Hacker News Reader

Comment by kyllo | Hacker News Reader

Logistics infrastructure is one major cost factor. To get a data center up and running requires moving large quantities of heavy, high-value, and relatively fragile equipment through ocean ports and over roads and/or railroads. In regions of the world with less quality infrastructure, it's significantly more expensive to transport that stuff.

View on HN

How about datacenter ships sitting in ports, or even moored offshore? Would an operational Starlink make these viable?

EDIT: PDF map of ports in Africa

https://www.pwc.co.za/en/assets/pdf/large-map.pdf

Container ships have internet via satellite today but they use it only when absolutely necessary because it's very slow and expensive. If and when the cost and bandwidth of satellite internet fall to within parameters that make it competitive with fiber optic cable, perhaps.

Microsoft and others are also testing miniature undersea data centers, and using seawater for cooling could help address air conditioning costs: https://news.microsoft.com/features/under-the-sea-microsoft-...

If and when the cost and bandwidth of satellite internet fall to within parameters that make it competitive with fiber optic cable, perhaps.

So maybe not with Starlink, but a bit afterwards?

Any extra African data centers would be located in the major coastal metropolises, which are already connected with the major undersea cables. Sure, it's logistically difficult to ship stuff to inland rural Africa, but delivering equipment from Shenzhen to Lagos or Mombasa is not much more expensive as delivering it to London or LA.

Sure, but building a data center in a metropolis can be a lot more expensive than building it in a rural area because of other factors like higher land values, taxes, energy costs, etc.

The ocean freight for Shenzhen to Lagos probably costs 2-3x more than Shenzhen to Los Angeles, but ocean freight alone is still a tiny fraction of the total landed cost of the data center.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com