Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheAlchemist | Hacker News Reader

I'm trying to figure out why would someone need or want to install Starlink in a place that's certainly very well connected with fiber, and the only things I can think off is that it's either a commercial / justification for why they are changing the legislation to allow Starlink to receive tens of billions of government $ to provide internet in rural areas, or some (not so wild anymore) conspiracy theories.

View on HN

Personal anecdote: A relative of mine has his own business that covers all sorts of IT stuff. He has a starlink running permanently as a backup because a couple of times a year his fiber experiences some downtime.

Sounds like good technology / business practice?

I run two independent (Technology + Provider wise) internet links for our house, as both my SO and myself are permanently working from home.

Do you suppose no one has ever thought of building redundant connectivity to the White House?

I was merely replying to the parent post.

I would be massively irritated if the White House would not have multiple levels of redundancy. Which makes the article just more confusing.

Starlink still seems like an odd choice, since having access to fiber implies 5g is available, too, and the latter costs half as much and is faster/lower-latency. Maybe it makes sense as a backup for the backup, though.

Terrestrial wireless would be faster, more reliable, and less expensive. Near the White House, it could link between multiple other government building and have no recurring expense. Starlink is worse, slower, and more expensive.

I think it’s good to have redundancy. It reminds me of President Jimmy Carter putting solar panels on the White House.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_at_the_White_House

Am I supposed to believe that the white house doesn't already have two (or more, likely) independent fiber links?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com