• Cosmos7349@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    So I don’t really like the idea of defending anything related to Musk, but it’s kind of poor form to compare emissions between Starlink and land-based internet imo. Although they are the same product, they are targeted at completely different users, from what I understand.

    Starlink should always be a more expensive and slower technology just because of communication distance, so it shouldnt really be able to compete with land-based solutions (except where telecom is reeeeeally fucking people on price). Starlink is really meant more for edge-cases where telecorps refuse to build infrastructure.

    • player2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not only this, but StarLink is a new and rapidly growing service so the number of subscribers is still on a steep upward trend. Comparing carbon/subscriber is going to be inaccurate right now due to the low number of starlink subscribers compared to a more established utility with a stable number of users. StarLink also has more new infrastructure needed than an established utility.

    • sfgifz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Use cases and costs aside, we should still be open to discussing the pros and cons of these business ventures on the planet. Musk isn’t going to pay up to clean up any mess caused by this, it would be taxes and price hikes around the world in the name of going green and reducing climate impact that get paid by plebs like us.

    • jarfil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Starlink should always be a more expensive and slower technology just because of communication distance

      That is not correct. The target of Starlink is satellite-to-satellite data routing in as close to a straight line as possible between point A and point B. Even adding the 500Km up and 500Km down, starting at several 1000Kms that’s less distance than going through the network of ground fiber cables.

      The speed of light in optic fiber cables is also only 2/3 the speed of light in vacuum (aka: space).

      Starlink’s end form is meant to get billions from charging intercontinental high frequency traders for a split second advantage.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Starlink isn’t meant for the edge cases, the edge cases can not make it profitable. The edge cases are edge cases.

      Also blotting out the sky with wasteful satalites isn’t a good solution to “the free market wont build infrastructure because its broken.” Its just another aspect of it being broken and the entire planet has to suffer from it.