Hang on that’s not a fair comparison. So you will need to deploy some masts to reach remote areas, got it.
Satellite internet then needs to fire a satellite into space to cover the area of which now there are thousands of then And the satellite has a shelf life and will eventually burn up in the atmosphere requiring repeated deployments.
Masts sounds easier.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
You need quite a bit of masts to cover the entire globe and that still doesn’t work in places like in the middle of the ocean. Satellites most likely are easier to deploy and cheaper as well.
lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 2 weeks ago
I don’t think this technology is intended to be used for global internet. But for giving access to a remote town, this is many magnitudes lesser in cost than a satellite.
A brief internet search tells me that a Starlink satellite is ~$1 million apiece, and lasts 5 years. With the additional cost of the launch the annual cost is ~$300,000 per year per satellite. You can work out the cost for 10 masts and tell me that its much cheaper.
From a consumer perspective, Starlink is amazing. Fast, relatively cheap, available anywhere. From a labour and material cost, its incredibly expensive. If a town can be serviced by cable, wireless, this new laser or whatever then the economical and environmental impact (in terms of materials) are a fraction.
Whilst masts will face the same prejudice as windmills for destroying landscapes, Starlink has already been causing issues with stargazing and night sky pollution. And this is only the first commercial venture for low-orbit internet. I can imagine there shall eventually be multiple of these setups, each with thousands of satellites (Starlink is at 7k+ now I think) which will only exacerbate the issues.
The point being, that having other technologies with overlapping abilities isn’t a bad thing. Choice is good.