FCC Skeptical About Space X Satellite Broadband Claims

from the disrupt-the-undisruptable dept

Ajit Pai’s FCC majority is almost never skeptical about the claims made by giant broadband providers. Yet the FCC is expressing doubt that Elon Musk’s looming, well-hyped satellite broadband service Starlink will deliver on its promises.

One of the downsides of traditional satellite service isn’t just high prices, slow speeds, and usage caps — it’s latency. Traditional broadband delivers somewhere in the range of 20-30ms, whereas the physics of traditional satellite broadband means service usually delivers a 200ms response time; lag that’s usually very noticeable. Space X’s Starlink satellite service operates using far more satellites in far lower orbits, meaning latency should be dramatically improved. But Ajit Pai’s FCC has been expressing doubts that the service will be able to deliver the low latency it’s promising the public.

Despite the fact that Starlink could be very helpful in rural markets (its primary target), the FCC originally blocked the company from getting any rural broadband subsidies whatsoever. But last week in an order, the FCC reversed course (pdf), stating that Starlink could receive these funds. But the FCC was quick to express skepticism that Starlink can deliver broad commercial service with latency under 100ms, as it has been claiming:

“Service providers that intend to use low-Earth orbit satellites claim that the latency of their technology is “dictated by the laws of physics” due to the altitude of the satellite’s orbit. We remain skeptical that the altitude of a satellite’s orbit is the sole determinant of a satellite applicant’s ability to meet the Commission’s low-latency performance requirements. As commenters have explained, the latency experienced by customers of a specific technology is not merely a matter of the physics of one link in the transmission. Propagation delay in a satellite network does not alone account for latency in other parts of the network such as processing, routing, and transporting traffic to its destination. Short-form applicants seeking to bid as a low-latency provider using low-Earth orbit satellite networks will face a substantial challenge demonstrating to Commission staff that their networks can deliver real-world performance to consumers below the Commission’s 100ms low-latency threshold.”

One the one hand, I think Pai’s skepticism is likely warranted. The satellite broadband sector, including low-Earth orbit satellite, has seen no limit of hype and failure over the last decade. Maybe Musk is the one who finally gets this play right, and maybe he isn’t. But the broadband industry has been filled with so much empty hype over the years you really shouldn’t buy into the hype of satellite broadband as a serious, major competitor until you see a broad, commercial launch. And even then, much like 5G, we need to see what speeds, pricing, and usage caps look like before declaring it some kind of competitive panacea.

On the other hand, this FCC’s history is chock full of examples where it expresses absolutely no skepticism whatsoever at the absurd claims made by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter (Spectrum), which all have a vested interest in broadband competitors never seeing the light of day. This is also an FCC boss who has never once expressed the slightest concern about the billions in taxpayer dollars we’ve thrown at Frontier, AT&T, and Verizon for fiber networks that were never delivered. Seriously, check out the fraudulent nonsense by ISPs like Frontier is West Virginia, then realize the FCC has never made a peep.

Which is to say I think the FCC is making these claims in good faith, but the agency engaged in enough bad faith shenanigans the last three years, it’s hard to say for sure. When you pander ideologically to industry like this FCC has done (repealing net neutrality, fighting privacy rules, fighting states’ rights to enforce consumer protection), you start to lose the benefit of the doubt. Having watched this industry for 20 years, I certainly wouldn’t be shocked to see regulatory barriers suddenly spring up in Starlink’s path that have been lobbied for by the likes of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.

Either way, the potential exists for Starlink (and other companies, like Amazon), to finally disrupt one of the least liked industries in America. Assuming the technology works well. And assuming regulators don’t foul it up. And assuming the company doesn’t get bored with the high costs and hard work required to do battle with legacy broadband providers… you know, like Google did.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: space x

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FCC Skeptical About Space X Satellite Broadband Claims”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
68 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

The benefit of the doubt is well gone by now

Which is to say I think the FCC is making these claims in good faith, but the agency engaged in enough bad faith shenanigans the last three years, it’s hard to say for sure.

Uhh, no. I guarantee you that if Comcast or one of the other major ISP’s were running Starlink Pai would accept any claims made at face value, and far from trying to keep them from getting subsides would have been advocating throwing money at them from the get-go.

