this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
798 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
86131 readers
3243 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
This is why satelite internet is a dead end. The latency and bandwidth are fundamental limitations of physics which are incredibly expensive to scale up compare to cable and cell towers.
Even if we have a complete satellite roll out we'd still have to go back to cell towers for better latency. So why even entertain this detour if not for war machines - one niche where satellites are actually better.
Satellite is better for remote people. I know a woman whose Alaskan village (indigenous, not colonizer) got significantly better internet once starlink was rolled out.
Now you could say that nations with meaningful duties to remote peoples should band together and essentially jointly operate (maybe having the UN administer it) such a service for them and use it as the last resort akin to sat phones. And I'd be cool with that. But I so think such people should have internet, and this is probably cheaper than running and maintaining cables all across Alaska and northern Canada.
5G is the answer for most people. The few people living in extremely remote places are not worth rolling out special satellites for them. It will not be profitable. They can use existing satellite services for basic communication.
That's true, but it's largely due to a market that doesn't prioritize remote clients and a regulatory system which has roped off huge parts of the radio spectrum.
Instead of a starlink receiver talking to low orbit, you could have a dish that uses fixed wireless access or point to point connections to access a terrestrial tower. In exceptional situations geostationary satellites make sense, but these low earth constellations are getting out of control.
We had point to point internet for years. Then they went belly up. Which is why we have starlink today.
Oh shut up with the colonizer bs. So its OK for the indigenous to use a Nazis system because burns hits them.
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.
How many people is that? Maybe a million in the entire world? Less? I dont think internet is on their mind that much tbh
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.
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?
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.
Give them internet via a geo stationary satellite.
You only need a few in a space where there is a lot of room, and it won't bug anyone, contrary to the shit show we have with the countless starlink satellites visibly zipping over while working hard to make the Kessler Syndrome a thing.
I'm not even talking about the pollution caused by those rocket launches
We have that already. Its comparatively very expensive, and also very very high latency simply because for the speed-of-light. The satellite at GEO sits at 20k kilometers. That by itself introduces 250ms of latency each way. So a 500ms latency is not uncommon for GEO satellite internet. Also, GEO satellites are very expensive because of how much energy (deltaV) it takes to get the satellite out that far and for how long they have to operate to make that money back.
Yeah, my family was forced to get starlink because ATT and other wireless internet sucks in where we live
And even then, why the everlasting fuck do you want low watch orbit satellites for this? Why do we need to pollute the shit out of our ecosystem, our LEO, and our night sky (fuck those moving blips) just to have latency low enough to play a game over na internet connection that shouldn't be used for any of that...
Everything about starlink is maddeningly stupid and it is negatively impacting so many people that want nothing to do with it but hey, it's Elmo Musk, so just let him do that shit anyway!
Thousands of satellites are immune to anti satellite missile, with only a few dozen geosats one country could blow up those sats and cut a few ocean cables and cut off most of the International transocean internet access. That's a good thing, because it makes it so that any nation preparing for war isn't tempted to cut off internet because it wouldn't work anyway.
I’d say LEO is where we want these, no? My understand is that if SpaceX went defunct tomorrow, the satellites would (eventually) burn up on reentry, so there’s no risk of them managing to fragment and become more permanent bullets wizzing around in our orbit. Or is that incorrect?
That's sort of like saying you'd want the milk to spill in the kitchen because it's easier to clean up. But the thing people are upset about is that the spilling of milk in the first place is not necessary.
Satellite internet is extremely important for certain regions of the world. Good luck running anything to remote areas like Alaska, or areas of northern Canada.
It’s an extremely important piece of infrastructure, even if you have zero use for it.
Idk if I'd call it a dead end so much as a service of last resort. There's definitely utility in a global network of always-on wireless communication. But because it's expensive to deploy and saturated quickly, you can't operate at the volume of a wired network or local wireless system.
I think you've answered your own question. The incremental value of satellites as part of a weapons system far outstrips normal business applications (nevermind consumer markets).
But you still run into the same constraints at a certain scale. Even if your transmission system is unassailable, it cannot support the volume of traffic of wired connections. So you're still going to see drone pilots with enormous spools of fiberoptic wire moving along the battlefront.
Latency is theoretically much better because the speed of light is much faster in the vacuum of space than fiber optics. So the ping from continent to continent is better using a satellite network that transmit data to each other using laser light.
I suspect we could be moving the orbit of the satellites higher so we can reduce the insane number of them, while still have better ping. I don't see a technical reason why bandwidth would be more limited in space than on the ground. It's fundamentally easier to scale since you can just launch more satellites along certain orbits to add bandwidth.
The fundamental problem is of course privatization and the inevitable monopoly. It will never really be cheaper than land based internet, and so both will continue to coexist, so it just adds additional resource waste for no real benefit except to make some guy rich.
Vacuum of space? Dude there's an entire atmosphere with clouds and shit in it.
In low earth orbit?
I can't remember where I read it, but there was an article in high finance tech, where they were dealing with billions of transactions per second and relied on sub-millisecond timing. They still used terrestrial long-haul (cross-continent) microwave tower networks for this because even the time it took to transceive between optics and electrons in each switching segment meant fiber was slower. The latency tolerance for those applications preclude the drive up and down to space.