[fighterpilot]

It's the same argument as for a carbon tax. It's imperfect, because the benefit only flows to the local government (when the commons is globally shared, as you point out), but it's the best practical solution since it broadly aligns incentives with that of the commons.

Your solution to simply deprive rural communities/poor countries of internet access is a non-starter. What you're ignoring is that the positive externalities of the tech vastly, vastly outweigh the negative (and supposedly fixable) externalities. Not to mention it's a take that's rather selfish since you're not the one that pays the price of banning this tech.

[Dah00n]

I'm interested in what your opinion is of the exact same thing with poor countries burning lots of coal and polluting the oceans to lift their population out of poverty. Is it okay for China and India to have their time doing industrial era style pollution today or should we try to apply our modern anti-pollution rules on them?

Because when the rich western countries have launched lots and lots of satellits then poor countries do of course have the right to launch just as many, with no further caution than we use today at launch and positioning, when it's their turn to shine on the night shy.

I'm sure my opinion of Starlink is clear..

[gambiting]

But Starlink isn't, wasn't, and never will be "for providing internet to poorer countries". It's always going to be first and foremost about selling internet to people in wealthy countries in areas without good local internet options. Are we really pretending that people in "poor countries" can afford the cost of the equipment and the subscription? Or that Elon Musk is doing this as some kind of charity?

The main problem that I have here is that the uniformity of a full Starlink setup means the entire earth is covered in it, and literally no one else except for Americans has any say in it. That's what's absolutely not cool in my opinion.

[fighterpilot]

> selling internet to people in wealthy countries in areas without good local internet options

Even if I grant you that it's not going to be about supplying internet to poorer countries, this reason alone is sufficient. Depriving rural communities of internet over such a small negative externality is a non-starter.

> literally no one else except for Americans has any say in it

Poland emits significant amounts of carbon pollution, which impacts me, and I have no say in it.

Some negative externalities in the global commons is inevitable. You, personally, are contributing to that. Your weather and GPS satellites are contributing to it.

The solution therefore can't be a puritanical "I will not allow any global externalities whatsoever.". It's an impractical non-starter and a rule that nobody anywhere follows nor should they try to follow it.

[gambiting]

Well, you make some good points, but obviously there has to be a line somewhere, right? GPS and Weather sattelites are very different because of their positioning in space and there's far fewer of them. It's just the sheer scale of Starlink that's concerning - 42k satellites in maximum configuration!

So of course it isn't about not allowing any global externalities - but this one feels incredibly lopsided. GPS benefits everyone, at a very low externality cost. Starlink benefits the lucky wealthy few(and I am talking about the subscribers here, not just the owners), at an absolutely huge externality cost. Is it worth it? You say that it is, I don't - I don't know where the line is here, but I don't think it's where Elon Musk thinks it is.

[Dylan16807]

Why do you say absolutely huge externalities? I like the theoretical idea of taxing for light pollution, and a huge majority of that tax would go to cities and suburbs using overkill lights. Starlink doesn't even stop you from observing the stars the way normal light pollution does.

Also it's not just the subscribers. The existence of starlink as a competitor will probably have a significant positive impact on millions of people.

[drusepth]

>It's always going to be first and foremost about selling internet to people in wealthy countries in areas without good local internet options.

[citation needed]

[gambiting]

What exactly do you need a citation for? The starlink antenna is a $499, and the subscription is $99 a month. That's extremely expensive for internet, I'd only consider this if there was literally nothing else available. So yes, it will be bought by wealthy people who live out in the sticks, because if you're not from a wealthy nation and quite comfortable financially yourself, then $99/month is crazy high. I guess communities in poorer countries might pool together and buy one antenna+subscription to share between themselves, but that cannot be the main market for this service.

[jsjohnst]

> The starlink antenna is a $499, and the subscription is $99 a month.

So your whole argument on pricing is based on a beta product with limited availability currently. Because prices have never dropped significantly once the product has actually reached mass market adoption?

[dingaling]

What are the factors that you think would cause prices to reduce?

To the contrary, as more subscribers join the service, satellite throughput capacities will eventually be saturated and will require more satellites or more advanced and powerful satellites.

Meanwhile, constant replenishment of the orbital network means that it's not a build-and-amortise asset. There's not a point at which revenue pays-off the asset and can sustain a reduction in subscription fees.

[jsjohnst]

> What are the factors that you think would cause prices to reduce?

1) reductions in cost of launches 2) reductions in cost of satellites 3) bandwidth capacity improvements per satellite

I could keep going, but it’s obvious you’ve convinced yourself of a narrative and aren’t willing to think rationally about the topic, so I’m not going to waste my time.