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.
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.
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.
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.
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
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.