Starlink plugs the rural coverage gaps, but in urban areas it’s still more expensive than either conventional fixed-line connections or wireless (4G/5G) broadband. Even in rural areas, while it’s the best option, it’s rarely the cheapest, at least in the NZ market I’m familiar with.
It also doesn’t have the bandwidth per square kilometre/mile to serve urban areas well, and it’s probably never going to work in apartment buildings.
This is a funding/subsidisation issue, not so much a technical one. I imagine Starlink connections are eligible for the current subsidy, but in most cases it’s probably going to conventional DSL/cable/fibre/4G connections.
Because these access companies DO NOT COMPETE with each other. Without that competition we all get the shit end of capitalism. The landlines all have their own fiefdoms. Wireless is balkanizing based on tower placement, and satellite is for rural areas that don’t rate wired connections or cell towers. The politicians can point to all this and say we have options, but really you’re lucky if you have two options.
Indeed, the US has a major lack of fixed-line competition and lack of regulation. Starlink doesn’t really help with that, at least in urban areas.
I’m not familiar with the wireless situation. You’re saying that there are significant coverage discrepancies to the point where many if not most consumers are choosing a carrier based on coverage, not pricing/plans? There’s always areas with unequal coverage but I didn’t think they were that common.
Here in NZ, the state funding for very rural 4G broadband (Rural Broadband Initiative 2 / RBI-2) went to the Rural Connectivity Group, setting up sites used and owned equally by all three providers, to reduce costs where capacity isn’t the constraint.
From my experience, the wireless carriers are trying their best not to launch in the same areas for home Internet. They’re trying hard to avoid the competition like they do in phone service. Example: I get T-Mobile home Internet, but Verizon doesn’t in my area. Asking friends, I’m finding that to be a common situation where one or the other is offered, but rarely both. Completely anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
We did do something permanent: We let the private sector fuck us all in the ass while the rest of the world passed us by.
how about we get universal health care and universal food, and universal savings accounts first.
hear hear
what do u mean by universal savings accounts? I have never heard of savings accounts being inaccessible but I am not American
NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN!
How about we launch a few thousand low orbit satellites and create a mesh network accessible by anyone anywhere… oh, wait…
Starlink plugs the rural coverage gaps, but in urban areas it’s still more expensive than either conventional fixed-line connections or wireless (4G/5G) broadband. Even in rural areas, while it’s the best option, it’s rarely the cheapest, at least in the NZ market I’m familiar with.
It also doesn’t have the bandwidth per square kilometre/mile to serve urban areas well, and it’s probably never going to work in apartment buildings.
This is a funding/subsidisation issue, not so much a technical one. I imagine Starlink connections are eligible for the current subsidy, but in most cases it’s probably going to conventional DSL/cable/fibre/4G connections.
the future is wireless
Because these access companies DO NOT COMPETE with each other. Without that competition we all get the shit end of capitalism. The landlines all have their own fiefdoms. Wireless is balkanizing based on tower placement, and satellite is for rural areas that don’t rate wired connections or cell towers. The politicians can point to all this and say we have options, but really you’re lucky if you have two options.
Indeed, the US has a major lack of fixed-line competition and lack of regulation. Starlink doesn’t really help with that, at least in urban areas.
I’m not familiar with the wireless situation. You’re saying that there are significant coverage discrepancies to the point where many if not most consumers are choosing a carrier based on coverage, not pricing/plans? There’s always areas with unequal coverage but I didn’t think they were that common.
Here in NZ, the state funding for very rural 4G broadband (Rural Broadband Initiative 2 / RBI-2) went to the Rural Connectivity Group, setting up sites used and owned equally by all three providers, to reduce costs where capacity isn’t the constraint.
From my experience, the wireless carriers are trying their best not to launch in the same areas for home Internet. They’re trying hard to avoid the competition like they do in phone service. Example: I get T-Mobile home Internet, but Verizon doesn’t in my area. Asking friends, I’m finding that to be a common situation where one or the other is offered, but rarely both. Completely anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt.