this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
1089 points (91.3% liked)
Technology
73833 readers
4676 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we're talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth's atmosphere, not being recycled.
Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.
I didn't realize how temporary and disposable Starlink's satellites were. They incinerate 4 or 5 a day by de-orbiting them into the ozone. Here's a pretty good CNET article that talks about how they “dispose” of them. IDK, doesn't seem sustainable. They also mention the bandwidth gains are being diminished with the influx of new users, so their solution is more temporary satellites.
Yeah, if they want to make satellites last longer, they could go a bit higher in their orbits. The option is there.
But they specifically don't want to do that because ensuring a 5 year service life means you are required to continue buying more satellites from them every 5 years. Literally burning resources into nothingness just to pursue a predatory subscription model.
It also helps their case that LEO has much lower latency than mid or high orbit but I refuse to believe that that is their primary driving concern behind this and not the former.
Who's buying satellites?
SpaceX is putting up satellites for SpaceX, they're the manufacturer and operator...
It's definitely in their best interest to keep them working as long as possible.
That said, they're high end communications devices, very fancy routers essentially. And like all computer technology, these things become obsolete quickly. So even if they could last 20 years, you wouldn't want them even 10 years from now. 100 GB/s speeds might be great now, but 10 years down the road 10 TB/s could be the norm, so at that point why are you still trying to provide service with ancient hardware 100x slower than it should be.
Isn't that part of the grift?
At the time it looked like one of the main reasons to launch Starlink was to provide SpaceX with a new market, much larger than the usual space launching stuff. Also this meant Felon could get subsidies through 2 different companies.
Isn't what?
I mean the reason for starlink was that they could, and they could do it for cheaper than anyone else because they would be launching at cost.
Also, falcon doesn't really get subsidies for launching. SpaceX got a grant for the rural broadband infrastructure thing, but that's like a one time thing, it doesn't really pay for ongoing launches.
LEO does offer legitimate advantages not just to latency but also for minimizing the abandoned space junk left in orbit. The satellites will deorbit fairly quickly after running out of fuel.
Though I'm sure you're correct about the main reason for the choice.
That would also make latency worse and the signal weaker.
Would the small ground starlink dish be able to reach higher orbits? I guess if the satellite is going to stay up longer you could afford to make it's antennas a bit bigger to mitigate that.
Well you wouldn't want to put them much higher, but if you raised their orbit by say 40%, they'd be getting significantly less atmospheric drag. It could probably extend their life by 15 years. And yeah, they'll be 40% further away, so slightly more latency. Perhaps going from 70 ms ping to 100 ms ping. Not awesome, but definitely not a huge problem.
You are right in how wasteful it is, especially since it turned out a lot of those satellites don't even make it to 4 years.
However there is zero risk of space trash with Starlink. They orbit so low, it's basically within the atmosphere still. They need to constantly boost themselves, otherwise they fall down and burn up. So these satellites are coming down within years all on their own, even without any controlled disposal.
It's insanely wasteful, but it keeps SpaceX in business launching every week, which is kind of the point. But at least there isn't a Kessler syndrome waiting to happen.
Even though it’s not a space trash problem, it is a regular upper atmosphere polluter of aluminum oxide ash. We don’t yet know the long term consequences.
It’s not enough, but I would bet it might have a cooling effect as it reflects more light in the upper atmosphere.
But we should really still make sure, and more importantly not trust Elon with any data flowing over those satellites.
It might! But the article I linked also suggests it might destroy ozone and have a net warming effect. We just don’t know. The upper atmosphere has never before had this level of direct pollution injection.
Starlink provides service to areas where fiber is impossible. Like the middle of the ocean and actual rural areas where fiber runs could be tens of miles or more between homes. Those are area where no one will build out fiber unless the homeowner is paying for it themselves, the various government programs would never cover those actual rural areas despite what they claim. At best they might cover city outskirts for new infrastructure, where fiber nodes are already relatively close by. They're never adding fiber to existing rural farms and ranches.
They are not a 1:1 service comparison. You would need to compare It to other satellite providers, and there isn't a comparison because all of those are dogshit in comparison to Starlink.
There's a reason it's as popular as it is so quickly despite satellite internet in general not being new. The low earth satellite constellation means a massive difference in capability compared to conventional geostationary satellites. Multiple second latency, slow downloads nowhere near advertised double digit Mbps speeds, single digit Mbps upload speeds and often monthly data limits as low as 50GB per month are what the conventional satellite providers offer.
I think if you consider the cost to manufacture then bury a fibre optic cable for everyone who lives 10km from a town centre, I think it's still a net positive. It's not great for sure, but amortised over a huge population it's probably the best option we have at this time.
Only short term, long term the repeated rocket launches can’t win out over a ditch digger.
