Re: Starlink Debunked
Ok, I decided to see what this was about. While the presenter is clearly biased against Starlink, the points raised aren't wrong. Here's a summary for those who don't want to watch:
1. It will be expensive to send up so many satellites and sell the equipment at a loss, so the predictions for revenue are very optimistic. This isn't really a surprise for a Musk company.
2. Starlink is worse than fiber service. Duh.
3. Starlink has worse bandwidth and better latency than geosynchronous satellite. Duh.
4. It clutters up the orbit. If you didn't know this already, you weren't paying attention. This leads to problems for land-based astronomy, future launches, and other users.
5. Failed satellites haven't automatically fallen like they were supposed to.
These points put together don't "debunk" Starlink; that was a poorly chosen name. They raise valid objections to it, most of which are well-known already. When you consider them in the context of the article, the only change is to slightly weaken the first objection--if they manage to get phone service over their satellites, that adds another set of possible subscribers which could make more money and make their revenue targets more reasonable (although it's still Musk, so don't expect it to be perfect now).