this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
757 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

74382 readers
3089 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 39 points 3 days ago

American taxpayers paid for both Starlink and Space X. Overpaid, actually, that's why he's the richest man in the world. None of his businesses are profitable, he just skims hundreds of billions off the enormous government grants he gets.

Since we overpaid for that tech, we should just confiscate it from him. He can be thankful that he doesn't go to prison for misappropriating government funds.

He can keep Tesla. It'll be bankrupt in 2 years anyway.

[–] blind3rdeye@aussie.zone 38 points 3 days ago

Company says that everyone should give them money and stop using competing products.

Obvious thing to say in the land of self-interest.

[–] Ascrod@midwest.social 30 points 3 days ago

"Oligarch mouthpiece demands diverting of major public funds to oligarchs instead"

Story of America, really.

[–] bitwolf@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

How about no

How about we take down every starlink satellite so NASA can operate unabated, and our telescopes aren't interfered with.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 3 days ago

Fuck off and give me the fiber that was promised and paid for decades ago.

[–] putainsdetoiles@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

SpaceX can fuck right off with that plan.

[–] bizza@lemmy.zip 31 points 4 days ago

I got a better idea: a civil war against oligarchs

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 52 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Going from the most secure, hard wired formats to a con man's satellites would be a fatal error. Any sort of military conflict and the network is all down, atleast broadband keeps secure networks intact.

[–] gramie@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 days ago

Just have a look at what's going on in ukraine. Once they started using drones, the drone were attacked through their wireless connections. Now they trail fiber optic cables for control. What does that say about the relative reliability and security?

[–] BabyVi@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

Gotta gear up for America's century of humiliation.

[–] thatkomputerkat@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

No fucking thanks. Gigabit+ fiber > Nazi-ass satellite internet that doesn’t have even remotely near the needed bandwidth for actual dense population centers.

[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 23 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Wireless data transmission should only ever be used for nomadic, temporary, and/or sacrificial links.

They’re useful for quick deployment, but are intrinsically brittle and terrible for resiliency and efficiency.

The longer the dependence on them for a given use case, the less defensible arguments in support of them become.

I’m all for the use of satellite delivery of internet services, but only when it’s used in conjunction with a broader roll out of hardwired infrastructure, at which point it can reasonably be relegated to serving as a secondary, backup diverse path.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 22 points 3 days ago

Cory Doctorow described it as anti-futuristic tech. Where fiber networks get better, faster, and cheaper the denser they get, wireless satellite will get slower and less reliable the more people share that spectrum.

[–] uhdeuidheuidhed@thelemmy.club 17 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Remember how Elon Musk conned Vegas out of millions with the hyperloop.

Satellite internet is not the future; it's cell internet.

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago (10 children)

it's cell internet.

Physical lines first.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 216 points 5 days ago (3 children)

all you can eat latency and an oversaturated network on devices with a limited lifespan.. what else could you ask for!

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 79 points 5 days ago (48 children)

Starlink has much better latency than most satellites, but still 10 to 50 times as much as fiber.

load more comments (48 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 46 points 4 days ago (10 children)

One day he's gonna get assassinated and it will be a global holiday

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago (4 children)

You'd be instantly banned on reddit for this comment lol

[–] bigbabybilly@lemmy.world 14 points 4 days ago

Which is why I’m here and not there. It’s the internet: I hope nobody posts their hot takes! Reddit needs to lighten up. Or even better, fuck off.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 46 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Publicly funded fibre can be provider agnostic. Starlink can't. Unless Musk is arguing for the nationalization of Starlink, which frankly I could get behind.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 34 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We paid for it, it should be nationalized. But they only ever socialize their losses, the profits are private.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 75 points 5 days ago

"Give me all your money" says world's richest person, in a fit of originality.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 109 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Hmmm ditch lightning fast and stable fiber for the mediocre speed and unstable micro satellite internet connection controlled by a petty asshole...

