this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
824 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
86751 readers
3454 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But it's not better. It's just rhe only option. They would very much prefer to be connected with a cable or a cell tower no? Why wouldnt they?
You have permafrost melting so northern tundra areas will be worse to build on going forward. But the context is tiny rural places that don't have roads and you travel by plane or snowmobile, they're not getting cable.
Could do point to point wireless. And only have towers every so often. The land is cwey flat.
why not?
Hundreds of miles of expensive cable because terrain make expensive to serve dozens of hundreds.
It's significantly cheaper still. Cable is dirt cheap, technology of laying cable is mature and we already have roads developed to piggy back off infra off. Now think about satellites that only live a few years and are incredibly expensive and immature.
20,000-30,000 miles to cover 250,000-300,000 people (I looked for numbers based on places with at least 100 people) for a total cost of $2,000,000,000-$7,000,000,000.
Good luck with that.
Source? that's obviously not true
Which part of permafrost do you not understand?
Beyond permafrost it's also extremely remote and often separated from Anchorage (metro area has the majority of the population of Alaska, at a similar population to the city of Cleveland) by national parks, mountains, and rivers. It's very expensive to run cable out to such small populations
Do they have electricity?
Cables dont freeze lol
Ah. I see. You're thinking to let the fiberglass cables lose on top of permafrost like it's a hose from a shed.
If you're able, you can learn why that is a bad idea online. There is plethora of reasons why fiberglass cables usually go underground.
I genuinely don't understand you. Ok so they go underground next to a road - then what? They freeze and explode? Or do you imply we can't afford to dig ditches but can afford to fire rockets?
Which road?
Are you implying there's a large amount of people not connected by roads? How many you think?
Block me too, while you're at it, since you can't even fucking google basic shit. Jesus christ.
done, bye loser
I literally direct you again to fucking google that, because the first response from Google literally tells you why that will not fucking work.
Are you so entitled that you demand we copy paste it for your pleasure.
The google will include the over-the-air elevated fibreglass that costs 20x more per mile than anywhere else, why it would cost one third of that number a year to maintain, why it cannot go underground (because of permafrost melting when being dug up and turning into mud and bog and sinking the installation and million other things), thst there are no roads in many places at all, etc. etc.
Your laziness is offending.
Lmao rage more you fuckong weirdo. Straight to the block list. Bye.
How many people is that? Maybe a million in the entire world? Less? I dont think internet is on their mind that much tbh