Except the carbon footprint of Starlink is estimated to be 30x greater than terrestrial alternatives.
More than half of all satellites in space are already Starlink at around 5,000, with 12,000 planned in the near future and up to 42,000 as a later expansion.
I’d love to be able to get a usable terrestrial alternative at my place. Wonky 4G ain’t it. 5G is years away, if it ever gets here. Fibre? Perish the thought.
Providing global Internet is worth it. That said, I’d much rather see it done in a non profit way, and definitely not under the muskrat’s control.
Except the carbon footprint of Starlink is estimated to be 30x greater than terrestrial alternatives.
More than half of all satellites in space are already Starlink at around 5,000, with 12,000 planned in the near future and up to 42,000 as a later expansion.
It’s just not sustainable.
I’d love to be able to get a usable terrestrial alternative at my place. Wonky 4G ain’t it. 5G is years away, if it ever gets here. Fibre? Perish the thought.
They lost thousands of them and they actually don’t know why.
They’re a perfect platform for developing and testing anti-satellite missiles
And is the carbon footprint of internet backbone a big problem?
Do you understand the concept of cost vs benefit?
This thread is so full of people complaining about ISP monopolies too
But hold on, isn’t it about providing global internet in way X versus way Y? So it’s more about the specific way, which is fucking everything up.
Regardless of what it’s “about” what it “is” is internet access available around the globe.
Who are you to judge that?
On par with the rest of us? Who are you to question who someone else is to weigh in?