Starlink

[LouNY]

Thankyou

 

[Fixastuff]

Insults but no facts to counter my facts. Typical cult member.
You are now on IGNORE, kemosabe.

Could you please quote the part if your link that says satellites aren't real?

 

[Oaktree]

It's why it is nice to have two reliable ISPs when you live in rural areas and WFH.

Doesn't having a reliable ISP sort of negate the need for Starlink in the first place? Seems to me that most who go that route have few other options.

 

[BigBlue1]

Insults but no facts to counter my facts. Typical cult member.
You are now on IGNORE, kemosabe.

Dude, just stop. You're wasting bandwidth with useless babble. Nothing you're saying makes any sense.

 

[BigBlue1]

Doesn't having a reliable ISP sort of negate the need for Starlink in the first place? Seems to me that most who go that route have few other options.

You may be inaccurately assuming I have something like a cable-based ISP or fiber option available. That is not the case in rural area we reside in. I do have "few other options".

In a rural area like I am, I have 4 choices: cell-based LTE hotspot, Starlink, DSL and a point-to-point wireless ISP. Cell hotspot has limited bandwidth (or at least a threat of limit). DSL is super slow (absolute max of 5Mb/s, typically 2-4) because we're at max distance from the POP for copper line. Point-to-point wireless would require buildout of a 55' antenna tower with a cost at or above $1500 and it is also bandwidth limited. So we have Starlink as primary and AT&T hotspot as secondary. When you WFH having two reliable ISPs is important. This is what we have available and our config works great for us, but it isn't like we have a 1Gb/s fiber ISP option to choose over Starlink. Before Starlink we were def pushing limits of what we had access to. Starlink is a game changer for us.

 

[tradosaurus]

Dude, just stop. You're wasting bandwidth with useless babble. Nothing you're saying makes any sense.

That's because your eyes aren't open.

 

[tradosaurus]

Could you please quote the part if your link that says satellites aren't real?

The link supports the claim of no satellites. It should be painfully obvious that there are no satellites in orbit as there is no proof.
People claim to see the ISS from the ground but should be able to see the 20,000+ satellites too. No pictures of satellites.
High altitude balloons prove that internet coverage is happening (as well as antennas and towers).

 

[Fixastuff]

The link supports the claim of no satellites. It should be painfully obvious that there are no satellites in orbit as there is no proof.
People claim to see the ISS from the ground but should be able to see the 20,000+ satellites too. No pictures of satellites.
High altitude balloons prove that internet coverage is happening (as well as antennas and towers).

Did you read the article? Here is a excerpt from it.

"If World View can push its technology beyond testing, Stratollites might be stationed high over cities or regions to deliver fine resolution imagery on demand. That can’t be done from space today, because low Earth orbit satellites whiz over their imaging targets at intervals and geostationary satellites must fly at 35,000 kilometers above the equator. World View says Stratollites would cost an estimated 1 percent of a conventional satellite’s price to operate,"

They clearly think satellites are real and see them as competition.

 

[Cougsfan]

Of course satellites couldn't be real because they supposedly circle the round earth that is really flat. Right Tradasaurus? And nobody can possibly miss-prove your religion and your beliefs because what ever facts people present are nothing more than a giant conspiracy of lies designed to take your beloved money.
When I was 12 years-old I developed this theory that the whole world was created for no other purpose than to make me miserable. Fortunately I moved on from that stage.

 

[BigBlue1]

Darn, this forum needs a "LOL!" post reaction...