Office apps looked like that in 1998 because it was an interface that worked. It never should have changed.

Well you’re absolutely right then, sorry for the confusion.

Nationalized fiber networks or locally managed municipal fiber has always been a winning proposition. I’ve heard so many success stories about those rollouts and the only opposition to them has come from big ISPs who are scared they’ll be replaced (because they should be). Unfortunately, that’s a really strong opposition… Those ISPs have so much money and so much power, they’re managing to shift legislation, pass laws that make municipal fiber systems illegal (for the benefit of the consumers of course).

That’s what the subsidies are for.

Yeah I’m not in favor of that, not again. The US has provided funding to ISPs to be used explicitly in expanding rural broadband access, we’ve done it on multiple occasions. Every time ISPs simply pocket the money and do nothing.

Fool me once, twice, three times…

So hey, if the US wants to have the FCC do it themselves, just hire crews to lay fiber, then sure. It’ll be inefficient and expensive, but it would at least get done. But I’m not in favor of giving a dime to the existing ISPs…

Some people live in places that aren’t connected to large electrical grids, they have local generation and micro grids for a small community. Isolated mountains or small islands, or deserts are good examples of these situations. So if connecting to the electrical grid wasn’t realistic I’m willing to bet that a fiber connection also isn’t realistic.

It’s hard to believe you think fiber can work for literally everything. I really don’t know why you’re bothering to dig in on this issue, it’s so easy to prove otherwise. I hadn’t even mentioned the use case of vehicles yet, boats, planes, trains, trucks, campers, obviously you can’t run fiber to a vehicle. Or truly remote locations where people don’t live, but researches work there, Antarctic bases, etc.

Also, I think you misunderstood my last line. I’m saying Starlink isn’t right for most people. I’m just not making things up to say that.

While it is possible for objects in orbit to be knocked into a higher orbit, it’s certainly not common. It basically requires a collision with another object in a highly elliptical orbit, this is not a kind of orbit we use very often.

Also, these low orbit constellations are simply nowhere near the majority of satellites, up in geostationary orbit. It’s not realistic to imagine any debris from LEO ever reaching GSO, the distance between is just too vast. In general, Kessler syndrome would only extend downward from higher orbit, extending up to a higher orbit would be extremely unlikely.

Also, while astronauts could die, we keep enough emergency escape vehicles docked for the entire iss crew. NASA is full of smart people and they’re generally risk adverse these days, I don’t think anyone would die, but it would certainly be a shame to evacuate the iss.

Plus, the EU and China are understandably worried about Musk being the only game up there and want to deploy their own equivalent systems. So now there’s not just one system of satellites threatening Kessler syndrome, but possibly three.

This is in fact a worrying situation. Not because I think Kesler syndrome is a realistic concern, but because there’s only so much space in low earth orbit. I really don’t like one company having a monopoly on low orbit communications, but having layers and layers of satellite constellations also seems like a dangerous situation.

Just roll out fiber everywhere like we have with electricity.

I’m all for that in theory, but whenever we dedicate funds to that cause… telecoms just walk away with it. If the US isn’t interested in holding them accountable, I don’t really see any reason to throw more money their way. That said, Starlink is doing fine, I see no reason to throw money at them either.

It’s crazy to say it doesn’t work well in tandem… I mean, it’s demonstrable, If it didn’t work, people wouldn’t use it, but they do. And there is no other way to reach users in some places. Starlink can reach users that only a long range wireless solution can work for. There are some other long range wireless solutions, but this one does work.

Look, I don’t like Elon, I don’t like monopolies, I’m not a secret shill for SpaceX, but I can admit the truth right in front of me. You don’t have to stretch the truth to say Starlink isn’t a good system for the vast majority of people, so why do it? Why create a false narrative? Why get all defensive about a technology?

And finally, I do not see any reason to care about an extra 5 ms latency.

Well the companies that want to lay fiber aren’t always the same ones who own the telephone poles. If they have to pay for that, that adds to costs.

Also, above ground cables are more exposed and need to be repaired more frequently. Falling trees can sever cables and simply swinging in the wind puts more wear on the cables over time. All together, it means that burying cables is more cost effective in the long term, but present higher upfront costs. Whereas above ground cables are cheaper upfront, but more expensive over time.

The high upfront costs are the bigger deal, but in general, they just don’t want to lay a mile of cable for a couple of users, regardless of how they’re doing it.

I mean, it’s not definitely a bad thing in principle… But given the current administration, I would worry about any company the government wants to get their hands into. I’d be worried if the us suddenly wanted to buy into Coca-Cola… But Intel is scarier.

Yeah, this is the point I was getting at, encrypted content tends to be personalized to individual users, not always I guess. But yeah, I’m not sure how much is left.

The peasants will still shit, count on it.

Besides, let’s not pretend this “AI replacing us all” narrative has any real lasting power. We see the same story constantly, company replaces workers with AI, company regrets it later. This AI sucks, it’s not there yet. You don’t really have to worry about it long term.

Don’t mistake the weather for the climate.

Ok, so actual question, How useful are CDN endpoints these days with https everywhere? Because most encrypted content is unique to a single web user, caching isn’t super useful. Also you can’t cache live content like video calls or online games. I’d imagine the percentage of cacheable content is actually fairly low these days. But like I said, I don’t actually know the answer to this, i’d be curious to hear your take.

Edit: it’s weird to get down votes for a question.

Well, now they know what it’s like to have a bachelor’s degree in any other field. Welcome to the club.

If you want a guaranteed job right away, go into medicine, or plumbing, those are safe bets. I expect people will always get sick and need to shit.

Uh, how often are you using the Internet to connect to a computer in your home town? Maybe 5% of the time?

I’ve never used Starlink, but with a basic understanding of geography and optics, I’m going to bet that in most scenarios the latency difference between Starlink and fiber is negligible, sometimes even being faster on Starlink, depending on the situation.

That said, I’m not suggesting Starlink is a realistic replacement for fiber, just that latency isn’t the big issue. (It has other serious issues)

Fiber should be deployed to rural addresses like yours

I don’t disagree, it should be deployed to rural areas. It’s never going to happen though, it’s just not profitable.

Sure, electrical infrastructure was deployed to the whole country, but it doesn’t need to be replaced and upgraded as frequently as Internet infrastructure does. Even if some rural areas do get fiber at some point, don’t expect the infrastructure to be upgraded regularly enough to stay comparable to denser areas.

You’re never going to find a company willing to do that job. We could do it at the national level, but I have my doubts that the country is headed in that direction.

Honestly, I think starlink is a fantastic idea in general, but this is clearly bullshit. Starlink works well in tandem with fiber, not as a replacement.

It’s just never going to be as cost effective as installed fiber. Fiber is obviously the right technology to use in heavily populated areas i.e. for the vast majority of Internet users. And where the population is sparse and laying fiber for individual customers is cost prohibitive, that is where satellite connectivity shines. If SpaceX or anyone else is pretending otherwise, they’re being blatantly deceitful and malicious. That’s not in Internet users’ best interest.