Despite that, ISPs claim that prices for the low-cost option should be calculated based on “the economic realities of deploying and operating networks in the highest cost, hardest-to-reach areas.”
Frankly, in the hardest-to-reach areas, I’m not sure that it makes sense to subsidize terrestrial ISPs at all. Hard-to-reach rural areas are Starlink’s bread-and-butter.
I can’t imagine tying my only communications with the outside world to the whims of an unhinged lunatic who has proven that he’s willing to ruin good things just because he feels like it that day.
Frankly, in the hardest-to-reach areas, I’m not sure that it makes sense to subsidize terrestrial ISPs at all. Hard-to-reach rural areas are Starlink’s bread-and-butter.
Musk is already a problem for national security, if we’re going to use Starlink even more, the government needs to just seize the company
I can’t imagine tying my only communications with the outside world to the whims of an unhinged lunatic who has proven that he’s willing to ruin good things just because he feels like it that day.
Other satellite internet options are available (or will be soonish)
Oneweb is live, although they aim more at ISPs and businesses.
The Amazon one might happen if New Glen ever gets of the ground (although it’s launching on other providers too)
The upfront cost for Starlink is insane for most people, especially those in rural areas.
It’s way less than the cost of running a fiber line out there though!
So potentially subsidise the starling terminal instead.