Hacker News Reader

Comment by pwinnski | Hacker News Reader

This, combined with the really mediocre service available from Starlink[0], combined with the plan to put up many thousands more satellites, is truly disheartening.

0. https://www.theverge.com/22435030/starlink-satellite-interne...

View on HN

Yea, I wish we’d go back to the “Google fiber” days of a disruptive tech company laying cable and fiber optics everywhere. And before someone says it, Yes yes, Google bad, but I liked the initiative.

Google was making it work before incumbent companies sued and blocked them[0].

The problem with broadband in the US is not technical, and it's not solely distances or the nature of rural spaces. It's political and economic. We managed to deliver electricity and then telephone to everyone with a push from the federal government, we could do it again.

But now AT&T, Comcast and Time-Warner are too powerful, so we end up with ground-based telescopes suffering instead.

0. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160314/09374733901/isps-...

> so we end up without a night sky.

Please don't use hyperbole like this as some people believe it and it confuses the conversation. Starlink will not erase the night sky. Starlink in operational orbits is not human eye visible. This is only a concern for ground based telescopes, not the average person viewing the night sky.

You're right, thanks. Edited.

Thanks for editing.

Don't cite the verge article. They failed to even set up the service properly and then complained that they didn't get good service. Every starlink customer complained that it was completely misreported. It's called "RTFM".

The only complaints I've seen involve two hours of obstruction, which seem like they'd be hard to resolve without major effort the author admitted he didn't want to go through for a trial product he would not be keeping. Cutting down trees or running cable long distances or building tall towers all seem like pretty drastic choices.

In the end, politicians with enough will to stand up to the terrible telco conglomerates currently holding back rural broadband would be a better answer here in the US, no need to pollute the sky. Launch a federal program like those that ensured electricity and telephone to every rural customer, with a generous minimum speed, and customers for Starlink in the US drop to near-zero.

> The only complaints I've seen involve two hours of obstruction, which seem like they'd be hard to resolve without major effort the author admitted he didn't want to go through for a trial product he would not be keeping. Cutting down trees or running cable long distances or building tall towers all seem like pretty drastic choices.

Yeah many Starlink customers do exactly that or hire someone to do that for them. They've had to do similar drastic measures in many cases to even get service at all via microwave antennas on tall towers or LTE antennas on tall towers or other such things. The guy wasn't desperate for good internet, which is why he didn't feel it was worth it.

Hence my description of this solution as mediocre at best.

Everything you say was described in the Verge article by the author, so I don't see how the article is inaccurate or should be avoided.

But practically every solution is "horrible at best" for these users who want Starlink where nothing else is available.

Also I find it hard to say "100+ mbps with 95%+ uptime (improving with time) for $100/month" as "mediocre service". That's quite good service and revolutionary service for the people unmet by other services. Even if you need to do a bit of handiwork (much more common in rural areas) to get it installed.

Mediocre maybe compared to fiber

Reply on news.ycombinator.com