On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote:
Hi Frantisek,
On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:46, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain
<nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
Thus, technically speaking, one would like the advantages of satcom such
as starlink, to be at least 5gbit/s in 10 years time, to overcome the
'tangled fiber' problem.
No, not really. Starlink was about to address the issue of digital divide -
I beg to differ. Starlink is a commercial enterprise with the goal to
make a profit by offering (usable) internet access essentially everywhere; it
is not as far as I can tell an attempt at specifically reducing the digital
divide (were often an important factor is not necessarily location but
financial means).
Every Inernet company " commercial enterprise with the goal to make a profit by
offering (usable) internet" don't dismiss a company because of that. Starlink
(and the other Satellite ISPs) all exist to service people who can't use
traditional wired infrastructure
delivering internet to those 640k locations, where there is literally none
today. Fiber will NEVER get there. And it will get there, it will be like 10
years down the road.
This is IHO the wrong approach to take. The goal needs to be a universal
FTTH access network (with the exception of extreme locations, no need to pull
fiber up to the highest Bivouac shelter on Mt. Whitney). And f that takes a
decade or two, so be it, this is infrastructure that will keep on helping for
many decades once rolled-out. However given that time frame one should
consider work-arounds for the interim period. I would have naively thought
starlink would qualify for that from a technical perspective, but then the FCC
documents actually discussion requirements and how they were or were not
met/promised by starlink was mostly redacted.
what do you consider 'extreme locations'? how long a run between houses is 'too
far'?
we've seen the failure of commercial fiber monopolies in cities with housing
density of several houses per acre (and even where there are apartment complexes
there as well) because it's not profitable enough. When you get into areas where
it's 'how many acres per house' the cost of running FTTH gets very high. I don't
think this is the majority of the population of the US any longer (but I don't
know for sure), but it's very clearly the majority of the area of the US. And
once you get out of the major metro areas, even getting fiber to every town or
village becomes a major undertaking.
Is running fiber 30 miles to support a village of 700 people an 'extreme
location'? let me introduce you to Vermontville MI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermontville,_Michigan which is less than an hours
drive from the state capitol.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