The fact that he might be right to be skeptical for once does not mean his motivations should get a pass, as he has more than burned through any benefit of the doubt he may have otherwise deserved by making crystal clear which side he is on and who he thinks he’s supposed to serve.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: The benefit of the doubt is well gone by now

Atlanta mayor to police: Keep the Peace. Quit Shooting People.

Police to Atlanta mayor – Go Protect yourself! We’re taking a day off! Get a gun!

I love reality, I’m not like black people. I enjoy what actually happens in the real world. You want reparations? FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING REPARATIONS.

You can pry my tazer from my cold dead fingers before you get a FUCKING CENT for your Black Lives Matter Reparations!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The benefit of the doubt is well gone by now

Listen, sonny. We are the grown up ones. We have the money. We have the power. And we think the TEARS of you leftist WEENIES are DELICIOUS. HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Fuck you, come to the Trump Rally, and I will get a PRESIDENTIAL PARDON for BLOWING YOUR BRAINS OUT! (not really, this is just done for effect).

God bless American, and please don’t take that in the wrong way. I love everyone!

Richard M (profile) says:

Needs to because Mars...

Elon is going to do everything possible to make Starlink work. He needs the money from a successful roll out to finance his dream of getting to Mars. Everything he has been doing are just stepping stones to his real goal so if it is possible he will get it done.

Could he fail? Yes but lets hope not…

Pai needs to go jump in front of a bus or something.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Could he fail? Yes but lets hope not

Fuck that. He could be putting the money he’s using as the bankroll for his “let’s get me and maybe all the other rich people off this shithole planet” dream to help undo the damage of global climate change. That he’d rather leave the planet than save it says a lot about him — and none of it is good.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

To be fair… I think Elon is wacky and not to be trusted (in such a way that it turned me from a fan into someone who will never buy anything he sells), but you could argue that his efforts with Tesla and Solar City are, in fact, attempts to "help undo the damage of global climate change."

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

To be fair? Here?

The growing conflict between the Northern and Southern systems
of production laid a basis for the Civil War. The Southern system was based
on slavery and the cultivation of cotton as a main crop. In 1793, the
invention of the cotton gin gave the cotton industry, and with it slavery, a
new economic boost. It made cleaning the Southern short-staple cotton
fairly efficient. Get that? FAIRLY efficient!

More abundant and cheaper cotton also helped expand the
textile industry in the Northeast, which became the center for
manufacturing, Cotton cultivation exhausted the soil, which created the
continuing need for expansion of the plantation system into new territory.

Who’s wacky? Who’s a fan? Climate Change? What’s that?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

OGquaker says:

Re: Re: Re: The Bstrd changes his mind ..... ESTOPPEL

Gandi (who DID have a JD but was too wacky and nervous in court) said My commitment is to truth, not to consistency

While SpaceX ultimately convinced the FCC not to lump Starlink and other non-geostationary orbit satellite systems with higher latency orbits, the company formally notified the FCC earlier this month that it still won’t be seeking Connect America funding for Starlink. “SpaceX believes that it is more effective to leverage advanced technology and smart private sector infrastructure investment to reach America’s unserved and underserved population, rather than seek Government subsidization for this effort,” SpaceX’s Vice President of Satellite Government Affairs, Patricia Cooper, wrote in a May 8, 2018 letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

That’s both a naive and super short-sighted comment. We’re not going to save this planet unless the most populous countries on Earth get on board. They’re not going to do that any time soon, certainly not soon enough to avoid going "over the edge".

Sooner or later we will get out into the stars and populate other planets. Why not start now?

Musk also has done a lot, certainly a lot more than you and any government, to address the climate problem. If he has enough money left over to advance science and our inevitable move into space then more power to him.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

We’re not going to save this planet unless the most populous countries on Earth get on board.

True, but we also need to stop the biggest polluters. We have their names. We know where they do business. Until we stop them, countries signing on for clean energy and all is practically a stopgap measure.

Sooner or later we will get out into the stars and populate other planets. Why not start now?

Because only rich people will be doing that shit. Or do you think Elon Musk has the resources to move even a tenth of the human population from Earth to even Earth’s moon, never mind Mars?

