pwnies t1_j5rffvc wrote
Reply to comment by systemsfailed in Starlink Is ‘Forced’ To Finally Start Caring About The System’s Light Pollution And Harm To Scientific Research by Albion_Tourgee
Fiber lines are better for throughput, but are significantly more expensive. We have recent data from Australia's attempt to install fiber nationwide as a good comparison point of costs.
Australia estimated 14-15b AUD (about 10.5b USD) to run fiber to 98% of the country's population (though this would encompass < 10% of the landmass). Fiber is a mature technology, so we should expect these costs to be fairly static.
Starlink's investment costs so far have been 10b to design and launch, but also provide coverage nearly worldwide. Swarm satellites are a fairly new tech for internet infrastructure, so we should expect the cost to decrease over time.
Overall for delivering internet worldwide, a swam satellite based approach is far cheaper (though will provide less throughput). For getting internet to those in developing or remote countries, it's an excellent choice overall.
systemsfailed t1_j5riemx wrote
Significantly more expensive? Over what timeframe?Cheaper than the constellation with a 5 year shelf life that has to be constantly relaunched?
The constellation that cannot possibly handle the bandwidth of tens of millions or more?
The AUS population alone is 25 million.
Starlink speeds are already slowing with the subs they have, in what world do you expect this to be feasible on a global scale? Also Musk himself has said it won't be functional in cities
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments