91–100 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3,000 from Amazon, 10,000 already approved from SpaceX, who knows how many will go up from various companies in Europe, China, India, etc... This is the beginning, not the end.
Yeah... still not enough. Millions probably wouldn't be enough. It's a really big sky.
And earth orbit is an even bigger surface area.
Anyone wanna offer me their hypothesis on what Amazon and other tech companies gain from offering internet to people who probably aren't valuable consumers?
One of Starlink's planned markets is global high frequency trading. The latency of radio and laser transmission in atmosphere and space is much lower than undersea fiber optic cables. (Light moves significantly slower through glass than through air.) Even with the longer distance and retransmission they stand a good chance of being lower latency across oceans than undersea cables.
Anyone wanna offer me their hypothesis on what Amazon and other tech companies gain from offering internet to people who probably aren't valuable consumers?
Not valuable? Ships, oil rigs, airplanes, remote vacation destinations (e.g. ski lodges), etc have lots of money and a good concentration of rich people with lots of money.
Anyone wanna offer me their hypothesis on what Amazon and other tech companies gain from offering internet to people who probably aren't valuable consumers?
I live in West Virginia and have no household access to broadband internet service. (No cable or DSL available here) The square mile around me has dozens of homes with incomes above the US median. Our area is not especially rugged, but the West Virginia government is both corrupt and incompetent. We are all cheering on Starlink and this new effort from Amazon. The only question is whether 5G will get here first!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Satellites are outside the regulatory authority of countries they operate over. They can do far more of value than merely provide Internet access to poor people.
Satellites also have to be specialty built for their purpose. You can't just take a small communications satellite, attach a small camera, and have a spy satellite. Well you "could" but it would be so crappy that it'd be useless. Also LEO satellites lose their altitude rather quickly, not a great investment for spy satellites. > Satellites are outside the regulatory authority of countries they operate over. Except th…
To say nothing of the implicit value in denying an adversary access to that information.
Anyone wanna offer me their hypothesis on what Amazon and other tech companies gain from offering internet to people who probably aren't valuable consumers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of Starlink's planned markets is global high frequency trading. The latency of radio and laser transmission in atmosphere and space is much lower than undersea fiber optic cables. (Light moves significantly slower through glass than through air.) Even with the longer distance and retransmission they stand a good chance of being lower latency across oceans than undersea cables.
I did the math on this. It probably wouldn't be good for hft. The highly profitable hft is done on the floor of the nyse. There's some from Boston but they typically use directed radio instead of fiber-optic. Satellites will be even slower, but maybe cheaper if you're sending date from California or Australia. But it's still probably cheaper (and more profitable) to put a machine on the floor or even just in NYC. I'm…
Who else thinks these systems deliver wireless high speed Internet faster than 5G?
In any case there's no official data from Starlink, on costs, on speeds, total througput or almost anything (if I'm wrong on this please post links!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
High speed trading. You can send a packet faster from London to nyc via a LEO network than an underwater fiber.
Why are there people investing so much money on these things, filling up the space, just for some stupid trading. Why is humanity doing this ??