this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
974 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

83251 readers
3066 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don't think you've ever used Starlink if you think clouds make it fail.

...you do realize it started in Seattle, right?

[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Seattle typically doesn't get hail core cumulonimbus (supercells). Plus, I'm not saying that it completely fails with just cloudy weather alone. Note that I said capacity, which is absolutely affected by moderate to heavy cloud cover or not being able to see the sky. Diminished capacity doesn't mean it fails, it means that it's slower, higher latency, and less reliable. In extreme cases involving hail storms (like I mentioned), it can and does fail - you can see this in the storm chaser streaming circles. Their streams cut out completely at times, if the satellites are between the storm and their antenna.

I am simply bringing up an edge case since the person who originally replied brought up ships when I was talking about rural fiber.

My point is still that SpaceX shouldn't have gotten FCC subsidies when a more reliable, cheaper (especially in the long run since we're talking about LEO), higher bandwidth, lower latency option exists. PUDs should have gotten all of that cash, not a different, large ISP owned by a billionaire.

An added bonus to fiber: it doesn't ruin ground based astronomy.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, fair. Where fiber can be run fiber should be run.

Just scarred from all the times where we spend x billion to expand fiber, it doesn't happen, somehow nobody gets held accountable.

I mean damn, at least Starlink is providing a service

Just scarred from all the times where we spend x billion to expand fiber, it doesn't happen, somehow nobody gets held accountable.

That's because historically, major ISPs have been given the grants (including Starlink) instead of PUDs. Public fiber is entirely different, it's managed and installed like a public utility, not a service to be capitalized on. This is why I've been so focused on saying that SpaceX should never have been given $1 billion dollars. It shouldn't have been given to any non public organization.