Yes, but:
This is a bit weird, they got a multi million contract recently. The stock is way undervalued
Oh look, it’s on sale!
We all know why CNBC. You could have just posted the title.
Because the drug addled used car salesman who’s currently about to default on his Twitter loans decided to embrace his roots and started throwing up seig heils and is currently having a crack team of 4chan incels dismantle a government while he threatens the world and works to make what he’s doing here happen everywhere.
Dude is a comic book villain. Villain of the week level. No real staying power. Either he’ll go broke or die from a ketamine overdose before Xmas. And what a gift that will be. I hope it happens on video.
die from a ketamine overdose
Please stop, I’m old and I can only get so excited.
I’d prefer full on mental breakdown while giving us his 1 bullet point live on TV, just follow Adolfo’s guide all the way to the end
Don’t forget the HCN. Just to be sure you know.
This is why I will never be rich. I never see business opportunities to buy tons of stock and act upon them.
You also need a ton of money to invest or you’re just getting pocket change.
Commission fees are less than a buck. The rules don’t change just because you have little money.
No, the problem is that 20% growth of $2000 gives you a gain of $400. 20% growth of $10,000 gives you a gain of $2000. An average Americans entire yearly income is $70,000, it’s 20% growth is $14,000.
But 20% isn’t happening every year, you are more likely to average 10%. Some years can be single digit, some can be negative, the point is this, you must begin with a very large amount of money to get real money out of the stock market. Even solidly middle class incomes aren’t going to be able to save up a years worth pay in only a few years, it would take many years, often enough to ensure the money will never be realized by anyone but by your children or grand children
Pocket change is better than no change.
invest in community run broadband instead
Yes, but the surge is for Ukraine and Europe is gearing up to defend itself. It’s easier for Ruzzia to take out community broadband than it is satellites in orbit around earth.
And it’s harder to do both at once.
Of course it did, While we are at it, are there any programmes that aim to clean up space junk ?
People neglect that problem. There is so much garbage flying out there at such high speeds that unless something is done, we will never be able to have functional satellites or space launches again.
Elon’s StarLink WILL accelerate the Kessler syndrome, also reminder that the Nazi literally put a tesla-sized space-junk in space
I actually remember that. When I saw the car in space I thought it was a reference to the 1980 movie Heavy Metal. This was when I first learned about Elon.
For the dishes: I don’t know the details of the 2 systems, but is there no way to retrofit the Starlink dishes to use Eutelsat’s constellation? I mean if we exclude the legal IP mess for reverse-engineering the electronics and software.
Sat internet is so overhyped. As it’s limited by physics cell towers will always outperform them. Simple as that.
- cities - cables and 5g
- country side - 4g and cables in high concentration areas
- middle of nowhere or war zones - low orbit sats.
This is purely a security issue not a consumer one.
Spoken like a true spoiled city person Good luck getting the necessary infrastructure built (cables, towers, et al) to really remote places. It’s probably more expensive in the long run than having a satellite constellation.
Good luck? Most of the world is already there. I had 3g in deep jungles of Thailand last weekend and even in the most remote places in China have wire these days.
The main point is that sat is limited by physics so cell towers and wire are upgrades over sat so it makes much more sense to start with better technology now as we’ll never need less connection.
Counterpoint: even an hour out from Oslo there are people relying on Starlink
Seems like a skill issue tbh
And wires are not bound by physics? To run cables over such long distances you have to boost the signal at periodic distances to avoid voltage drops and noise
If we can figure out how to put them on the bottom of the ocean and pipelines over just about any terrain, I think we can figure this out
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.
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?
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?
Idk i live in a country where we have wifi in some forests and free wifi in every large city. And we’re an ex soviet shithole.
Americans honestly think their shitty infrastructure is the best in the world.
To be fair america is massive and a 3rd world shithole. If even russia can’t pave its main highway how could a backwoods place like america have enough infrastructure to make cash obsolete?
Infrastructure can be a real problem in some places.
