> And for what? For expensive mediocre internet for limited number of users in places where infrastructure is lacking? Infrastructure? You know, the thing we should build more of, that serves poor people? Those people that limited expensive mediocre toys don't serve?
Huh? Internet service is infrastructure.
There are lots of people in rural areas that don't have proper service. The goal is to get them service, by whatever method is most effective. And in lots of areas, starlink is more effective than running wires.
So why shouldn't we use starlink for those people? It's nonsense to balk at the price if you're suggesting we do something even more expensive. If the price is too high then we can apply subsidies to it. Instead of applying those subsidies to offerings that are worse.
> And for what? For expensive mediocre internet for limited number of users in places where infrastructure is lacking? Infrastructure? You know, the thing we should build more of, that serves poor people? Those people that limited expensive mediocre toys don't serve?
Huh? Internet service is infrastructure.
There are lots of people in rural areas that don't have proper service. The goal is to get them service, by whatever method is most effective. And in lots of areas, starlink is more effective than running wires.
So why shouldn't we use starlink for those people? It's nonsense to balk at the price if you're suggesting we do something even more expensive. If the price is too high then we can apply subsidies to it. Instead of applying those subsidies to offerings that are worse.