I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.
So, generally, “nations” are not connected via undersea cables, continents are.
So, yes, repairing one, maybe two, would be reconnecting an entire national network. Which is STILL cheaper than replacing a mass of Starlink sats… Which, btw, need replacing routinely anyways, because their orbits decay purposefully.
So, every 5 years, we need spend tens of billions to launch another set of trains, just to have them fall into the ocean after 5 years of service. Just to obtain a service that is cheaper, and doesn’t require nearly as much regular investment if we just used fiber.
I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems. And, you also don’t understand that without connected ground stations, served by those “at risk fiber networks on the ground” (That you purport as very risky), Starlink doesn’t work, either.
I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.
I think you didn’t quite understand. I’m not talking about just undersea cables. An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.
I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.
Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.
I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems.
https://www.leadventgrp.com/blog/submarine-cable-damage-and-repair-claims-and-remedial-measures
Whoops, there you go again comparing the impact and resolution of a single cable to an entire national network.
That’s… um… how it works? It’s generally one, maybe two, cables connecting continents: https://dabrownstein.com/2015/06/30/charting-interconnectedness-in-undersea-internet-cables/
I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.
So, generally, “nations” are not connected via undersea cables, continents are.
So, yes, repairing one, maybe two, would be reconnecting an entire national network. Which is STILL cheaper than replacing a mass of Starlink sats… Which, btw, need replacing routinely anyways, because their orbits decay purposefully.
So, every 5 years, we need spend tens of billions to launch another set of trains, just to have them fall into the ocean after 5 years of service. Just to obtain a service that is cheaper, and doesn’t require nearly as much regular investment if we just used fiber.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems. And, you also don’t understand that without connected ground stations, served by those “at risk fiber networks on the ground” (That you purport as very risky), Starlink doesn’t work, either.
I think you didn’t quite understand. I’m not talking about just undersea cables. An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.
I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.
Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.