There have been satellite based ISPs for a lot longer than StarLink has existed. They tend to be insanely high latency (even Starlink is at minimum when tested before widely deployed by Linus Tech Tips I think 19ms or so? Whereas even a regional terrestrial WISP [Wireless ISP] such as etheric.net in the SF Bay area will be closer to 2ms average even from miles away from their towers). Satellite ISPs that predate StarLink such as HughesNet, tend to have bandwidth caps and charge a lot for data overages.

StarLink, from a satellite ISP vantage, has newer birds with higher bandwidth and lower orbits and probably more competitive pricing to end users. But a lot of SpaceX is subsidized (they gobbled up something like 1/12th of NASA's 24 billion dollar budget in 2023/2024 I think?) so real world costs are being insulated from end users (ironically who are probably paying the taxes that Elon Musk isn't so not very good insulation so much as manipulation).

I can't help but imagine that it's probably still less expensive, in terms of real world materials to trench fiber for FTTH/last mile more or less everywhere on Earth where people live and it would be faster, lower latency and more efficient in terms of rare earth materials too (something like 50km of single mode fiber could be had for $5k or less depending on what kind of insulation you wanted, or even under $1k USD for 50km of uninsulated single mode fiber) 50km of fiber optics is nothing to snub your nose at and Ditch Witch trenching equipment, doesn't cost as much as a rocket either. Even SpaceX launching 50 Starlink satellites at "low" costs is still tens of millions of dollars.

How many Ditch Witches and tens of thousands of km of single mode insulated fiber optic cables could be purchased, trenched and connected? The most expensive parts are probably going to be the switches and routers. 800Gbps Ethernet already exists and is being sold but is going to cost a pretty penny because that's more or less the latest and greatest gear. But 10Gbps 48port switches are getting relatively inexpensive (especially given that SGI had 10Gbps interconnects in the 1990s) and increasingly sold by no name or less respectable brands in the networking space (cough Ubiquiti cough finally has redundant PSUs! I still wouldn't trust them nor waste my $ on them, but they are definitely cheap, though you can probably buy used Arista and even Cisco 10Gbps gear for less) and 40Gbps and 100Gbps gear is dropping in price too.

Other advantages of fiber, other than being terrestrial and lower latency and higher bandwidth: no light pollution to annoy astronomers.

The last time I ran the numbers, it seemed as if fiber deployments would still be a huge win, but the USA has done stupid things like over provisioned fiber deployments in places like Portland in the 1990s during the dot bomb era so that it's got 20x more fiber than it needs for everyone to have it, but so many companies went belly up that a lot of it remained dark and is unmaintained. Or places like San Francisco where there was a municipal fiber deployment, but then hegemonic companies swooped in and basically bribed the local legislators to make sure only Comcast/Xfinity/etc. could control most of it, meaning that other local ISPs (e.g. Sonic.net or LMi.Net) basically have to then sink their own $ into deploying their own layer 1 fiber networks because they can't depend on the "shared carrier" stuff from which DSL providers benefited. It's a mess more because of greed than anything else.

StarLink is like when your rich asshole neighbor sets up a huge WiFi AP that oversaturates everything else, but then wants to charge people for the "privilege" of using it, instead of just leaving it open like a library or coffee shop might. Because Elon Musk cares more about irresponsible profits and making himself richer than anything else as far as can be discerned.

It's "easier" but it isn't better and I would posit: it's probably not even cheaper. Especially if factoring latency and bandwidth.

CC: @spacefriday.bsky.social@bsky.brid.gy

There's been a lot of canaries in the coalmine with Gaiman for many years, though I guess recently more stuff came out?

Those kinds of patterns seem to repeat themselves a lot.

