I'd rather the federal government just roll out fiber and not put Starlink and Elon in a position of power. That fiber will always be in the ground and available. Elon has shown himself to be unworthy of any position where trust and good judgement is required. If it costs more, that is a premium worth paying. Fool me once.
The success of SpaceX is placing Musk in a position to decide where America's allies have access to the internet and choosing what region of the world can be cut off just through meeting politicians he likes.
That doesn’t negate the fact that he wields power against others when it meets his needs. He’s effective, I don’t dispute that, but still needs a metaphorical cage built around him to protect others.
Indeed, satellite or long haul fixed wireless will be the only option for some locations. I have been to rural Montana and Wyoming, but not Alaska.
Customers will have to pay for their own StarLink where the FCC won’t. Perhaps we should not be subsidizing folks where it costs $1M to deliver terrestrial connectivity to you. Cheaper to pay them to move.
This is in comparison to launching satellites into space. I think most people would agree it's probably more along the lines of "trivial" when compared to that.
Neither are trivial, the two just scale very differently.
I do see the benefit in resilience of building out fiber even to moderately unprofitable (from a unit economics point of view) regions, just like we also build roads to communities that will never "pay the investment back" in taxes. But there are cases where it just can't be justified.
But it's also not a simple either-or: There are other technologies than fiber and satellite; there can be more than one high-throughput LEO provider; we can have a few GEO satellites for redundancy (although with significantly worse latency) etc.
Outside of truly rural areas the question with fiber is how long is the payback period, not "will it be profitable". Especially if deployment is integrated with routine highway re-pavement projects (roads need torn up and redone roughly every 30 years, after all), the majority of the cost becomes the fiber bundles themselves - perfect for even a smaller county or city government to handle with a modest bond issue.
> the question with fiber is how long is the payback period, not "will it be profitable".
The "payback period" might well be infinite (with non-zero interest rates), in which case we're talking about a subsidy, not an investment. (Which might still be a good idea! It won't "pay for itself", though.)
Instead of a simple comment about historical grants, you perhaps could educate yourself on current state grants and efforts. Trying and failing previously doesn't mean trying something different shouldn't be done, you know? Should we just give up because of previous mistakes? No, absolutely not. That is failure.
You're replying to an accurate comment about how government funding works. I am educated on this, I have worked off of government grant money often, it's 100% who you know, not what you do.
Also involved in government procurement, also provide guidance to several Congressional reps gratis as a technologist subject matter expert. Change is possible, to believe otherwise is to give up. If you want to give up, head to the bar and make way for people who give a shit. I give a shit, so I am admittedly biased.
The simplest and best way to ensure change is to fund a competitor who has a different approach. Not wanting to mindlessly throw money at the same people forever isn't giving up.
You're being incredibly optimistic. Show me a non-greedy person in Congress, with the exception of Thomas Massie, and I'll believe you that change is possible.
Hope is in short supply, but not at empty yet. Make sure to vote every election. 1.8M voters over the age of 55 die every year in the US, and 4M voters age into voting at 18. Demographics are inevitable. As I tell the young folks, Hold Fast.
(disclaimer: I have maxed out my FEC political contributions to every rep enumerated due to my belief in their character; if someone's character changes or evidence surfaces they are not a good person, my support changes accordingly)
Oh, I see. I agree that these are people who deeply embody the Democratic ethos, and Bernie is one of the poorer members of the Senate. I seriously dislike Fetterman's "working class" act, though.
However, considering that they hate me, I will pass.
We may disagree politically, but I still want the best for you (although the debate lies in what that looks like). Take care, and I enjoyed the conversation regardless.
I understand and appreciate that perspective. I usually want the government to leave me alone, but if they won't, I want the most principled people duking it out. It sounds like we both value principles in office, maybe not to the exclusion of ideology, but it's a major factor.
I did as well, good to have some old-style HN conversation.
https://www.internetforall.gov/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
https://spacenews.com/senate-armed-services-committee-to-pro...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/30/elon-musk...
https://www.cnas.org/press/in-the-news/elon-musks-control-of...
https://babel.ua/en/news/98461-elon-musk-partially-transferr...
(disclosure: starlink customer)