Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies
Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies
The FCC decided it wouldn’t be the “best” use of limited funds.
You're viewing a single thread.
Quite excited to see what some competition will do in this space (no pun intended) with Amazon's upcoming deployment.
Further ruin the night sky.
Yeah it's totally ruined. I can't even see the sky anymore at night.
Sucks when you try to do astrophotography and there’s a ton of fuckin lines across your photos. Also makes general astronomy more difficult. But go off, I guess.
At least for us amateurs satellite trails get completely rejected out during image stacking. They’ll definitely be more of a problem for professional observatories, especially large survey scopes like Vera Rubin
Bruh, are you really going to prioritize a singular type of hobby photography over access to a vital service such as the internet for millions of people? That's prime NIMBYism.
They've done plenty to help mitigate issues with terrestrial observatories. You could just as easily argue their rocketry advancements have made space much more accessible for the human race, which offsets any remaining harm to research telescopes.
Permanently Deleted
How are we fucking up our ability to go to space with these LEO satellites? That's quite comical coming from someone calling other people's statements a "smooth-brained take."
It absolutely is NIMBY when you sit here on the internet arguing that rural folks should have their internet access revoked because it's "spoiling your view." What difference would it make to any of your listed points if it were an international endeavor rather than a private one?
Permanently Deleted
Yes, I think millions of people around the world shouldn't have their access to a public good limited by the decisions of two billionaires from one country. I don't think that's a particularly strange take?
If there are going to be tens of thousands of satellites fucking up everyone's views of the sky, that should be at least be done with some attempt to gain a social licence first.
That's significantly less of a concern than assisting in elevating a few billion people out of poverty
Starlink has lifted people out of poverty?
The internet most assuredly has. Idk about Starlink's performance at all outside of Ukraine.
This will not do that. That's the entire reason they are NOT getting the money. Start thinking with your brain and stop listening to hype.
My post said:
Quite excited to see what some competition will do in this space (no pun intended) with Amazon’s upcoming deployment.
You hate Musk, we get it. Now, try to stay on topic
Again, read the article, you utter moron. Musk is incapable of doing this, and neither is the concept itself. That has literally nothing to do with me. Stop attempting to act correct by not even making a valid point.
The concept is literally working right now.
Also, I've read the article. I'm not sure why you're trying to make this chain about musk?
It's about return on investment, not literally impossible, dumbass.
... Why do you hate poor people?
Nice false dichotomy, moron. Not supporting SpaceX or Amazon is not equivalent to not wanting to help poor people, you literal idiot. I want to help them in ways that actually work, not hand megacorporations more money.
A poor person doesn't need an internet connection in the middle of the woods. Free wifi in cities would do INFINITELY more considering the upkeep costs of satelite internet like StarLink or SpaceX or anything Amazon will do.
Again... Use your brain and THINK instead of listening to hype coming out of corporate marketing campaigns.
I imagine Amazon will be the one taking your tax dollars to do business. They famously have no money and need American tax dollars generated by working class labor in order to survive.
I have no issue with subsidizing internet for rural people, or even the global poor. That's the point of taxes - to resolve externalities and encourage economic mobility.
Kind of neat to see Republicans trickling onto this site, ngl. Not great, but neat.
Permanently Deleted
Republicans historically so not want to use their tax money to provide for the "undeserving" both locally and globally.
If he's not opposed to his tax dollars being used in such a way, and instead opposes technology advances as a whole, one wonders why he would be in a technology community
Replace references to space and internet with nature and oil drilling and your arguments sound indistinguishable from republicans.
Replace references to space and internet with nature and oil drilling and your arguments sound indistinguishable from republicans.
Yes if you change words in a sentence you can make sentences mean different things. That is indeed how words work.
Just pointing out it’s the same rhetoric since you accused them of being republican. Smartass.
It isn't at all, though, unless you change the words until the topic is unrecognizable.
Paying taxes so the poor can have things and "talk about fossil fuels" are entirely different things.
You’re being intentionally disingenuous here and you know it. Giving tax dollars to billionaires via subsidies is not quite the same thing as helping poor people have nice things.
Yes it literally is, sometimes.
If I give sales tax breaks on healthy food, guess who that ultimately also helps?
If I subsidize apartments so people can afford a homes guess who that ultimately also helps?
If I just straight up hand poor people money, guess who that ultimately helps?
People become billionaires because they run large companies. Large companies make things people want.