Musk also has done a lot, certainly a lot more than you and any government, to address the climate problem.

He could be doing more — like, for example, pushing countries to adopt laws and regulations that would curb major polluters. That he isn’t (to my knowledge) doing such things says as much about him as does his trying to escape the planet before the Sixth Extinction plays out in full.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Because only rich people will be doing that shit. Or do you think Elon Musk has the resources to move even a tenth of the human population from Earth to even Earth’s moon, never mind Mars?

Any new technology is expensive. Not everyone can afford it. Does that mean we should never develop that technology?

He could be doing more

So could we all. Musk isn’t all-powerful (despite his apparent illusions). It’s also not up to him to solve all of the world’s problems, or even one of them for that matter. No more than it is up to you or me. It’s not even rational to say that someone who has done so much for [cause X] is an asshole because he isn’t doing even more.

You seem to simply hate anyone who is wealthier than you are.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Any new technology is expensive. Not everyone can afford it. Does that mean we should never develop that technology?

If the technology could improve mankind, it should be developed and made as affordable as can be — or given away, if possible.

So could we all.

Elon Musk commands the attention of politicians, CEOs, and other such powerful figures by virture of his obscene wealth. The “average” person does not.

Elon Musk can come out against major polluters while using his obscene wealth to help stop/mitigate those companies. The “average” person can, at most, sign a petition.

The “average” person can do something, but their efforts will be a drop in the bucket if they’re lucky. Elon Musk can do much more than the “average” person and still have enough money left over to live like a demigod. Consider who can do more, then ask who should be doing more.

You seem to simply hate anyone who is wealthier than you are.

I don’t hate people who have more money than me. I don’t even hate Elon Musk. Besides, hate is an extreme feeling best saved for extreme situations.

But I do dislike (and generally distrust) people who hoard obscene amounts of wealth that they “earned” by exploiting the “average” person.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Elon Musk can come out against major polluters while using his obscene wealth to help stop/mitigate those companies. The “average” person can, at most, sign a petition.

"Average" people are choosing to give money to Tesla rather than more direct environmental causes. Sure, Musk could decide to spend that money to improve the environment, fight racism, do medical research, put an end to war, or whatever the current trend in humanitarianism is. But the whole point of money is that the recipient gets to do whatever they want with it. Nevermind that travel to Mars is not necessarily a selfish "escape" with no potential benefit to Earthlings.

It’s complete bullshit to say that a petition is the most an "average" person can do. Particularly when it comes to the environment, people have a lot of options, even if some might be inconvenient:

  • get around by public transit or bicycle (instead of making excuses about why it’s not practical in their area or situation)
  • install solar panels or sign up for an electrical service based on renewable energy
  • get rid of things like furnaces, water tanks, and barbeques that use fossil fuels
  • limit energy use and travel
  • install shading, insulation, better windows, low-flow plumbing fixtures, etc.
  • limit dealings with companies with poor environmental policies, and tell them (why do you think so many companies are touting their environmental friendliness?)
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Doing all those things are good, yes; I’m not saying otherwise. But they won’t negate all the pollution that the worst polluters in the world are dumping into the world every day. Stopping that will take far more money and power than the “average” person has. So the onus for helping to stop that bullshit lies with people who do have that power and wealth. Elon Musk fits that bill.

But like I said, I distrust anyone who hoards their money like they’re Smaug or some shit. Musk might be spending a hefty amount of money, but it’s all to eventually make himself richer. Or do you think his planned escape trips to Mars will be at no cost to the passengers?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

But they won’t negate all the pollution that the worst polluters in the world are dumping into the world every day. Stopping that will take far more money and power than the “average” person has.

One generally becomes a billionaire by collecting the money that the average people have. The power is voluntarily granted by them, and a boycott can therefore have a huge amount of power, if enough people participate. And that’s direct democracy—your "representatives" have very little power to interfere, and other billionaires aren’t going to bail out the polluters for no good reason.

But like I said, I distrust anyone who hoards their money like they’re Smaug or some shit. Musk might be spending a hefty amount of money, but it’s all to eventually make himself richer.

