• bluGill@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days 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
      2
      ·
      5 days 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
        ·
        4 days 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.

          • Dpek@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Frankly its just about as much as anyone should care

            Ohmmy’s comment is essentualy “its bad for the envirement” (as if its not true for everything) and “they should just deal with it as is” as an attempt to shutdown the arguement

            I very much dont see how it would have continued any other way (excludeing a few roundabouts)