Return to Level1Techs.com

Would SpaceX make Net Neutrality Obsolete?


#21

I think I already addressed that. It would be great for downloading, streaming down, streaming up would be ok, but have lag, but gaming and telecoms would be fine if you used a 5G modem for low latency packets. You don’t need wide pipe for low latency packets.


#22

If you have 5G, why are you messing around with satellites? That means someone installed fiber close by-- 5G range is limited to around 500m. And 5G goes up to 20 gigabit.


#23

I think 5G might have local data caps and 20 Gigabit is the theoretical limit.

It hasn’t been tested yet. 4G got nowhere near the max throughput.

Also, it might be more expensive if you try their unlimited plan. If you just use a barebones telecom package, I can imagine that won’t cost much if you just point a Yagi at the closest Tower.


#24

Im all for competition. The US has far to little in the ISP sector. This is by design. Current ISPs have greased their politicians to pass laws that prevent competition in the markets that they serve. Adding competition would require nothing but requiring everyone to play by the same rules. This is not the current state of ISPs in the US. For example, many municipalities only allow one contracted ISP to serve their jurisdiction. While rules such as this exist, it matters not what any company, including SpaceX does.

As long as ISP collude to keep competition out, fix prices, and play unfairly, nothing is going to change. I see no evidence that Musk or SpaceX would have any intention other than being yet another player in the game of fuck the consumer. Because profit.

If satellite internet, in its current form, was viable, and cost effective alternative to ground based infrastructure, everyone would use it. It is not a viable alternative due to cost and latency. Hence why no one uses it.

Cost could go down with cheaper satellite deployments, I will give you that. However, they are already extremely high compared to ground based solutions; they have a lot of catching up to do.

Second is latency. The only way to overcome this is with increased transmission speed or decreased distance. Neither one is a simple or inexpensive problem to solve.

EDIT: clarity, mobile keyboard suck.


#25

I doubt 5G will require caps, as it needs to be deployed every couple of blocks due to very short range and poor surface penetration. Of course ISPs will implement caps if they can because again, they really do like money.

And actually, satellite internet isn’t that expensive. HughesNet sells 25Mbps speeds starting at $50/month. That is capped at 10GB transfers, but it isn’t a hard cap, and they don’t cut you off. Once you reach your transfer limit they deprioritize your traffic below people who haven’t reached their limit yet.

https://www.satelliteinternet.com/?kbid=90583


#26

Long story short… It will be at least another decade before satellite is competitive with ISP’s who have a majority of the market[s] saturated for reasons already well known.

Thus, negative, SpaceX will not make Net Neutrality Obsolete.

Not even by a long shot.


#27

No, it isn’t a technology or infrastructure problem. Satellite internet will never be competitive due to the speed of light.

Even when we have cold fusion, flying cars, super-intelligent AI, and cure the common cold, satellite internet will still suck. Speed of light is a harsh mistress.


#28

True enough.
Though it will always have it’s use case scenarios for those not in a market where ISP’s willingly provide services.


#29

That dirty bitch. Just joking. Very nice. I may quote you in future conversations. You may want to trademark that! :grinning:


#30

I agree 100%. To those with no other option, it is the only option.


#31

Indeed.

Though even my own use of “another decade before satellite’s potential competitiveness” was a stretch even for my own imagination. Yet it remains usefull for those in need of that particular means of connecting with the Internet at large.


#32

You’d be paying $20k for the initial investment. To get internet. If that sounds attractive, there’s something seriously wrong.


#33

It is if you live in the booonies and you want Google Fibre. It would pay for itself, you would save a lot in real estate and property taxes.


#34

You wouldn’t be getting google fiber. You’d be getting satellite internet. Have you ever used it?


#35

When split only with only 10 people? No.


#36

And realistically speaking mate, if Google were willing to extend services to the “boonies,” they could quite literally monopolize the entirety of that particular market. Which they do not and will not, simply because of the logistics required for the infrastructure to build out such a network.


#37

As @Ruffalo said, sharing with only 10 people won’t make the speed of light go up.


#38

The same is true with a direct fibre line. It’s light going through glass.


#39

Directed “light” going through “glass” with insulation mate.


#40

Fiber with a bandwidth of up to 1Gb/s (more in some places) and a latency of about 200ms pinging the other side of the planet, compared to about 50Mbit on satellite, and an average latency of 600-700 ms pinging the guy who lives next door.