So people that have some modest wealth in Africa shouldn't be able to get internet? Does it not matter that an entrepreneur and companies can get reliable internet? The local population can get together and buy one antenna is one more option they might be able to provide access to the net for a village. The government could provide one for each school. Human deploy infrastructure in so many different ways.
You can try to intellectualize everything away because you seem to have some intense dislike for this, but the fact of the matter is, this system will make internet easier and more affordable then any alternative system in a huge number of places all over the world. And in all those places it will have to compete with the alternatives and the people on the ground can make the choice what helps them the most.
Your counter argument boils down to 'We can't solve global poverty, therefore we shouldn't have global internet' and that is just such an insane position.
I’m sorry, my comment was very snarky and therefor not very clear.
What I was trying to say: A more reasonable way to get better internet connectivity to the poor parts of the world is to build tried and trusted traditional infrastructure funded by the wealthier communities around them.
You are right though, I do dislike Starlink. In general I have a big distaste for any endeavor that tries to solve a problem with new and untried technology, but that problem only exists because of wealth disparity.
Non of the individual parts of Starlink are totally untried. Its a new way to put it together really. Rockets being cheaper now is just a fact of the industry.
> What I was trying to say: A more reasonable way to get better internet connectivity to the poor parts of the world is to build tried and trusted traditional infrastructure funded by the wealthier communities around them.
The demand that you can live anywhere in the country and have people who live in the city provide you with a FTTH at the same price just seams like unreasonable to me. In most places, specially in the western world, its an organizational not a cost problem.
If Starlink is the cheaper way then why should richer communities not just provide Starlink antennas. Especially when you have large area and small communities.
> I have a big distaste for any endeavor that tries to solve a problem
Starlink solves many problems where other solutions simply don't exist. That is a plain fact. It just so happens that it will also be competitive in lots of other fields and if the competition is terrible, why not adopt Starlink?
Its global by design anyway so driving the marginal cost of utilization might make for a competitive price point in many regions and locations.
The reality is that its fine to talk about these potential changes, but they haven't happened for a long time now, and the most likely way for a totally dysfunctional system to change is with massive shock to the outside. Then ideas for reform might actually get adopted.
So even from that perspective, I really can't see any argument why putting another competitor in this market is not a fantastic idea.
You can try to intellectualize everything away because you seem to have some intense dislike for this, but the fact of the matter is, this system will make internet easier and more affordable then any alternative system in a huge number of places all over the world. And in all those places it will have to compete with the alternatives and the people on the ground can make the choice what helps them the most.
Your counter argument boils down to 'We can't solve global poverty, therefore we shouldn't have global internet' and that is just such an insane position.