I’ll be short with you.: I don’t care how much nicer starlink is, putting that many satellites into low earth orbit all the time is not good for the climate. The few thousand people on ships at any given time can wait to stream high def porn or download it while at port. All the needed uses of the internet can be met via slow higher orbiting satellites.
Wait so you’re saying the ships, just the ships moving across the pacific are enough reason to have low earth orbit satellites in such quantity they impede things as simple as looking at the stars? The ships can get internet from higher earth orbit satellites that don’t have to be constantly replaced. We haven’t been choosing between internet and no internet with starlink, there has been satallite internet way before starlink and there will be way after. All it takes is a less cooperative FAA not allowing so many rocket launches for the AI nazi company and slowly holes form in the coverage as the satellites burn up.
Idk if we can call first past the post, winner take all, electoral college, elections as comparable to most European elections. If anything, the US president is lawfully closer to a king than many modern democracies.
Give it 50 years of replacing satellites and I am willing to bet a one time install of fiber would have been cheaper.
Starlink has always been a shitty cell service at best. Only now the towers have to be entirely replaced every three or so years if memory serves.
Coulda just run fiberoptic but that would be the boring solution with a lower return.
High speed internet from constantly decaying satellites is not necessary.