• witx@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yes and we can also use a solution which requires absolutely no cables and digging at all, and that doesn’t disrupt any natural environments and occupies land.

    And yes I’m aware of the impact satellites have on the atmosphere. There’s no free lunch.

    • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Because building space ports and rocket launches have 0 impact as well.

      But you acknowledge this, so what’s your point? Why pay a techno billionaire when we can publicly fund cables way cheaper and more friendly?

      • witx@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        Oh I’m all for Musk to eat shit. I was arguing that satellites are better, not starlink in particular. Lemmy seems to have issues separating their (valid) hate for muskrat with some of his companies or related technologies. And OP was arguing that cell towers are an improvement over satellites? Wth

        Why can’t we have a publicly funded satellite constellation?

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          How are satellites better if they will never be faster? Do we just accept life in 300ms latency? We will always need better communication so it makes no sense to invest into inferior product even if it’s more accessible currently.

          Unless quantum communication becomes real thing nothing will match fiber and cell towers in the foreseeable future.

          Sat is a fringe technology for war and extreme remote areas, everything else is already solved.

          • witx@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            for war and extreme remote areas, everything else is already solved.

            Yes and if you read carefully my answers you’ll see that my arguments were all related to this, not the “normal case”

            • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              And my OP clearly stated that sat has uses but it’s compleyely overhyped otherwise. So I’m not sure what are you even talking about here if not just goal post moving.

        • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          It’s has its place for sure.

          But the physics are far more against satalite.

          But the reason I don’t believe in large scale satalite systems for consumers is because they’re disposable. They all fall down or contribute to the growing space junk problem.

          So it’s not really any better at the end of the day than just burying a fibre cable for 40 years.