This is way more serious than global internet access.
Low and mid orbit are so polluted that the ISS has to correct it's path multiple times a day to avoid hitting satellite debris and it gets progressively worse.
We're few disasters away from compromising future space exploration and potentially our own survival.
That isn't a big problem due to several factors. To begin with, OFCs on the ocean bed is how route the majority of the internet traffic already. You can easily bury it a few inches under the surface anywhere. Another point is that these are often used only just high capacity backhaul links. You don't need to criss-cross the terrain with it. And even in the case of the worst of terrains, you can switch to high capacity, highly directional RF or Laser data links for short stretches.
This is very easy to say sitting in a developed country where your access to information has never been in question. There are still millions if not billions that don't have access to the rest of humanity's knowledge.
I've been thinking about it for a while; and that's exactly the thing I've been questioning for some time. I'm not as convinced as I was that more knowledge equals a better life. I reflect back on how much time I've spent on countless hours of useless YouTube binges. I've wasted so much time on the internet that could have been spent on things that would have made me happier.
There's good and bad. The important thing is having an internet bullshit filter which the vast majority of people don't have because they didn't grow up with the internet.
There are massive telescopes around the world with adaptive optics doing cutting edge observations. Their service time is still under high demand. Those aren't just 'pretty pictures'.
Much of our current understanding of physics is rooted in astronomical observation.
Many planets and asteroids have been discovered by amateurs using telescopes and the visible light spectrum, even in the modern era.
More directly practicable, astronomy has given us an understanding of space weather and solar ejections which are fairly critical to things like grid stability and minimizing damages to man made satellites.
Dismissing the loss of the night sky as “pretty pictures” is dramatically underselling astronomy and the benefits that astronomy bring to all of us.
People have different priorities. Dismissing the needs of the scientific community based on meaningless comparisons for the financial benefit of a few megacorps isn't really a good argument. There are much less disruptive ways to provide good quality internet access for folks even in the most remote places. Considering the US especially, can you honestly say that the telecom companies did everything they could (or even a reasonable bit) to improve the situation, using all the subsidies and grants they took from the government in the name of improving the said connectivity?
>Unpopular opinion: global internet access is more important than pretty pictures of the sky.
You're right about one thing - It is an unpopular opinion. You're wrong about global internet access being more important than being able to take "pretty pictures" of the night sky.
Global internet access has become a tool for homogenizing opinion. It has become the most useful tool for propagandists and others who would push false narratives as facts in order to steer readers/listeners towards conclusions that are not based on facts. It has been subverted by well-funded groups with an agenda that does not serve the people out in the broad audience.
It could've been a critical part of bringing global societies up to speed on relevant issues that affect their lives and futures. Once the deep pockets with destructive agendas began funding tools to infect others with their world-views it became a weapon, not a tool.
Those of you who work in the industry should rebel against this subversion. I think many won't since the whole software industry appears to be trapped in a cycle of greedy grifts and subscriptions for worthless apps.
I don’t know what the hell you’re going on about for the most part, but the fact is it’s not economically viable for ISPs or even governments to build fibre out to most rural areas.
Satellite internet has been a game changer for people living in these areas. The people who grow your food deserve to be able to video chat with their family and stream videos at resolutions higher than 480p without constant buffering.
If it isn't economically feasible for these operators to build fiber out to serve all these rural customers who would love to have the same high-speed options that city folks enjoy then why did they allocate funds to do this at least twice? (USA, not sure about other countries). It is interesting to note that in each occasion the providers basically took the money and invented excuses for not following through.
That's part of what the hell I'm going on about.
Satellite internet is a game-changer but like I said, the internet in general has become a useful tool for propagandists to promote whatever message they need to disseminate in order to gain or maintain control of public opinion, allowing then to gain power or to remain in power.
I totally agree that people who grow food, though they don't grow much of mine since I have a fully functional garden/orchard, should be able to chat with friends or family and stream videos if that's what floats their boats.
Part of my family lives in a highly rural area where bandwidth was an issue for them in their lives and jobs. They had to use expensive line-of-sight internet services that frequently suffered during weather events making it difficult for them to stay online during a workday. Their cell service out there was dicey and complicated by the fact that they live in a metal sided house that they built themselves so there were lots of times that they had to step outside to get a signal to use their phones. They have upgraded to starlink now I think and they have fewer issues.
Another family member loves online gaming and has twice bought a home in a rural area with very limited internet access options. Each time before they bought I have reminded them to check the availability of internet access for the properties. Each time I got to listen to them gripe that the only option out there was thru Hughes-Net or some other expensive provider with severely limited bandwidth.
I understand the issue about rural broadband access a little more than you gave credit for.
I agree that there are strong economic reasons in favor but lets not overstate things. If it was economically viable to build out copper telephone lines to those areas then there is zero reason fiber should pose an issue. As far as raw materials go fiber is much cheaper than copper.
Sadly, true. Those who work on the industry will never rebel, the pay is too good and the nerdy excitement of being able to solve very interesting problems is too addictive. Our greatest minds are wasted in the finance sectors and big tech.
This is a regressive view. Developed countries profit from the educational nature of the Internet. We're all better off from having banked and shared common knowledge.
