Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jbsgc99 t1_iyb8bti wrote

Neither these nor Starlink would be necessary if governments treated high-speed internet access and cell phone service as public utilities. My local fiber provider should not be allowed to simply skip my street and hit all the other ones and then lie about it to the FCC.

97

knave-arrant t1_iybinoj wrote

I live a few miles outside of Los Angeles. We barely got fiber in my neighborhood two years ago.

20

KiwieeiwiK t1_iybvpdn wrote

I live 150km from the nearest town, and the entire road to my house is through national park. They are slowly building fibre here, taking a couple of years, but that can't be expected everywhere. They're literally digging up the entire road and laying a cable underneath it for our little village of 80 people. Starlink (as in the technology not the company) is very beneficial for the many many people who live in similarly remote areas but don't have the specific financial benefits my village has of being a tourist hub.

13

Woody3000v2 t1_iybcs3h wrote

You're right about the problems assiciated with how we treat what should be a utility more or less or at least supported like one. But thw cost of providing full coverage increases basically exponentially as you attempt to provide access to more and more rural locations until it becomes uneconomical and not too environmentally friendly. NTN is the only cost effective way to provide full coverage. AST is trying to provide what is likeky the most efficient solution for rural coverage, high demand IoT, FirstNet coverage, disaster relief, and coverage for national security.

9