The FCC decided it wouldn’t be the “best” use of limited funds.

Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies::The FCC reaffirmed a decision not to award Starlink a nearly $900 million subsidy for offering 100Mbps/20Mbps low-latency internet service in 35 states.

  • Troy@lemmy.caEnglish
    349·
    7 months ago

    In this thread. A bunch of people who’ve never had to use the prior remote internet solutions that existed prior to Starlink. For a good chunk of the world, Starlink is actually game changing.

    I spent the better part of the last decade working in remote locations, including the high arctic and and rural indigenous communities. Starlink is both fast and affordable compared to the prior solutions. Hell, I even personally worked on hundred million dollar fibre optic line projects, that were hundreds of millions over budget, trying to get these communities connected. Starlink is hands down the better choice, unless you really wanted to put your data centre in Fort Good Hope for some unknown reason.

    If Elon wasn’t attached to this project, I’d bet the ratio of negative comments would be lower.

    • crazyCat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      84·
      7 months ago

      I own property in a very rural place and I don’t want it messing up our night sky view.

      Guess what, we also have great internet in this very rural place already, too, because they ran cable and put cell towers out there. That’s all it takes.

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.mlEnglish
        31·
        7 months ago

        Sure, but there are many places where this is the only option, and that’s not likely to change any time soon.

      • Troy@lemmy.caEnglish
        57·
        7 months ago

        You are the very definition of privileged, compared to most remote users. And your comment is as close to textbook NIMBY as I’ve ever seen. Plus a healthy dose of “fuck em, I got mine”.

        • crazyCat@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          31·
          7 months ago

          What I’m saying is the most cost effective way to get internet to rural folks is to run cables, it works. You don’t have to put thousands of satellites up, it isn’t easier or better.

          • Troy@lemmy.caEnglish
            4·
            7 months ago

            You sound like you’ve never been anywhere truly remote. For a lot of people in the world, it would be cheaper for the governmet to buy their rural property, bulldoze it, and then buy them a house in a town with internet service – than it is to run a line to their property.

            • Freeman@lemmy.pubEnglish
              21·
              7 months ago

              For a lot of people in the world, it would be cheaper for the governmet to buy their rural property, bulldoze it, and then buy them a house in a town with internet service – than it is to run a line to their property.

              of course that would be cheaper if the government is paying for it…That would also be cheaper than just buying comcast for someone even in suburbs of the US…

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.eeEnglish
            11·
            7 months ago

            You’re coming off as something of an out of touch asshole, to be honest. I know people for who getting mains power out to their house would cost them more than the property was worth. And there was mains available at the boundary. THAT’S what remote means, not what you’re describing.

        • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.eeEnglish
          12·
          7 months ago

          well when your backyard is the night sky for the entire globe you can call me a NIMBY when it comes to starlink’s glowing sattelite trains