this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2025
726 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

74330 readers
2748 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
[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 50 points 3 days ago (6 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 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That's the point. Musk wants control over the entire internet.

If all the other internet infrastructure was abandoned, he would be the most powerful person in history. Want to regulate him afterwards? He could just shut down the internet in your region until you accept his terms.

[–] iridebikes@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

He has already meddled in the Ukraine war doing things like this, too. He turned off Starlink during an offensive Ukrainian mission. He claims he had to because civilian systems aren't allowed to be used for a foreign incursion into Russia and that he'd face consequences. Which is a complete lie.

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Musk wants control over the entire internet.

This is the number one reason my friend and I refused to even consider StarLink. We don't live in the US and do not want all our traffic going through there.

[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Because of physics.

Pfff, physics, pesky detail! Clearly you are not a true visionary like Musk! /s

[–] Inucune@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Starlink has no answer to dark fiber.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

In principle I agree with you, but as a network guy, somewhere, between you and the server you are connected to, the bandwidth is shared. The only question is just where and how much bandwidth (well network throughput) there is to share. I work for a large university and our main datacenter has 10GbE and 25/100GbE connections between all the local machines. But we only have about a 3-5gb connection out to the rest of the world.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’d 100% rather have a symmetrical fiber connection to the ISP than something shared like radio or DOCSIS. I used to live in a neighborhood where everyone had Spectrum and about 5-6 PM the speed would plummet because cable internet is essentially just fancy thinnet all over again. Yes I’m old since I used to set up thinnet :)

PS: I would kill for $70 fiber where I am now. Used to have it but we moved to the sticks and I miss it terribly.

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

somewhere, between you and the server you are connected to, the bandwidth is shared.

But the difference here is that on a fibre connection the shared portion goes over higher speed trunks which gives you most of that 1Gbps bandwidth. A wireless connection has a limited number of slices in the same band that it can share.

It's the same issue with too many people on a single WiFi connection.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yep very true.

To me the main benefit of the direct fiber connection is the symmetry. With cable here I’m “supposed” to get “up to” 1000mbs down but my upload speed is at best 40. Moving large files back and forth to work is very painful.

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

With cable here I’m “supposed” to get “up to” 1000mbs down but my upload speed is at best 40.

Man, you get 40 up? I'm stuck on 30 up. And the funny thing is that just on the other side of the creek on the other side of my street is where they stopped the fibre rollout.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Technically correct. The best kind of correct ;). He should have said not sharing that last mile connection, like one would share with a satellite downlink.

[–] ChetManly@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Starlink is 120/mo. Over the past 30 days my average DL is 144Mb, UL 18Mb, with a 27ms ping. It suuuuuuuuuuuuucks, but the only other option is a literal 4Mb DSL for 80$/mo

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And, wait until Starlink hits saturation... Your speeds will be 1mb down, 300kb up, and latency hitting 100ms...

You're only benefiting from early adoption at this time. It can only get worse the more they onboard.

Starlink is 120/mo.

How much for install?

[–] ChetManly@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Dish, router, and long ass cable was on sale for 300. Another 70 for a roof bracket if memory serves.

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

TIL 120 is 4 x 70....

Edit to add everything below this line

Downvotes for facts. I pay 120/mo. It's either this, 3Mbps DSL, or T-Mobile home 5G that works when it feels like it.

collapsed inline media

[–] JordanZ@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I’m on the mid tier fiber plan(3gbps) with my ISP which is $100 a month. Here’s the results from the daily speed test my router does.

collapsed inline media

StarLink is very expensive for the service provided. Its only advantage is the location availability which is essentially anywhere. If they installed fiber to rural areas then its usefulness falls dramatically. I’d rather they invest in more fiber rather than more StarLink satellites that only last about 5 years.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

lol. I thought those commas were decimals for a second. Wow.

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd rather have fiber, too. But until it's available here, this is the next best thing.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

You lack individual choice by design. You should choose whatever is best for you, obviously, but you can be pissed there’s no fiber running alongside your electricity service.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So, not 4x, but 2x.

BTW, did you know HughesNet is cheaper, and works just as well. Or, it will work just as well once Starlink reaches the saturation HughesNet faces.

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Physics says otherwise.

Geostationary orbit, which is where hughesnet satellites are, is approximately 22 THOUSAND miles away.

That's a round trip of 44 thousand miles.

That's a ping time of 236ms just for the satellite connection, before any other connections are added in.

That's worse than my dialup latency was in the 90s

Meanwhile, my Starlink ping averages less than 40ms, because these satellites are MUCH MUCH closer.

collapsed inline media

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wonder how your starlink will work once it reaches it's peak market saturation?

[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It's cute that you're worried about me. But it's still better than whatever else is currently available at my house. And it will always be better than anything using geostationary orbit.