You're in a cruise ship. A highly destructive and entirely unnecessary luxury and you're complaining about having to pay extra to load gmail? Jesus.
Interestingly, one of the major sucks for these LEO systems does not appear to be bandwidth. It's the route. We throttled the ship down to 2 Mbps for a while (100 pax) and Google properties are actually quite snappy while everything else is dead slow to the point of timing out. Turns out Google arranged to have Starlink ground stations installed in their data centers. That takes off a lot of hops. Amazon was one of the few other things that would load.
I hate to sound like a shill for big tech, but I get the sense Google and Amazon actually give a shit about speed. When you measure your bandwidth bill in billions, you can afford to?
With the rate you are paying, you could get there quickly too.
That pricing and speed is quite different to their website - obviously service isn’t optimised for the arctic, but how does that pricing work?
This point stands, no matter what you think of his cruise?
Also, who can decide, what is really necessary? And I don't have hard data at hand, but I cannot imagine a cruise to be more expensive in its impact, compared to flying somewhere for vacation.
Do you know? Do you? Or is it a presumption?
(Googling now to find out if this even exists, doesn't remove the presumptive nature of things.)
The vast majority of cruises are pretty shitty for the environment and treatment of people. Also tax avoidant. People just really don’t want to hear that so they can keep doing them and not think about the down sides.
> killjoywashere 46 minutes ago | undown | root | parent | next [–]
> I'm on an ship doing oceanographic survey work in the arctic.
and
> TrackerFF 2 hours ago | prev | next [–]
> Recently I was on a cruise ship, and out in the waters only my carriers “maritime” plan was available
My point had to do with the extreme accusatory nature of the post, without data to back it up.
My post was absolutely the reverse of presumptive, for I asked is someone was being so, not asserting that they were.
But that’s beside the point anyway, as it was just raised as an ad hominem argument against the guy who wanted websites to work on poor connections, and rightly so.
train your imagination, i'd say
A ship on the other hand is very fuel efficient. But it maybe runs longer, if it is a cruise. Still, 2 flights forn1 week vacation are likely way worse, than 1 week cruise.
(And I will likely go by train towards my vacation, but this is not always possible)
They also run on absolutely terrible fuel, very low quality and with lots of impurities. Pollution is not only greenhouse gases. I am not saying planes are much better, but both are really quite bad.
So? Why should Google care? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Switch to an email provider that caters to your data limited environment.