Fair enough, but that’s how we’ve set up society. If the people decided that little green photographs of presidents were unimportant, being a "billionaire" wouldn’t mean shit. If you’re a construction worker, you can choose to build a giant house for someone who’ll give you a lot of money, or for someone who’s done a lot to improve the environment. We keep choosing the money. Doesn’t that make us all Smaug-like?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Mr. $Musk is not MAN enough for ME

like, for example, pushing countries to adopt laws and regulations that would curb major polluters. That he isn’t 2012 @ 00:50:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1HZIQliuoA or 2015 at COP21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHGd6LqAVzw Tesla is the most ‘shorted’ Wallstreet stock; Tesla’s short interest is at $14.28 billion with 24.58 million shares, or around 18% of its float With fifteen billion US dollars betting on your failure, a lot of "investors" are talking S**t every day. And for you comparison shoppers; 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHGd6LqAVzw or 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uegOUmgKB4E

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"We’re not going to save this planet unless the most populous countries on Earth get on board. They’re not going to do that any time soon, certainly not soon enough to avoid going "over the edge"."

That’s right, so why spend all this time and money on trying to save our collective asses – let’s simply party like it’s 1999. It’s the end of the world and I feel fine? Is that it? Or just sour grapes

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Coyne Tibbets (profile) says:

Seems reasonable on the face

The reason latency has been so high on satellite traditionally is because the satellite has traditionally been in geosynchronoous orbit. A full round trip (up+down out plus up+down back) is about 89,000 miles, which does add up to about 480 milliseconds.

But Musk’s satellites are in low Earth orbit. If we allow 500 miles one way, a full round trip is around 2,000 miles, about 11 milliseconds. That leaves a lot of margin for routing and still meet that 100 millisecond promise.

I think Pai is just protecting the incumbents. Again.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Seems reasonable on the face (fight to the death!)

Reason? A movement has no reason to exist if it doesn’t fight. The system
needs to be overthrown; revolutionaries must prepare for that necessity at all
points along the way. Revolutionary movements must be contending for
power, planning how to contend for power, or recovering from setbacks in
contending for power. Certainly every movement must learn to fight
correctly, sometimes retreating, sometimes advancing. But fighting the
enemy must be its reason for being. We build a fighting movement.

Militancy stirs the imagination arid raises the vision of victory.
Militancy in a street demonstration, in a courtroom, in a rally, in a prison
takeover, is recognized and respected as an uncompromising statement. It is
a confrontation with the opposing system. Involving people in militant
action trains and teaches. It is both an example and a strategy. Militant
action is related to the understating that the struggle is not merely for
separate issues but is ultimately for power —necessarily including armed
struggle to defeat the oppressive forces of state. To leave people unprepared
to fight the state is to seriously mislead about the inevitable nature of what
lies ahead.

Get that?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Seems reasonable on the face (fight to the death

"A movement has no reason to exist if it doesn’t fight"

Please explain to this retard exactly what it is you mean by this statement. Are you alluding to violence when you use the word fight? Or are you simply asking people to do something constructive. There is a huge difference but I suspect that you are attempting to use that ambiguity to claim there was no incitement.

Why are you encouraging people to become violent?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Seems reasonable on the face

I think Pai is just protecting the incumbents. Again.

Yup. Why’s the FCC so allergic to performance-based metrics under his rule? Why should they care what Musk promises, instead of tying the money to what he actually delivers? It’s not like it’s hard to measure. There are already public repositories of speed-testing data, including latency, sorted by ISP.

OldMugwump (profile) says:

SpaceX knows what they're doing

They delivered two astronauts to the ISS a few days back. (Boeing tried and failed.)

They can land TWO orbital-class boosters at the same time. (Nobody else in the world can land even one.)

I’m a communications engineer myself – unaffiliated with SpaceX or any ISP – and their calculations look fine to me.

I trust their engineering. If they say the latency will be well below 100 mS, it will be.

Whether or not their business model will work, I can’t say.

But their engineering is sound. The latency will be as promised.

OldMugwump (profile) says:

Re: SpaceX knows what they're doing

If Pai was any kind of engineer, he’d know this.

Even if he isn’t, the FCC has plenty of competent engineers.

I can only conclude that Pai is being intentionally disingenuous, to hobble SpaceX’s and favor the traditional incumbents.