I seem to recall around the time when the metoo hashtag was doing numbers, there was an interview with Terry Gilliam and the interviewer went off on Gilliam where Gilliam was basically pointing out how a lot of men with wealth and power (e.g. Harvey Weinstein) basically use their wealth and power to be abusers. He wasn't defending Weinstein nor being an apologist, but the interviewer was basically misinterpreting Gilliam's comments as such, when my read was more Gilliam was articulating, "water is wet" when it comes to fame, riches and folks abusing positions of power. Also see: Marilyn Manson, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen; or historically folks like Christopher Columbus and many robber barons and kings of yore.

Not to say there is a guarantee that someone who has fame and fortunes is going to be an abuser, but it's one of those things where the temptations and ability to give into them are more likely to be available? Mahatma Gandhi forcing young girls to sleep in bed with him being another example that seems to fit that pattern.

The Captain Crunch thing strikes a chord too. I remember being at ToorCon some years ago (maybe even after I had given a panel where Captain Crunch had been added last minute) and later someone else talking about Crunch having invited the guy up to his room. I and others warned him about stories we had heard about "energy clearing" and whatnot turning into unwanted advances and he was surprised, but hopefully protected thanks to our warnings?

Admittedly, I do know folks who do energy work and whatnot and are more than happy to educate others with regards to more esoteric energetic systems involving chakras and purification mediation exercises and more, but those kinds of activities are typically taught in a very different manner. Not, "hey come up to my hotel room later" to complete strangers.

Legit instructors tend to have lineages established over centuries if not millennia and inner door disciples are the sorts who get the more advanced teachings while less serious students are weeded out before the lessons (verbal, or written, not physical) even begin with regards to tantric practices and things that could be misconstrued or abused by less ethical practitioners with deleterious results for everyone involved. At least, from responsible instructors.

There are some who are a lot more caviler and dangerous in what they share (as one of my teachers would describe it they are essentially "vampiric" and predating upon those who are too young or naive to know better); Captain Crunch seems to be of the latter sort as far as any rumor mill I have ever encountered with regards to such things.

How many priests within the Catholic church have been revealed to have had similar predatory circles? Even if the realms of power are relatively removed from mainstream fame, the dynamics at play with power imbalances seem to operate in a very human manner time and time again with predictable outcomes. ;(

Elon Musk seems to be on another level from my vantage. How many people have such a gaping void in their life they feel a need to be CEO of multiple companies or horde hundreds of billions of dollars? In striving to be compassionate, I acknowledge that he did lose a child apparently. I'm an alienated parent and that caused all kinds of emotional turmoil but at least my kids are still all alive? But I wasn't born into wealth and so whatever fuel can be poured on my flames aren't going to result in acting out to the level of Elon Musk brazenly doing Nazi salutes in front of audiences of thousands. That guy is seemingly incomprehensible from my vantage no matter how much I strive to see whatever sliver of radiant light may be buried beneath all the BS, there's just way too much BS there.

My guess is a lot of people around Elon Musk, aren't comfortable around him. Maybe terrified? Or maybe some see the wealth as a proxy for something else, or have their own ulterior motives? Those are just guesses though, I don't think I have ever known a billionaire.

I have to do enough mental gymnastics to try to understand why Taylor Swift needs two private jets. Is one not sufficient? Only Christopher Nolan's Inception has a SciFi potential threat model where if one's private jet is sabotaged, and your corporate nemesis buys out the airline in which a first class ticket was booked because you couldn't fly your private jet, so as to make sure every other first class passenger is part of an op to drug and play psychological warfare games, but really how plausible is that threat model for anyone? Let alone that anyone being Taylor Swift? She's just a musician after all, right? Though I guess some celebrities have been secret agents, how many of them had a need for two private jets? It seems, highly unlikely such threat models have many real world merits. If I am being charitable, maybe she has two private jets so her band can fly while she goes solo, or maybe if one is being repaired or maybe she's being predated upon by Boeing or whatever because she's rich and they want her money? But I dunno. two private jets? I'll be 50 later this year and I have never even flown a first class flight. I have ambitions to get a pilot's license someday too and I can't imagine owning a jet, let alone two. Some folks seem to be rich beyond comprehension.