News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Starlink Direct to Cell by zo1 on Monday November 25, 2024 @01:20AM (#42233741)
And this is why we can't have nice, cheap things. Instead we usually get that "cost" pressure solved by giving it on a silver platter to worker-rights-leading China.

There has to be a better way to prevent abuses in the market without crippling it. But following from that, at what point did we assume this kind of (monopolistic) abuse would happen automatically anyways? I haven't seen it yet, so let's maybe hold off till it happens?

Maybe one day X will host all sorts of government-unapproved content on satellites that are free from US jurisdiction and control? @Elon, do this now, they'll come for you eventually.

Re:Starlink Direct to Cell by s1artibartfast on Monday November 25, 2024 @01:50AM (#42233860)
it is a fascinating outcome when a vertically integrated monopoly is the cheapest option, and best consumer value. The challenge is figuring out if the firm is really providing the best value, or just a local minimum.
Re:Starlink Direct to Cell by modeless on Monday November 25, 2024 @02:06AM (#42233918)
My understanding is Standard Oil provided good service for low prices in most cases. It's not always the case that monopolies provide super expensive or bad service.
Re:Starlink Direct to Cell by MichaelZuo on Monday November 25, 2024 @03:43PM (#42239972)
Yes, hence why it lasted for over a decade even with >>50% of the market in many jurisdictions.
Re:Starlink Direct to Cell by DanielHB on Monday November 25, 2024 @04:50AM (#42234749)
> vertically integrated monopoly is the cheapest option

I would like to remind you that you can use google, gmail, google maps, google drive and a bunch of other services for free (and the best consumer value even if accounting for their data gathering).