Well then, outside of regulatory shenanigans, this might suggest that it was not presently economically viable for existing telecoms to extend traditional Internet upgrades to certain low density rural areas in the US. And if that it is the case, then hundreds of billions of capex dollars poured into starlink satellite internet is likely NOT going to find a customer base to provide enough demand or margin to justify those capex investments, especially once government subsidies / tax-payed funded contracts dry up. Hence, SPCX is a capital destroying malinvestment machine.
Providing a solution to a problem that loses money doesn’t mean the problem isn’t real, it just means the solution isn’t likely to be around that long in the grand scheme of things.
Anyways, addressing the marginal cost of energy would be far more effect way to improve the economic is extending services to low density areas. It would be, quite objectively, one the best things we could do for the economy at large and for human flourishing in general.
For instance, we’ve had 18 years of Elon Tesla, it might be time to start judging the company by its performance rather than just the weight of Elon’s ambition. Also electric cars only make sense in areas of high density (which the US is largely bereft of), powered by a nuclearized grid, but whatever…
Moon
npub1th…m930q
2026-10-09 18:31:18 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…86yt
Author Public Key
npub1th6p84x9u5p4lagglkvm8zepa2dq4s9eanp57vcj4w5652kafads7m930qPublished at
2026-10-09 18:31:18 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "80bb12f92f611ce786522d369b12b945beee854c0e2351a9089279b8b59763d5",
"pubkey": "5df413d4c5e5035ff508fd99b38b21ea9a0ac0b9ecc34f3312aba9aa2add4f5b",
"created_at": 1791570678,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0000ea0996d66461d32b4238d7c6e4fc23d25362a819f11ee05568e5151b81bf",
"wss://nostr.wine/",
"root",
"9267545d2917b80f707ffdb44a8ff979182568ef7baa04ee756b1f01d4e3688a"
],
[
"e",
"2e8a93c540b026f8c025f6968aaad0aff6dc2a6b2467cbf496659e2fa8ea0283",
"wss://relay.primal.net",
"reply",
"036533caa872376946d4e4fdea4c1a0441eda38ca2d9d9417bb36006cbaabf58"
],
[
"p",
"9267545d2917b80f707ffdb44a8ff979182568ef7baa04ee756b1f01d4e3688a"
],
[
"p",
"036533caa872376946d4e4fdea4c1a0441eda38ca2d9d9417bb36006cbaabf58"
],
[
"client",
"Damus"
]
],
"content": "Well then, outside of regulatory shenanigans, this might suggest that it was not presently economically viable for existing telecoms to extend traditional Internet upgrades to certain low density rural areas in the US. And if that it is the case, then hundreds of billions of capex dollars poured into starlink satellite internet is likely NOT going to find a customer base to provide enough demand or margin to justify those capex investments, especially once government subsidies / tax-payed funded contracts dry up. Hence, SPCX is a capital destroying malinvestment machine. \n\nProviding a solution to a problem that loses money doesn’t mean the problem isn’t real, it just means the solution isn’t likely to be around that long in the grand scheme of things. \n\nAnyways, addressing the marginal cost of energy would be far more effect way to improve the economic is extending services to low density areas. It would be, quite objectively, one the best things we could do for the economy at large and for human flourishing in general. \n\nFor instance, we’ve had 18 years of Elon Tesla, it might be time to start judging the company by its performance rather than just the weight of Elon’s ambition. Also electric cars only make sense in areas of high density (which the US is largely bereft of), powered by a nuclearized grid, but whatever…",
"sig": "232ab69cf0c5c97ffff6c3cb33edff17e7b7dae76e6f5cf14c7afc11ff849af6076f3d34ecaa084f739a8e71ce57202e150ae44e9318fe686e66c6d7a4d64dc0"
}