life, RVs, boats, etc) I don’t think there is a better option.
Another question is whether this Starlink service should be nationalized or at least duplicated by other countries. I’m uncomfortable with it being used for war as it is honestly. It’s a supposed civilian, consumer aimed service that I think arguably can be considered a military target right now. Countries like Russia could make an argument for attacking these satellites. And for countries like Ukraine that are relying on it, having it being at the whims of someone like Musk also seems like it isn’t optimal.
Countries like Russia could make an argument for attacking these satellites.
Russia's best shot would be accidentally crashing a lunar lander into one.
load more comments
(2 replies)
My parents have it because of where they live. The only other option they had was century link DSL at 1.5Mbps. Now she can watch streaming services, work from home, etc. The service has been great, Musk is a douche.
It’s a supposed civilian, consumer aimed service
The internet was invented to wage war. It's not an admirable goal, but it's what it was made for. Only after the fact did we turn it into the banal meme stream it is now. When SpaceX requested permission to the FAA to launch its hundreds of thousands of garbage cans, military infrastructure backup was actually part of the pitch to justify the sky contamination. The Pentagon agreed to acquire Starlink for UA because it was part of the listed capabilities of the network. And military operations are not just about destroying things and killing people. Military operations include rescuing the wounded and safeguarding civilians from harm. Armies need to have good communications for this, to avoid destroying non-military targets, reduce the risk of collateral damage, coordinate evacuations and to defend themselves from the opposing force. A communication network should be a neutral channel, what Musk has done with it is to politicize and weaponize it, like the Russians weaponize medical care, judicial freedom and other things that should be basic human rights but are used to coerce individuals to commit atrocities against others.
I had Starlink for over a year. They raised the price twice in that time. In addition, it would not play nice with my Uverse streaming service and I would randomly lose my sports and local channels. I live remote, but ended up switching to copper for $50/no and dumped the cable streaming. Since I don't game, I have not noticed any difference in streaming quality on Netflix or Hulu or Prime. Paying way less than half for copper just made Starlink completely not worth it. The terminal is sitting on a chair in my office...
They haven’t done a great job of marketing it. $100-120 a month isn’t bad and it beats the pants off of all the other satellite internet services.
It's especially more cost effective than rural wireless ISPs. Those places are straight crooks.
As opposed to Elon? 😅
Yeah the alternative is $200 a month for 2mbps with a 20GB data cap. You can't even stream video with this service.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Have they needed to? My mom has no high speed internet to her house. She signed up for Starlink like 2 years ago. Still on the waitlist.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
1 million and counting down
"Projecting" inflated numbers. Or, just, y'know, fraud.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
SpaceX's Starlink division hasn't come close to meeting customer and revenue projections that the company shared with investors before building the satellite network, according to a Wall Street Journal report published today.
SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell said in February that Starlink is expected to turn a profit this year.
"The majority of the world's population that the business could serve and that can afford high-speed broadband lives in cities.
In those regions, Internet service is readily available, usually offers cheaper monthly costs than Starlink and doesn't require specialized equipment."
But in public he has stated more modest ambitions for Starlink, pointing out that low-Earth orbit satellite ventures have a history of going bankrupt.
One step forward on profitability is that SpaceX says it is no longer selling Starlink user terminals at a loss.
The original article contains 654 words, the summary contains 135 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I live less than an hour from Elon and ended up canceling my starlink preorder after eighteen months because I figured it was never going to come.
I’d be fired, lol
view more: next ›