Hacker News Reader

Comment by grim_io | Hacker News Reader

Sounds like a great long-term investment.

Starlink would only make sense if the world was not getting more and more concentrated around densely populated areas.

I think it'd be easier for Starlink to start building and deploying wide area ground stations (like 5g towers or something) to serve urban areas than it would take all the other telcos to deploy satellites.

Why in the world would any MNO or WISP choose satellite backhaul for urban areas when their next tower is presumably only a few kilometres over (as opposed to tens of kilometres in more regional areas)?

I don't know, that's an interesting, albeit unrelated question. Do you have an answer?

How is the question of "how satellite backhaul is useful in urban areas" unrelated to your implicit thesis that satellite backhaul is useful in urban areas?

Why are the satellites required at all?

Telcos manage many multiples of Starlink's traffic just fine over terrestrial high-bandwidth optic fiber.

They really don't manage the traffic well over terrestrial lines for the globe, that's why starlink, iridium, viasat, even directv have all used satellites. Billions of taxpayer money and even more private funding have been devoted to bringing lines to rural areas and the area covered is still so small.

Areas where Starlink makes sense are usually the same areas where people experience economic troubles: rural areas.

Starlink has excellent military applications. The consumer business is a dishonest joke to fool investors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com