DEBUNKING STARLINK

I’ve been fairly skeptical about Starlink since watching Common Sense Skeptic’s video, which I recommend: [VIDEO]

Few days ago I watched 'Debunking Starlink' video [0] (posted by @qsdf38100 in another thread [1] on Starlink) and it got me thinking. I am just a lay person, but, after watching it, am not so sure if Starlink is such a good idea. [0] [VIDEO] [1] [LINK]

I recently started researching into Starlink as my next (cheap) internet solution and stumbled upon these 2 videos below. The worst part for me is that once this becomes more popular the bandwidth will die down to crumble. I don't buy they will be able to upkeep with bandwidth sharing it from satellite to satellite using a.. laser beam (is that even possible to sync 2 satellites and send signal thru laser beam that has radius of 10 nm at distance of 1,000 km from one object to another traveling at 20,000km/s ?) [LINK] [VIDEO]

This video[0] seems to disagree with this. In particular it seems like there's a lot of recurring costs involved and this infrastructure is not super stable (the video talks about satelites having a shelf life of 5 years. We're not rebuilding fiber out every 5 years!) The videos "has an agenda" but it seems a bit easy to accept the idea that constantly launching satelites into space is pretty expensive. Infrastructure on the ground is expensive, but most people tend to not move around so at one point just building out lots of wires everywhere can work pretty well. Having great coverage across the globe is great! But especially after seeing that (super crappy!) satelite internet providers getting the same shit done with 3 satelites.... you're looking at the intersection of people needing access to fast internet who can't somehow take advantage of existing infra, _and_ who won't eventually get covered by ground infra (and I guess don't have trees around their house). [0]: [VIDEO]

> If he lies He lies; that is very core to my point and it isn't an if. Just fact check him. He lies. I'll save you some time: Here is a link to an article he screenshots: [LINK] Here is the time where he shows the screenshot: [VIDEO] Here is a sample from the debunking article about him which I linked in my first post: > 7:16 - CSS claims that the reported aspirational costs for the satellites is $250,000 each, citing this article. > A VERY IMPORTANT NOTE ON THIS SECTION OF THE VIDEO! > CSS screenshot the headline for this article, but removed “and Falcon 9 Costs Less than $30 Million”. Why? Because they just finished the section where they claimed Falcon 9 refurbished launches cost SpaceX $55 million each. This is a clear case of intentional dishonesty, rather than so many other instances that could be written off as merely being mistakes. It is far from the only such instance where their motives are obvious as well. Getting back to the topic at hand. My point is that his brand is these lies. He is like a flat earther conspiracy theorist. The lies are the point. The worldview is the point. His video isn't starting with lets look at the facts and get to the truth. Its starting with lets find a narrative that conforms to a view. You don't make the number of reasoning errors he makes while being genuine. Contrasting his behavior with reasonable critics - like Munro - is very revealing. Their opinions vary based on the observed facts instead of facts varying based on the predet