Broadband

[George K]

@Axtremus said in Broadband:

Starlink's total capacity will be very limited

You're probably right. I don't know much about the tech involved, but highways need to be broad. I wonder what Starlink's capacity is. 8.5 million locations?

[Axtremus]

The # of locations may be practically unlimited, but the number of locations simultaneously active (transmitting or receiving data) is limited. I have read somewhere that the latest generation of Starlink satellites being launched in 2023 can simultaneously serve ~2000 users concurrently. (Older satellites have lower capacities.)

You may think 2000 simultaneous users per satellite multiplied by 12,000 satellites equals 24 million simultaneous users, and that's great, right? Then you consider the fact the 12,000 satellites have to spread (more or less evenly) all over Earth and only a small fraction of them will "cover" the USA at any point in time, then you have apply a big discount when thinking about how many users can be simultaneously served.

With fiber or cellular towers, you can built more of them where there are more people. With satellites, maybe you can select orbits that overlap more where there are more people, but you cannot really tell your satellites to "move slower" to "spend more time" hovering over where you have more people. It's great to use satellites to provide global coverage, but not so great to "target" or "focus" the coverage.

[Horace]

@Axtremus said in Broadband:

The # of locations may be practically unlimited, but the number of locations simultaneously active (transmitting or receiving data) is limited. I have read somewhere that the latest generation of Starlink satellites being launched in 2023 can simultaneously serve ~2000 users concurrently. (Older satellites have lower capacities.)

You may think 2000 simultaneous users per satellite multiplied by 12,000 satellites equals 24 million simultaneous users, and that's great, right? Then you consider the fact the 12,000 satellites have to spread (more or less evenly) all over Earth and only a small fraction of them will "cover" the USA at any point in time, then you have apply a big discount when thinking about how many users can be simultaneously served.

With fiber or cellular towers, you can built more of them where there are more people. With satellites, maybe you can select orbits that overlap more where there are more people, but you cannot really tell your satellites to "move slower" to "spend more time" hovering over where you have more people. It's great to use satellites to provide global coverage, but not so great to "target" or "focus" the coverage.

I hardly think the government needs knowledgeable people to help manage this Ax. Maybe you can keep your thoughts to yourself, and leave it to public servants. Free market capitalists NEVER have the best answers. Period.

[George K]

"Right now, the FCC has approved 15,000. That seems like a lot, but it’s only a fraction of Starlink’s long-term goal. Starlink hopes to put around 42,000 into the sky someday to provide true globally available coverage."

I'm not saying that 42K satellites will have the capacity, but it's a lot of satellites.

[Jon]

This is analogous to what Roosevelt(?) did with the rural electrification program. The idea is that in less dense areas it isn’t economical for private actors to build the infrastructure so the government subsidizes it. US Mail traditionally did something similar by using uniform rates across the county. Basically high density areas subsidizing low density areas.

It appeals to the liberal in me. I’m for it.

[Jolly]

I think it also does something else...I mentioned the Mississippi Delta. It's poor. Poorer than Appalachia. Because of that and because of job opportunities, land is dirt cheap if it's not prime farmland.

Consider working remotely... 26 acres close to Oak Grove, a small Louisiana town of maybe 1500 people. I bet you can buy it for $80k...

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/13234-Highway-17_Oak-Grove_LA_71263_M74422-60011

Now, what does an influx of money and people do to rural areas like this?

[Axtremus]

Of course, Sen. Tuberville voted against it.

[Axtremus]

@Jolly said in Broadband:

Now, what does an influx of money and people do to rural areas like this?

Make it more populous, less rural, possibly also more liberal?

[Jolly]

[Axtremus]

[Jolly]

Then why don't you take a look at the entire bill?

[George K]

https://www.newsweek.com/these-30-republicans-voted-against-infrastructure-bill-heres-what-it-would-give-their-states-1618521

Both senators from Alabama—Tommy Tuberville and Richard Shelby—voted against the infrastructure bill.

Based on the legislation's funding formula, Alabama would get more than $5.4 billion for highway and bridge upgrades.

According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Bridge Inventory report released in March, at least 620 bridges in the state are considered structurally deficient. Meanwhile, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates 11 percent of Alabama roads are in "poor" condition, costing each motorist an estimated $434 a year in repairs.

Additionally, the bill would provide for at least $405 million to improve public transportation in the state.

In a statement on his vote, Tuberville accused the negotiators of filling the bill with "giveaways to big cities and pet projects that have little to do with real infrastructure."

"I've travelled the state from top to bottom, and I know firsthand that Alabama, like many states across the country, needs a robust investment in real infrastructure," he said. "I've said all along I'd be for a bill that invests every penny of every dollar in improvements to our roads, bridges, waterways and rural broadband."

[Copper]

Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy.

Why?

[Jolly]

Jobs

[taiwan_girl]

This is a good program. As Jolly says, good for jobs, and also good for schools/students.