I’m currently on a mountain and since they upgraded to a hybrid satellite/cable system the speeds have skyrocketed. Laying cable/towers is just not viable, especially with dense rock peaks blocking line of sight.
Also I have coworkers in Nigeria who lose internet multiple times a day (and often don’t have the bandwidth for a video call) but most of them have bitten the bullet and paid the high up-front cost to get starlink at home. And now can do HD video calls with zero interruption (unless they have power issues, but that’s a whole other thing).
So I think there’s a lot of use-cases for sattelite, especially for people who aren’t considered worth the investment in non-sattelite infrastructure.
It’s just unfortunate that yeah, space junk is going to one day (suddenly) be a massive problem.
Edit: ah I may have replied to the wrong comment
Increased by 3.9X.
So much space junk….
“European Starlink rival” is a bit far fetched when there’s merely rumours that they might be able to offer a similar service. But that’s the stock market for you.
They have both GEO and LEO satellites. Not on the scale of Starlink (for LEO), but they do have a network.
I am not commenting on the nature of the stock market or anything like that. Just pointing out that they do have a working network, it’s not 100% speculation (like you see with crypto schemes).
You’re correct but their LEO constellation is over 10x smaller than Starlink, so they’ve still got a lot of catching up to do.
They are doing much better than other fabled starlink competitors though, like amazon kuiper which is still not a real thing after all this time.
They have one strong competitive advantage that Starlink will never have; they are not American.
By definition, you cannot trust an American service. Even if the people who run a given service are not degenerates, there are enough degenerates in the US that they could elect a degenerate who will fuck you over.
They have very, very different business models. Constellation size is meaningless on its own, you have to account for the satellites capabilities, orbits, and the number and needs of your customers.
That’s true and I even thought about trying to investigate one of their satellites bandwidth capabilities versus one starlink satellite before I commented. But ultimately it doesn’t really matter because we’re talking about them being a rival to starlink so In the context of this conversation, they need to match their capacity and capabilities in all aspects to be a worthy rival.
I don’t know, merely not being beholden to Musk is a pretty big competitive advantage at this point.
Alphane_Moon just convinced me to take out a huge loan with my house as security, and invest in Eutelsat. I suggest everyone else does the same.
Now they have to offer a similar service. No pressure then 😊
They do offer a better service, albeit marginally - better download speeds, lower latency, slower upload speeds though. Problem is their antennas - they cost 8.000€ compared to 300€ the starlink ones…
Eutelsat are aimed at a different market: infrastructure. Their intended customers are larger and more demanding: research outposts, small villages, oil rigs, mobile phone towers, ships, and so on, as opposed to Starlink who focus on consumers directly, which is much more low-stakes. I’m genuinely curious if Eutelsat can move into Starlink’s territory.
They will surely do in the future. For example in Spain the government is subsidizing satellite internet through Hispasat for remote communities. I’m sure many other governments do the same in their backyard. If EU throws starlink contracts out the window and start subsidizing EU satellite related businesses and startups things will definitely improve for everybody and the more contracts they sign the lower the prices will go for their clients.
A man can dream
It’ll be interesting to see what the Canadian telesat LEO system will be capable of. They’re supposed to be launching satellites next year and are using a higher orbit so will need much fewer satellites than starlink.
But sadly increased latency. Also don’t hold your breath on Canada telecom anything, we have a history of being the worst at it.
I don’t mind a bit more latency (should still be nicely below 100ms) but my use case is more related to mid-Atlantic mobile connectivity than remote region broadband.
Their planned implementation just seems much better than others with beam shaping, linked satellites and less than 200 satellites to maintain and replace.
Although you’re not wrong about our telecom track record…
Your internet and mobile phone service kicks the UKs arse.
Oh no, oh dear everything no. Maybe in a few cities sure, but where I am I literally have no functioning internet anymore (they let the lines degrade below 1 Mbps) and have massive patches where cell phones don’t work at all (love when I hit a antelope and have to stand on the roof of my car to maybe get enough signal to call a tow).
