Products > Dodgy Technology

Starlink - serious or money relocation?

<< < (10/10)

Rick Law:

--- Quote from: wraper on December 09, 2021, 10:16:13 pm ---...
By your narrow-minded thinking you completely miss that Starlink can reverse that. You can have many benefits of a town, yet live in a rural area. You can run your internet based business from a middle of nowhere and be successful at that. Many people live in cities and towns because they need it, not because they like it. And COVID restrictions remove those remaining benefits of living in urban area.
4G tower for 50 people, or Starlink dish for each household, what is more affordable and works better?

--- End quote ---

I will take it as a compliment.  Thanks for the nice words.

Being narrow, it affords me depth.  With depth comes a keen view.  Yes, Starlink is a solution for the short term, and may even be cheaper and/or better than other available solutions for now.  For the long term, the numbers just doesn't appear to add up.  As subscribers increase, both their variable cost and fix cost balloons while performance drop.  So, it does not look promising as a long term solution.

I see Starlink current presence as being there to absorb government aid as long as governments are willing.  Once government aids era is over, with investers likely disappeared as well, Starlink will be gone except the junk that will orbit our planet for years to come.  Whole satellites may eventually de-orbit by themselves even without the ground controlling facilities, but debris from those failed before de-orbiting and those failing automatic de-orbit satellites will be left in orbits.  Collisions will take them to different orbits, some ends up in higher and longer lasting orbits.  They will be endangering near-earth space for eons to come.

This is not like other short-term adventures that looks great for customers and we can use it while it is there, say good-bye when it is gone all without further negative impact.  Orbiting junk will be left behind leaving danger for decades or centuries.   This is more like a unshielded nuclear plant, cheap to build so it provides cheap power -- for the short term, then company fails and left the radioactive material for others to clean up for eons to come.

Therefore my view is: sooner Starlink is gone, the better.


--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on December 11, 2021, 01:17:38 am ---
--- Quote ---Regarding Starlink the biggest thing I'm curious about is how they accomplish the routing and ground station uplinks. It seems they talk a lot about intersatellite laser links, but most of traffic will go from users to terrestrial Internet, not between users.
--- End quote ---

Maybe the satellites are the backbone. Users uplink to whatever passing satellite and the constellation routes to the appropriate downlink for the service connected to. Vice-versa for the uplink. So ground stations would be close to sources to minimise ground links.

--- End quote ---

The links between satellites are only good for a local distribution network, the data throughput isn't sufficient for a backbone. Starlink has asked the FCC to approve 32 ground stations in the US.

As an asset class we can prolly consider this less of a tech stock and more of a infrastructure/transport stock.

A lot of numbers get thrown around. But at the end of the day once the investment is finally established, the headroom, bandwidth, capacity etc gets gobbled up pretty quickly.

As I say, regard it like a toll road/highway if you really want to invest your hard earned.

Will anyone argue with me that as soon as more bandwidth is made available, the video streamers always up the bandwidth and resolution to saturation?


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Go to full version