What to do, what to do?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 53 points 4 days ago (22 children)

Except StarLink cannot possibly provide the same bandwidth, latency, and throughput a fiber connection can. Because of physics.

I can either share my 10G symmetrical connection with nobody, or with 200 others.

And, Fiber costs me $70 a month. Starlink, with worse performance, costs 4x more.

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago (3 children)

It's not secure either. The next world war will involve efforts to sabotage satellites.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 121 points 5 days ago (14 children)

I’m a starlink customer and think it’s one of the best advancements in the past decade as it provides real access to rural addresses. The side effects of this is nearly immeasurable.

Spacex needs to STFU about this though. Fiber should continue to be deployed where possible.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 119 points 5 days ago (13 children)

Fiber should be deployed to rural addresses like yours (and should've been a long time ago). Instead, that money was funneled to the likes of Time Warner and Comcast who never even followed through on their part of the deal. Now, SpaceX is getting funneled the cash.

I'm super thankful that WA State supports and gives assistance to counties building out public LUDs for fiber access, many paying attention to rural communities first. I escaped Comcast two years ago because of it.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] foggenbooty@lemmy.world 69 points 5 days ago (9 children)

Fibre is an investment that can be used and upgraded for decades. Starlink is a subscription service forever to a private company.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] baronofclubs@lemmy.world 47 points 5 days ago

A society grows great when old men plant fiber whose speed they know they shall never download from.

[–] Octavio@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

I have a better idea: don’t do that.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 73 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Basic physics says satellites using Ku-band or whatever they use can't compete with fibre.

Satellite internet has its uses like for ships at sea.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It shouldn’t be all or nothing. It should be diversified.

Yeah, there are rural locations where Starlink makes sense but also there are a lot of urban places that it would never work in.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WaistGunnerPug@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Fuck. That.

[–] Enzyoo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Nah we don't support nazis

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ABetterTomorrow@sh.itjust.works 46 points 5 days ago

Fiber fucking rules

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 27 points 4 days ago (28 children)

Fiber all the way, especially if it is owned by the community. That would simply ensure that Musk nor TelCos can't fuck around with people. Fast speed, no data caps, low prices, and not being at the mercy of some wealthy jackhole would be wins across the board.

Also, if America has a 2nd Civil War, fiber will be much more safe than relying on sats - those can be shot down, or worse, Musk can cut off the good guys from having internet. It is simply harder to sabotage if the wires are underground and cannot be readily seen by hostile actors. As seen in Ukraine, the fucker has absolutely no compunctions against disabling the internet at key moments.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] Lucelu2@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago

If Intel has to give the US government 5%, Starlink should have to give back 25%.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 23 points 4 days ago

SpaceX should dump all their space plans and give back their grant money.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago

To quote Dan Harmon out of context: "If you ask a toaster, "What's the most important thing in the world?" it's going to tell you, "Bread." And if you ask a toaster its opinion of bread, it's going to tell you, "It's not toasted enough."

[–] weew@lemmy.ca 16 points 4 days ago (6 children)

On one hand, Musk.

On the other hand... Telecos.

You can either give billions more to the world's richest asshole, or you can give billions to companies that already received that money last time and did absolutely fuckall with it.

Lose-lose

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I mean there is a third option: municipal fiber

But then the gub’ment is your ISP but at least it’s not making billionaires money.

I’d suggest the best case scenario to me would be a fourth option like a community run co-op of fiber to the premises and have it be grant funded. But who am I kidding, that’s almost to socialist for rural America like where I live.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

You cannot actually serve hundreds of millions in the US even if you invested the 75B it would cost to give every household a satellite it just can't support the bandwidth.

[–] PlasmaTrout@lemmy.wtf 17 points 4 days ago

I've been WFH for at least 10 years and live in rural area. Starlink was like 150-200$ a month for an unpredictable 5-150mbps and did meh. When I finally got fiber it was sub 100$ a month for 2gbps stable. Not a hard decision :)

load more comments
view more: next ›