Like no joke we have the worst and most expensive telecom in the developed (and a lot of the developing) world.
I should have considered the fact that I was always within an hour or so of Toronto.
The GTA is not really indicative of Canada at this point. It is the center of the universe after all…
No, appreciated. I had heard good things though.
Maybe from Telus/Rogers/Bell media. Its an issue really, the pro Canadian telecom propaganda is very much a thing here. I am told I have “great internet available” even where I am and then if I try to actually get it they ether say never mind or try and give me a cell modem. I am not alone on this ether, its a major issue.
To be fair two cans and a piece of string kicks the UKs arse when it comes to telecommunications.
Yup. Thanks Thatcher.
If only I wasn’t too chicken shit to start investing… I was looking at Eutelsats stocks earlier in the week. But it’d be my first steps on the market so decided against it.
Diversified investing is better anyway (for your wallet and mental health)
I finally got brave enough to do it. Between August and January I had made over 800%.
Trump has ruined that for me. Oh well.
I’m not even sure how, it seems like its kind of wealth gated because you have to be able to make enough from your investments to cover brokerage fees. I’m not aware of any non US retail investment platform that doesn’t have a regular fee to pay.
Trading212.
Bye bye future space launches once we have full or partial Kessler syndrome.
Bye bye earth based astronomy.
But dang this tech is so much better than Hughesnet
<ButtonPressingMeme>
Kessler syndrome doesn’t really apply for purely LEO satellites. They all burn up in a single digit amount of years.
It’s not something to worry about yet.
On the contrary, I think it is something to avoid. Imagine letting a single person ground all space launches for 9 years. And all the pollution that adds to the atmosphere. All the junk landing on people’s farms or houses.
It doesn’t work that way. I dislike Elon as much as the next sane person but we don’t need to invent new reasons to dislike him on top of all of the bad reasons that exist.
What evidence do you have? I’m going of of what experts are saying on the fediverse:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs-starlink-could-cause-cascades-of-space-junk/
It does work this way, and Starlink is waging a PR campaign that it’s no big deal.
This is true at 500km altitude, but not so at higher LEO altitudes.
Is starlink business model like uber/airbnb? Killing the market with low prices by circumventing regulations to establish their monopoly?
No, it just vertical integration. You need to send up rockets to make money, so you make sure they never have an empty slot on them by filling it yourself. You get enough satellites up, then you have a revenue generating payload you can send up steady from then on.
Then it is a monopoly building if you take the limited slots before others companies 😁
I was wondering because starlink’s terminals are around $500 while eutelsat’s are 10k. It seems it can be only possible if you accept massive losses on first years, with help of to investors to keep the company running, to take down competitors. Like uber and many others did, which had years of losses before having income.
SpaceX isn’t an Uber model, its a goverment leech model. It’s had heavily, heavily goverment subsidies to the tune of 18 billion dollars over its 10yr lifetime.
Terminal prices are likely just an economy of scale issue. Much cheaper per unit to make 100,000 than 1,000. Im sure as eutelsat grows the prices will come down.
If Eutelsat and the EU rocket program get 18 billion in goverment investment like SpaceX, im betting they can also accelerate all of the above.
SpaceX doesnt have a moat, it just has the lead. Rocket labs in new Zealand is already hot on their tails. No reason the EU cant join or surpass them.
What will they launch on? Star Link is barely feasible because they can launch at cost on falcon 9.
Look up Ariane 6. It’s still more costly than the Falcon 9 but who in their right mind would trust the numbers Elon is sharing? Seems like they both cost around 100million $ per launch. Elon is claming 30million per launch and that he will make it cost 2 million…
Yeah I’m familiar with Ariane 6. It costs almost double what SpaceX changes external customers per launch, not even counting that their internal rate would be even lower. Plus you’d need more launches since the payload capacity is lower. You’d end up paying 3x or more the cost. At that point, why not just buy falcon 9 launches? Otherwise it seems like there’d be very little way to compete.
