• Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 hours ago

    And they first batches of the current network are at their end of life. That means that with the same level of investment, growth will slow down, which is terrible for venture capital.

    And orbital mechanics is a bitch. You can’t add more speed to a certain area (like a city with a lot of people) and less to the empty ocean. So there’s a harsh density limit to your subscribes.

    • GrosPapatouf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I mean, the need for internet satellite is mostly in low density areas. In big cities fiber will always be cheaper and more reliable (except maybe in the US where operators are allowed to fuck you). I hate Musk and I guess Starlink is squeezing their monopoly position right now, but I’m not 100% sure they are not profitable.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Yeah, the big problem is that by definition most people live in the places where most people live. Urbanisation is over 80% in Europe and the US (and European countries hold a much looser definition of “urban” than the US).

        To increase service to most people, you need to upgrade the entire world, which is expensive.

        I’m not 100% sure they are not profitable.

        I am. They’re reporting a profit right now because theyre calling the cost of new satellites as “investment” and not expenses. In a few years, when every satellite launched is a replacement, those “investments” become running costs, and there goes the profit.