There's so very much rural France. They'd need a colossal influx of well paid remote labour moving to the country to make the sums work.

I think the goal is social, to ensure that rural France isn't abandoned further than it was since the 1990s.

But also, having dial-up in 2017 is wild for me to think about.

I do wonder if ultimately via having everyone on fiber it pays for itself ultimately, since you don't have to "convert" anyone's internet between different mediums, you can also sunset all sorts of legacy equipment that's no longer in use since fiber is it.

Perhaps they've learned from seeing what happened when we in the États-unis did that.

Isn't starlink and its competitors a cheaper way for rural places to get fast internet?

StarLink tops out in the 300mbit range, and has anaemic uplink speeds, whereas most fibre rollouts offer symmetrical gigabit. The latency over StarLink is also 2-5x higher than rural fibre.

StarLink beats the hell out of the copper phone lines / DSL connections a bunch of these rural communities were running on before the fibre rollout, but it's no match for proper fibre. And assuming France has price controls like Spain, the fibre will be cheaper into the bargain

I'm guessing that right now many countries wouldn't like the idea of areas being served solely by an American ISP.

There's a lot more when it comes to Starlink:

- The obvious political point: that ISP is subject to laws in a country that is testing its legal framework and diplomacy in new (some may say unpredictable) ways.

- The first rule of public funding is that the money goes back to the public in some way. Roughly all (if not all) of the jobs for starlink go to the US, whereas fiber installation in France employs French people.

- Paying for Starlink is a terrible investment because the entire constellation is disposable. Every satellite will burn up in roughly 5 years and the whole network would go dead without more launches. Fiber, once installed, is at least serviceable.

- Another political point, but the only company that can launch replacements economically is also subject to laws in that same country.

Starlink hands an awesome amount of semi-soft power to whatever country controls it. It doesn't really matter what country that is: it's a huge strategic liability to anyone who doesn't hold the keys. Until there's at least another player in the game I'd expect a lot of countries to be wary.

Ironically, that could mean Starlink/SpaceX really needs a competitor before it can become a universal solution.

Satellite services make an end run through a lot of bullshit, that’s true, but the long term costs of fiber are overestimated because cable companies want a very fast profit. Whereas thousands and thousands of satellites will need to be replaced year after year and that rate could increase considerably if Kessler syndrome develops.

Not even remotely comparable in terms of quality

the advantage of local infrastucture is that the local government can have input on the price of the good.

If starlink does something you don't like good luck doing anything about it.