• bluGill@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    No, I’m saying that the ships would like it. Also having used geosynchronous satellite internet I have first hand experience that the lag sucks. Better than nothing, but Starlink has less lag. Probably faster but I don’t know what the latest speeds are. Still geosynchronous covers a lot of area which means you are sharing with a lot of people.

    Cruise ships pay a lot for internet because their customers want it. Crew on all ships want it for their breaks.

    Starlink isn’t worth it for just the above, but add in rural people on land and it makes sense. Though I understand the astronomers hate it.

    • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I’ll be short with you.: I don’t care how much nicer starlink is, putting that many satellites into low earth orbit all the time is not good for the climate. The few thousand people on ships at any given time can wait to stream high def porn or download it while at port. All the needed uses of the internet can be met via slow higher orbiting satellites.

      • deadcream@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Lots of things are not necessary and are bad for the climate. You likely enjoy many of them. You start by reducing your own consumption.