I'm sure digging fiber out in the Amazon rainforest will turn out great
People paying for internet service don't live in the Amazon rainforest
Maybe do a cursory Google search before being confidently incorrect
Fair enough, you got me there. Didn't realize there was such a population of internet craving people in what's supposed to be one of the last relatively untouched areas of nature on the planet.
That being the case though, why didn't this all happen in 2013, when O3b launched to specifically solve this problem for them? It's still running, by the way, after several rounds of upgrades, and significantly more stable than Starlink with their dinky little 5 year disposables. Microsoft, Honeywell and Amazon all use it. But the original and ongoing intent of the project was explicitly to bring internet access to all otherwise unreachable areas, such as islands, deep in Africa, and the open ocean.
I don't oppose Brazilian villagers having internet if they want it, but the situation in which it arrived to them feels suspect to me. I have no proof that Starlink actively went out and pushed internet service onto them like a drug dealer but it would not be out of character for Musk and his subordinates to do so, and that just feels bad.
Regardless there is already an existing solution to this. If you want internet in the Amazon you can use satellite internet. It does not have to be Starlink. If you want good internet, maybe don't live in the Amazon. People in general should probably be leaving that place alone. The article you linked even talks about one of the village leaders splitting his time between the village and the city. We can try and run a fiber line to Manaus and/or Porto Velho and that should be able to serve a reasonably large enough area around them, but even if that fails there are already other solutions.
I agree with almost everything you wrote. Purely speculation but the starlink terminals might be cheaper? The latency/bandwidth would also be significantly worse with O3b since it's in medium earth orbit compared to starlinks low earth orbit. "Regular" satellite internet is prohibitively expensive with even worse bandwidth/latency.
I also agree that people shouldn't be living in the Amazon but they are and we can't really force them to leave.
I doubt the Ukrainians would agree with you
This is a really weird "ends always justify the means" because I could also say it wouldn't be necessary if Ukraine never gave up their nuclear weapons and how I doubt the Ukrainians would disagree. This is also further impacted by the protection of Starlink by the US military because if it wasn't an act of war against the US to destroy them, Russia could take down low earth orbit satellites pretty easily.
But none of this is relevant to how Starlink is not an ISP, it is not infrastructure it is a fleeting wasteful service.
From what I understand the Ukrainians never had control of the nukes, they didn't actually have the launch codes to use them.
Regardless, having global access to the internet is great. Ask the people living in remote areas of the Amazon, no chance for them to get fiber, or Africa, or remote islands, or ships/airplanes.
If youre speaking of rural America not needing starlink because fiber is a thing, then you should broaden your horizons
I love how you completely ignore how starlink is only viable for ukraine because the US military industrial complex.
There was satellite internet before Starlink and Starlink should be banned for all the 5ghz interference it creates
I'm ignoring that fact because its mostly irrelevant to this conversation. Would the Ukrainians prefer if it was controlled by a more reliable ally? Of course
"Regular" satellite internet is nowhere near what starlink offers and it's pretty telling you assume it is.
An actual problem that you've not mentioned is the interference with ground based telescopes
Lol "Starlink is a bad ISP" "BuT wHaT aBoUt Ukraine!!?!?!?!?" "Mostly irrelevant to this conversation" A true lemmy experience.
You claim "Starlink is a bad ISP" because you think the satellites are wasteful, I disagree since Starlink can provide a global service to areas where it's needed in a way no one else can. I don't know what you find so difficult to understand? "a TrUe LeMmY eXpErIeNcE"
Yeah, it sure can do it in a way nobody else can, the most wasteful way. But I appreciate you shifting the goalposts from Ukraine because being used in war is a reason why it is a bad ISP. See, if a war breaks out and a power can destroy them, we're talking global breakdown of internet via starlink. If a war breaks out on the other side of the world a traditional isp keeps working.
Then there's also the piss poor service, the poor number of total connections, the lack of redundancy, the cost, the ecological damage of launching rockets every week so that someone is the middle of nowhere can jack it with high speed internet, being disabled when a nazi feels like it...
Where am I shifting the goalposts exactly?
"because being used in war is a reason why it is a bad ISP", like I said before, I very much doubt the Ukrainians would agree with your take on this.
"if a war breaks out and a power can destroy them, we’re talking global breakdown of internet via starlink" ?? Do you think anyone is advocating we should replace all internet connections with Starlink?
"Then there’s also the piss poor service, the poor number of total connections, the lack of redundancy, the cost," Should I copy-paste about Ukraine again?
"ecological damage" negligent amount compared to actually wasteful industries
Those places can get internet from satellites outside of low earth orbit that is simply slower with higher latency.
If only we could adjust the plot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes to where it's mostly just cleaning up dead starlink satellites.
In any case, highly recommended as a fantastic anime. And for those that haven't seen it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZESIHA0qK3U
That's a dubbed trailer, but those of you looking for a Japanese language trailer know where to find it or probably have already watched it lol
I'm checking this out!
I'm not sure what isn't viable about it, I mean it's demonstrably viable, it's working now.