25 votes

Topic deleted by author

14 comments

  1. [4]
    Gaywallet
    Link
    Frankly, we shouldn't even pay that. We've already paid about triple that to the big telecom companies and they've done nothing with the money - we just refuse to hold them accountable.

    Frankly, we shouldn't even pay that. We've already paid about triple that to the big telecom companies and they've done nothing with the money - we just refuse to hold them accountable.

    23 votes
    1. [3]
      MimicSquid
      Link Parent
      Yes, but with Bernie's plan: No handing out subsidies to for-profit businesses, these would be public utilities. I also think we should claw back the subsidies we offered to the for-profit...

      Yes, but with Bernie's plan:

      municipalities and/or states [will] build publicly owned and democratically controlled, co-operative, or open access broadband networks.

      No handing out subsidies to for-profit businesses, these would be public utilities.

      I also think we should claw back the subsidies we offered to the for-profit companies for their failure to comply, but this would be independent of that.

      21 votes
      1. Gaywallet
        Link Parent
        Oh absolutely. I'm all in favor of that. I just think the entirety of the cost should be extracted from the companies which took close to triple that and did nothing.

        Oh absolutely. I'm all in favor of that. I just think the entirety of the cost should be extracted from the companies which took close to triple that and did nothing.

        15 votes
      2. DVNO42
        Link Parent
        That would be so nice. I build municipal ISPs and it's getting cheaper and cheaper to do (the equipment and upstream peering costs at least). Most clients (the to-be ISP) typically decide to offer...

        That would be so nice. I build municipal ISPs and it's getting cheaper and cheaper to do (the equipment and upstream peering costs at least). Most clients (the to-be ISP) typically decide to offer speeds WAY beyond what the local competition.

        2 votes
  2. [2]
    Flashynuff
    Link
    Here's the full plan, if you're interested. I haven't gone through it closely yet but it seems to be a pretty solid plan. I like the emphasis on infrastructure building -- current isps have been...

    Here's the full plan, if you're interested.

    I haven't gone through it closely yet but it seems to be a pretty solid plan. I like the emphasis on infrastructure building -- current isps have been absolutely fucking over rural communities & businesses.

    13 votes
    1. frostycakes
      Link Parent
      One thing I really love about the infrastructure plan: the "dig once" requirement for fiber conduits to be laid whenever roadwork/other projects that require digging are done. I honestly have no...

      One thing I really love about the infrastructure plan: the "dig once" requirement for fiber conduits to be laid whenever roadwork/other projects that require digging are done. I honestly have no idea why buried utilites aren't required to do this from the get go. The lines being buried is why my ISP is only upgrading areas with pole-mounted utilites and new construction with fiber, while the rest of us are stuck on copper lines they're letting rot away.

      I thought utility conduit had some means of running new lines along them without unburying, and finding out that they're not required to do these upgrades when a town is tearing up the street anyways for repavement or the like is kind of ridiculous.

      Even crazier is how my ISP is handling their rural upgrades. They're laying fiber out to curbside, newly-installed DSLAMS, but leaving the old copper lines past that. They're getting CAF money to do it, I can't see why just going fiber all the way past those DSLAMS is untenable. Most of the rural areas I've seen have polemounted utilites anyways (so no trenching), fiber doesn't have its speed drop off due to distance like DSL does (and IIRC even GPON has a longer effective distance than DSL does), and they've done the expensive and hard work of getting fiber 95% of the way there already. Even coming from a cost-cutting perspective, replacing the lines with fiber all the way makes sense due to lower maintenance costs. But no, shareholders need to milk their dividends at all costs.

      11 votes
  3. [8]
    skybrian
    Link
    I'm wondering if the upcoming satellite networks will become practical in rural areas? In the more remote areas it might be a whole lot cheaper to have some subsidized access to them.

    I'm wondering if the upcoming satellite networks will become practical in rural areas? In the more remote areas it might be a whole lot cheaper to have some subsidized access to them.

    4 votes
    1. [7]
      Flashynuff
      Link Parent
      if you're referring to something like SpaceX's Skylink, I really think we shouldn't go that route. It's proven extremely destructive to the night sky

      if you're referring to something like SpaceX's Skylink, I really think we shouldn't go that route. It's proven extremely destructive to the night sky

      5 votes
      1. [6]
        skybrian
        Link Parent
        That seems like a rather sweeping conclusion, that it can't be solved? The first version had some problems and astronomers are officially concerned. But perhaps their concerns can be addressed? I...

        That seems like a rather sweeping conclusion, that it can't be solved? The first version had some problems and astronomers are officially concerned. But perhaps their concerns can be addressed? I favor making sure that SpaceX and their competitors have incentive to make sure the astronomers are happy.

        4 votes
        1. [4]
          Flashynuff
          Link Parent
          How are you going to address the concern of "you've put too many satellites into space" after the fact? It is not a simple task to remove them from space if it turns out to be a huge mistake. I...

          How are you going to address the concern of "you've put too many satellites into space" after the fact? It is not a simple task to remove them from space if it turns out to be a huge mistake.

          I think the"move fast and break things" philosophy can be extremely effective in many contexts. I don't think it works for space, when the consequences of failure are significant and affect everyone regardless of if they have asked to be included in the project (which most people have not). SpaceX should address the concerns of scientists well before ANY satellite is put into orbit.

          8 votes
          1. skybrian
            Link Parent
            There is indeed a concern about space debris. It looks like SpaceX has a plan for that? For the lowest orbit they're doing (335km to 346km) atmospheric drag is supposed to be enough. For higher...

            There is indeed a concern about space debris. It looks like SpaceX has a plan for that? For the lowest orbit they're doing (335km to 346km) atmospheric drag is supposed to be enough. For higher orbits the plan is for the satellite to be in orbit 5-7 years and deorbit within a year. So, it doesn't seem like this is irreversible?

            Based on:
            https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/10/spacex-and-oneweb-broadband-satellites-raise-fears-about-space-debris/

            3 votes
          2. [2]
            pseudolobster
            Link Parent
            Since the trajectory of these satellites is known, and if it isn't they probably send out signals that can be used to identify them, wouldn't it be possible to modify telescopes or the data they...

            Since the trajectory of these satellites is known, and if it isn't they probably send out signals that can be used to identify them, wouldn't it be possible to modify telescopes or the data they save to edit them out? It'd produce holes in the data, but wouldn't create spurious data I'd think.

            Naturally that's not a great solution, but it's sorta the reality of the situation. Not every nation or company is going to get consensus before launching a satellite, and in the case of military satellites it's definitely in their interest not to.

            1 vote
            1. Flashynuff
              Link Parent
              I'm not an astronomer, so I don't know for sure. From what I have seen, the sheer number of satellites and where they are in orbit makes them exceptionally visible if they cross the path of an...

              I'm not an astronomer, so I don't know for sure. From what I have seen, the sheer number of satellites and where they are in orbit makes them exceptionally visible if they cross the path of an earth based telescope. If a telescope is doing some sort of long exposure, that's not going to be something you can just edit out.

              1 vote
        2. [2]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. skybrian
            Link Parent
            How do you know? I don't think it's quite as simple as painting them black, but I am not a satellite designer.

            How do you know? I don't think it's quite as simple as painting them black, but I am not a satellite designer.

            1 vote