Editor’s note: This commentary is by Mark Alexander, of Rochester, a retired software engineer who worked in Silicon Valley for 39 years.
In a recent commentary, Jock Gill writes that SpaceX Starlink, Elon Musk’s network of thousands of satellites, is superior to fiber to home for broadband. His commentary ignores the many disadvantages of wireless internet systems.
Gill estimates that the cost to Vermont for fiber to the home is $4,500 per location, but does not back up that claim with a link. Gill says “Let’s do the math,” but doesn’t show us where he got his figures.
Starlink is similar to 5G that it transmits microwaves in highly directional beams in the 20 GHz region. This means that we (and all living things) are going to be irradiated with even more powerful microwaves than we were with 4G and previous wireless systems, all without our consent.
Many scientists are deeply concerned about the effects of this ever-increasing dose of radiation on living things, and there are already many people who are highly sensitive to the weaker radiation emitted by Wi-Fi and 4G antennas. It’s time to use the precautionary principle and call a halt to these new sources of radiation, which have not been studied for health effects, before more damage is done.
By contrast, users of fiber internet service can turn off the Wi-Fi transmitter in their home routers and connect via ethernet cables if they choose to have a microwave-free home. Hard-wired ethernet cable systems also provide much better quality, especially when cameras are in use for Zoom, Gotomeeting and other commonly used online platforms, because cameras require much more bandwidth.
Compared with fiber to the home, Starlink (and 5G in general) is hugely inefficient. It requires the launching of hundreds of polluting, kerosene-powered rockets. The satellites themselves have a limited lifespan of approximately five to seven years, after which time they must be sent back to earth as flaming space junk. Even the earliest crop of Starlink satellites are already obsolete. The ground stations and home terminals themselves are also power-hungry devices, since they must be able to transmit microwaves to satellites that are over 300 miles away. Is this the kind of technology we want to use if we’re truly interested in reducing our energy consumption?
Speaking of planned obsolescence, history tells us that wireless technology is constantly being upgraded, requiring both providers and users to discard their old devices and buy new ones. We’ve seen this in the progression of cellular technology, from analog to 2G, to 3G, to 4G, and now to 5G. There’s no reason to believe that Starlink is any different. By contrast, fiber to the home is far more future proof. To take one example, ECFiber doubled the speed of their lowest cost service without any price increases or forced equipment upgrades.
The cost to the user is likely to be higher with Starlink than it is with fiber to the home. Starlink hasn’t announced their fees, but it is estimated to be around $80 per month, and the installation cost could be around $300. By contrast, ECFiber’s lowest cost service from ECFiber is $72 per month, and that is for service that is 25 MBs for both uploads and downloads; the installation cost for most users is $99.
Wireless internet systems are inherently less secure and less reliable than wired systems (such as fiber to the home). We’ve already seen examples of this in the use of cell tower-mimicking devices by police departments. Wireless systems are also subject to disruption by weather and obstacles of all sorts, including walls and trees.
Vermont needs to avoid the use of short term wireless solutions to the broadband gap. Fiber to the home and other wired internet systems are efficient, safe, secure, cost-effective, high quality and future-proof.
