• @boonhet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    Running fiber globaly is very expensive. The satellite solution has its cons, but it’s available to a lot of people who otherwise might not have access.

    It is expensive, but in SOME rural areas it’s still affordable. Obviously not in poorer ones, but it might get cheaper over time. Or it might not. Who knows.

    • @diskmaster23@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      I recall that the decaying orbit means that they constantly have to put more satellites up. All that energy, all that propellant, and all that space garbage. Billions of dollars wasted. Better spent on fiber. Once installed, baring cuts, it will last for nearly 100 years or more. It has benefits for some, but, IMHO, resources are better spent on fiber.

      • @CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        These are in LEO. Once they lose propulsion after 3-5 years, they fall and burn up on re-entry. It isn’t possible for these satellites to cause Kessler Syndrome.

          • @mike901@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            71 year ago

            It could send debris into a more elliptical orbit, but it wouldn’t be possible for it to raise the entire orbit above LEO. The point of impact will remain in the orbital path and since the entire orbit is currently in LEO, there will be, by extension, some part of the new orbit still in LEO and therefore subject any debris to atmospheric capture.

      • @boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I guess we can choose between people in remote areas having no internet access and Kessler syndrome :/

        The third way costs not 900 million, but hundreds of billions, maybe trillions. Rich countries can afford it, but many can not.