[timewizard]

> I care far far more that remote communities can now have meaningful access to the internet

Then can you tell me how many remote communities were not being served before that are now suddenly capable of accessing the internet now that these particular constellations exist? I mean just looking at Starlink's current availability map shows how little you might actually care about this particular outcome.

Even so was this the most affordable and sustainable option for these countries? Was there absolutely no way to achieve both goals at once?

> I don't really care that much.

Noted. We're just picking sides today, I guess. Bummer.

[ralfd]

> looking at Starlink's current availability map

https://www.starlink.com/map

???

Almost all of the Americas, including the deepest Brazilian jungle.

Indonesia, Australia, Mongolia.

Decent chunks of subsahara Africa.

Ships far away on the ocean, transcontinental airplanes … how is this all not amazing?

[timewizard]

You did notice that many of those areas are "Service Date Unknown," "Pending Regulatory Approval," and "Coming Soon?"

The first world has great coverage, I'll give you that, but to say that this network is somehow an inherent advantage to indigenous and under served "remote" people is quite literally laughable.

And yes, the Amazon is being served, and they have _faster_ internet than before, which is somewhat good and not without it's problems to be sure, but they had the internet before. They have smartphones. How did you think they utilize the starlink service at all? They have a pretty narrow power budget which this really doesn't help with all while delivering them deeper into the pockets of American monopolies.

Oh, and the mining and logging companies absolutely love that they have the service necessary to support their commercial work in the Amazon. High rating from them, they would agree, it's "amazing."

The ocean, planes, and all sorts of remote vehicles had internet before as well. This is nothing particularly new other than being faster. Which moves the question to the appropriate place. Is it worth damaging the sciences for faster commercial internet? Are we actually doing anything more than sending youtube poop and pornography and gambling websites into places that never had to deal with these intrusions before? All while enabling a higher rate of destruction of the very place they live?