143
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
143 points (96.7% liked)
Science
13018 readers
12 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I would ask people to consider the benefits to the globe of having ubiquitous 100+ Mbps internet no matter where you are.
Most of the people, myself included, who get Starlink get it because there's no other viable option - usually due to distance from towns and cities.
Certainly there is some pollution as a result of building and sending the 2,000+ satellites, but it may be a net positive compared to the environmental impact of digging a trench to each property, manufacturing and laying a fibre optic cable to the end user.
The end user routers use about 30 watts which is also a higher cost compared to the 5 watts or so most other technologies use. Mine runs on solar.
I'm not happy about giving Elon money for this service of course given his behaviour - he's not the majority owner at least.
The unintended interference is probably something that can be designed away to some degree - I'm guessing harmonics from the beam forming are tricky if that's the cause.
I'm not having an issue by itself, but I'm having an issue with the fact that a private company has arbitrarily been able to cover much of the earth with stuff that is, at best, disruptive. Let's not forget also forget that the main reason starlink exists is military, not bringing internet to rural areas.
There are more companies coming.
The problem with low earth orbit satellites is you need lots of them since they fly so low. Most smaller countries couldn't afford to do it.
Here's a visualiser of where they are right now.