Technology

59377 readers

4800 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

194

Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies (www.theverge.com)

submitted 11 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies::The FCC reaffirmed a decision not to award Starlink a nearly $900 million subsidy for offering 100Mbps/20Mbps low-latency internet service in 35 states.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I own property in a very rural place and I don’t want it messing up our night sky view.

Guess what, we also have great internet in this very rural place already, too, because they ran cable and put cell towers out there. That’s all it takes.

[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but there are many places where this is the only option, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You are the very definition of privileged, compared to most remote users. And your comment is as close to textbook NIMBY as I've ever seen. Plus a healthy dose of "fuck em, I got mine".

[–] crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What I’m saying is the most cost effective way to get internet to rural folks is to run cables, it works. You don’t have to put thousands of satellites up, it isn’t easier or better.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You sound like you've never been anywhere truly remote. For a lot of people in the world, it would be cheaper for the governmet to buy their rural property, bulldoze it, and then buy them a house in a town with internet service -- than it is to run a line to their property.

[–] freeman@lemmy.pub 1 points 11 months ago

For a lot of people in the world, it would be cheaper for the governmet to buy their rural property, bulldoze it, and then buy them a house in a town with internet service – than it is to run a line to their property.

of course that would be cheaper if the government is paying for it.....That would also be cheaper than just buying comcast for someone even in suburbs of the US...

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago

You're coming off as something of an out of touch asshole, to be honest. I know people for who getting mains power out to their house would cost them more than the property was worth. And there was mains available at the boundary. THAT'S what remote means, not what you're describing.

[–] JudahBenHur@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago

well when your backyard is the night sky for the entire globe you can call me a NIMBY when it comes to starlink's glowing sattelite trains

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's not "very rural", in that case.