this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
1201 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

67002 readers
3791 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (42 children)

Unpopular opinion: we don't need freaking internet from satellites, just get cat6 in every home and everyone is happy. I'm sure the cost would be lower then having to launch 999999.91 satellites to have similar speeds

load more comments (42 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (4 children)

If only I wasn't too chicken shit to start investing... I was looking at Eutelsats stocks earlier in the week. But it'd be my first steps on the market so decided against it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

I finally got brave enough to do it. Between August and January I had made over 800%.

Trump has ruined that for me. Oh well.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It'll be interesting to see what the Canadian telesat LEO system will be capable of. They're supposed to be launching satellites next year and are using a higher orbit so will need much fewer satellites than starlink.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (2 children)

But sadly increased latency. Also don't hold your breath on Canada telecom anything, we have a history of being the worst at it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

I don't mind a bit more latency (should still be nicely below 100ms) but my use case is more related to mid-Atlantic mobile connectivity than remote region broadband.

Their planned implementation just seems much better than others with beam shaping, linked satellites and less than 200 satellites to maintain and replace.

Although you're not wrong about our telecom track record...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Your internet and mobile phone service kicks the UKs arse.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh no, oh dear everything no. Maybe in a few cities sure, but where I am I literally have no functioning internet anymore (they let the lines degrade below 1 Mbps) and have massive patches where cell phones don't work at all (love when I hit a antelope and have to stand on the roof of my car to maybe get enough signal to call a tow).

Like no joke we have the worst and most expensive telecom in the developed (and a lot of the developing) world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I should have considered the fact that I was always within an hour or so of Toronto.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The GTA is not really indicative of Canada at this point. It is the center of the universe after all...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, appreciated. I had heard good things though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is starlink business model like uber/airbnb? Killing the market with low prices by circumventing regulations to establish their monopoly?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, it just vertical integration. You need to send up rockets to make money, so you make sure they never have an empty slot on them by filling it yourself. You get enough satellites up, then you have a revenue generating payload you can send up steady from then on.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Then it is a monopoly building if you take the limited slots before others companies 😁

I was wondering because starlink's terminals are around $500 while eutelsat's are 10k. It seems it can be only possible if you accept massive losses on first years, with help of to investors to keep the company running, to take down competitors. Like uber and many others did, which had years of losses before having income.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

SpaceX isn't an Uber model, its a goverment leech model. It's had heavily, heavily goverment subsidies to the tune of 18 billion dollars over its 10yr lifetime.

Terminal prices are likely just an economy of scale issue. Much cheaper per unit to make 100,000 than 1,000. Im sure as eutelsat grows the prices will come down.

If Eutelsat and the EU rocket program get 18 billion in goverment investment like SpaceX, im betting they can also accelerate all of the above.

SpaceX doesnt have a moat, it just has the lead. Rocket labs in new Zealand is already hot on their tails. No reason the EU cant join or surpass them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Good. Fuck Starlink.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Bye bye future space launches once we have full or partial Kessler syndrome.

Bye bye earth based astronomy.

But dang this tech is so much better than Hughesnet

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Kessler syndrome doesn’t really apply for purely LEO satellites. They all burn up in a single digit amount of years.

It’s not something to worry about yet.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

This is true at 500km altitude, but not so at higher LEO altitudes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

On the contrary, I think it is something to avoid. Imagine letting a single person ground all space launches for 9 years. And all the pollution that adds to the atmosphere. All the junk landing on people's farms or houses.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It doesn’t work that way. I dislike Elon as much as the next sane person but we don’t need to invent new reasons to dislike him on top of all of the bad reasons that exist.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I didn't read the article but I'd bet the "why" is because it's been on the news and people think it's an easy way to make a quick buck. However, these people are amateurs - when it's in the news you're already too late.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Not if you bought in at 100% or 200% or 300% when it was also in the news. You will still have made tons and tons of money.

The real positive for the company and maybe the world is if they issue some new stock now and get a nice war chest of cash so they can expand their network rapidly. That will hurt the investors above, but hopefully they take gains now when it's fruitful or in the farther future when the company dramatically increases its market share.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›