Nearly half of humanity doesn't have Internet access, not a few rednecks in the boonies. That's billions of people, the world is much larger then the US.
And it's not even just some rednecks in the boonies in the US either. My dad's house in Maine is just 10 minutes from a fairly sizable city (by Maine standards). He can get maybe 1Mbps down and the houses further down the road can't get wired Internet at all. Cell phone reception is also almost non-existent.
Being ten minutes from a city, it seems a single cell tower would solve the issue much better than a satellite no? In that instance, satellites feel like a work around for poor development practices (whether that be city or state regulation, or provider investment) than a reasonable solution.
Maybe, there aren't enough houses to justify the cost, sure. I figured that probably wasn't the case given the proximity to a city.
I'm not arguing that a satellite solves the problem of remote data access generally, they definitely do. My original question was whether or not that specific use case is worth the cost to science.
They don't solve access generally, so the other threads which reference large swaths of the planet not having internet yet feel beside the point to me. The vast majority of humanity lives in densely populated areas, and therefore these satellite based systems still won't solve that problem.
Yes, but these constellations aren't designed to serve 'everyone without internet', they are designed to serve areas with low population density where physical connections are financially infeasible, hence my usage of 'boonies'.
