• DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The only other option would be to run the infrastructure to them and that’s not gonna happen anytime soon unfortunately

    Not because it can’t happen though, but because it isn’t profitable or beneficial to the right people.
    I’m no expert, but I would think running cables (or using existing ones which undoubtedly exist) or whatever other terrestrial solution, would be infinitely easier and cheaper (and less destructive) than networking the entire sky with satellites.

    Seems like yet another instance where capitalism has created a problem (not connecting remote places despite being able to because it doesn’t make them enough money) only so it can sell us convoluted, overcomplicated and overpriced “solutions” that do make them money (as well as other forms of power and control). E: alternatively (more like and and/or), they needed the military application and used the side effects of it benefiting civilian as a front and a justification. And it’s working, people are defending it without question.

    • Rhaedas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      A reminder that in the 90s there was federal funding to major companies to help expand broadband into rural areas and try to get closer to 100% connected. The money was taken.