Would you really? Have you ever tried to extend internet coverage in the USA?
yes
You have to compete on price with incumbents who already paid for their infrastructure.
Do you know how many companies place fibers next to other companies? if your statement was true that wouldn't happen. I've counted 10+ different fiber companies on one side of the road before.
You have to market to a hostile customer base who assume you're just as bad as incumbents.
That's not true, customers are usually very excited to get faster internet.
Terrestrial buildout requires years of red tape for every city, county, and state you cover. And then you have to roll a truck to every house you want to cover.
Cities cannot stop you from placing communications lines if you meet all the requirements. FCC regulations and such. You wouldn't need to go to everyhouse because wisps are very good at covering large remote areas.
Orbital buildout requires overcoming multiple massive technical challenges AND fronting billions in Capex before you see $1 of revenue.
Sounds like utilizing technology that required a lot of research that the taxpayer paid for. Every one of faggot musks companies have received billions of taxpayer dollars. So I stand by my comment that I could do it better, cheaper and decentralized.
Do you know how many companies place fibers next to other companies?
Not many. Boring to run last mile fiber is so cost-prohibitive that the first company to do it is usually the only one...and then only in ritzy sub-divisions. It's cost prohibitive in rural areas. Aerial fiber is more cost effective IF you can get pole access...thst varies dramatically depending on where you're at.
That's not true, customers are usually very excited to get faster internet.
I dont measure excitement in words, I measure excitement in willingness to pay comeasurate to the cost of delivering service. Saying they're "excited" about it is up there with claiming people are "excited" with paying the 50% cost differential to fly first class. Is it better? Yes. What percentage of people are willing to pay for it? 1-2%. Rural internet excitement is better, but only 10% or so.
Cities cannot stop you from placing communications lines if you meet all the requirements
They can, however, make the requirements prohibitive to almost anyone who isnt an incumbent telco.
wisps are very good at covering large remote areas.
Unless you have trees, hills, or basically anything but the terrain of Kansas.
They intentionally sabotage one thing while promoting the other and you are simply parroting the pied piper. musk is using dynamic wisp. All the regulations you talk about with cities while completely ignoring the elephant in the room known as the FAA. So hanging a wire on a pole is more of a burden than launching computers into space, got it. It's about control and people with opinions like yours are the ones bringing it forward with a spoonful of sugar. Name one thing musk does that doesn't benefit globalist in a major way.
I can argue facts about "last mile". How much per foot to hang strand? Do you actually know? Drop installation, do you actually know? It seems like you don't. "Ritzy subdivisions" pay for it to be installed. Just like you can pay to have a mile of strand placed to your bumfuck nowhere cabin. Your kidding yourself if you think musk is spending money launching satellites into space so you can have internet in your shack.
Creating a global satellite surveillance network under guise of bringing internet to rural people is the name of the game you're hip to. Good for you.
E: I'd also argue had the government actually used the billions for rural fiber, musk wouldn't have a big enough market to make "starlink" viable. Hence why they sat on it.
So hanging a wire on a pole is more of a burden than launching computers into space, got it
It shouldnt be, but he's the only one who's found a way to cut that Gordian Knot by providing LEO internet coverage. Prior satellite providers didnt even come close to deliverying the bandwidth and latency required to compete with terrestrial ISPs.
Name one thing musk does that doesn't benefit globalist in a major way
Buying Twitter comes to mind. So does deliverying internet coverage to most of the planet in a manner that cant be readily controlled by every tinpot dictatorship.
It's important to avoid a utopian fallacy. Instead of asking if everything he's accomplished meets some utopian ideal you have in your head, compare it to the altetnative which actually exists.
can argue facts about "last mile". How much per foot to hang strand? Do you actually know? Drop installation, do you actually know?
That's going to vary dramatically by locality. And then it gets down into the weeds of labor just to hang it, or do you mean TCO to deploy it? Techs hanging wire is one thing, but TCO is far more important because you have to consider all the bureaucratic costs before you attach the first piece of fiber to a poll. Prepare to spend years on legal and lobbying costs for every zoning board, city council, state legislature, etc known to humanity. Incumbent telcos will do everything in their power to convince whomever controls pole access (varies depending on the area) that you're going to destroy the poles, destroy everyone else's lines, and must be kept out at all cost. Prepare to spend a fortune on lawyers to wade through the paperwork.
"Ritzy subdivisions" pay for it to be installed
Rarely. Typically incumbent telcos beg the government for gibs to fund buildouts in "rural areas"...that coincidentally are composed of "Ritzy Acres", the newest "rural" subdivision. Which government department varies by country. The Americans dole their "rural broadband" gibs through the USDA, which is ironic as heck.
Your kidding yourself if you think musk is spending money launching satellites into space so you can have internet in your shack.
As opposed to what, SkyNet? I'm more inclined to believe he wanted to develop reusable launch vehicles so we could get to Mars, so LEO satellite internet was the easiest way to monetize that.
I'd also argue had the government actually used the billions for rural fiber, musk wouldn't have a big enough market to make "starlink" viable.
I admire the theory...but there's no way this would have actually panned out. Incumbent telcos have so much regulatory capture that they've already spent billions in grants for this and have not delivered on it. The government offers endless billions in grants for "rural broadband" in "underserved areas". The intent is to deliver ubiquitious broadband coverage to every house, shack, and hut out on Rural Route BFE 192, 50 milea from the nearest town. Incumbent telcos look at those maps of underserved areas, pick new sub divisions being built a stone's throw from areas the telcos already cover, and then submit grant applications to "build out rural broadband" because "technically it's a rural, underserved area". Which the telcos would have built out anyway, because it's pretty profitable to extend coverage to a bunch of 1/10th of an acre lots across the street from a neighborhood you already have service in. And the government hands out the billions for rural fiber you mentioned...for those ridiculous grant applications.
Much as there is to criticize about Musk, he actually did delivery last mile internet service to truly rural areas that werent just some new subdivision across the street from town.
(post is archived)