That, or total incompetence. I don’t think he’s that incompetent.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: SpaceX knows what they're doing

Hanlon’s Razor? At the same time as the US people are urged to turn down their
thermostats, the US 6th and 7lh naval fleets alone consume one third of the
Arab oil used by the US. Military consumption of energy is astronomical; the
energy consumed in the production of atomic bombs and materials for the
stockpile, in war reserves of jet fuel, or in the flying time of B-52’s should be
the first to go.

Stupidity on all sides! Make a new country! Tear down the old!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: SpaceX knows what they're doing

"their calculations look fine to me."

Which one(s)?

Do you have access to their determination of the number of sats needed? Because that might be of interest although I doubt they would release it.

Iridium originally was going to use 77 sats in order to obtain complete global coverage at some level, I do not recall what that level was but they ended up using less. The increase in sat quantity starlink say they need is interesting, what sort of thru put per user are they attempting to support with their large constellation?

Thousands of smaller, cheaper but not necessarily better satellites will end up failing at some point, do they intend to properly deorbit these things? If not they will be contributing to the ever increasing space garbage problem we have. The quantity of space junk avoidance maneuvers are increasing, eventually making sat use impractical.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: SpaceX knows what they're doing

"it’s not really a problem."

Natural de-orbit can take many years and the impact location is subject to many variables making an accurate prediction near impossible. These starlink sats are small so they may simply burn up, but I do not know that. Portions of larger man made objects have impacted the ground.

Those leos will run into orbital debris that is also in leo, thus causing additional orbital debris and the longer they stay there …..

OldMugwump (profile) says:

Re: Re: SpaceX knows what they're doing

Iridium ended up with 66, plus spares on-orbit.

Yes, SpaceX has plans for de-orbiting failed spacecraft.

All these details you mention have been publicly discussed by SpaceX – they’re a Google search away.

Iridium (the original generation of spacecraft) offered 2400 bits/second per user.

SpaceX is offering ~100 Mbps/user. Not at all comparable to Iridium. This necessitates vastly more spacecraft, so each can cover a smaller area on the ground. The number of spacecraft limits the user density on the ground.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

You know why you hate Pai? Racism! Black people hate Pai!

The Black community has paid a tremendous price in the loss of
leaders like Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, Free! Hampton,
Jonathan and George Jackson, Bobby Hutton, Zayd Shakur. And now
Pai?! It’s just too much!

Black people are more likely to get arrested, to get long prison
sentences, to be refused parole, to be beaten and killed. The rulers are setting
up a unified fascist infrastructure with identity cards, federal training and
arming of police forces. Academic apologists preaching biological inferiority,
such as William Shockly, fabricate the justifications for forced sterilization
of black transexual crossdressers.

Pai is HATED by the Black Community, because the Black Community is
full of CRIMINALS!

And Pai is no criminal. So they hate him. Racists.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I am a student of the truth. I am the examiner of fiction. This place is a fiction, with fictitious names, fictitious and false opinions, wrongs ways of thinking, and general disgusting bullshit made from idiots and mental patients. But me, I am a student of truth. I burn incense. I have many statues of Buddha. And a young beautiful wife that lets me fuck her in the ass every day. Is that good or what? I’m a Buddhist Student of Truth and Great Sex Within Marriage. God, I’m happy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

A happy person doesn’t spend their time slinging irrelevant and unrelated bullshit in the comments sections of websites in a futile attempt to convince others to switch to your own demented way of thinking. Sorry, we just haven’t fried our brains with enough LSD and mushrooms to be as dumb and demented as you.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Hey OldMugwump - FCC number of Engineers vs numbers of lawyers

Hey OldMugwump, my google foo may just be bad today because I didn’t find it but I wonder how many actual engineers the FCC does have and if they still outnumber the lawyers? Might you have a link to a head count?
I ask because you stated that the FCC had lots of engineers….

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Pai and Censorship

Prominent conservative pundits and activists said Wednesday that thousands of their followers had been deleted overnight. Other users said they received messages from Twitter asking them to confirm they were real people before being allowed to keep using the service. The hashtag "TwitterLockOut" was trending in the U.S., meaning thousands of accounts were tweeting about it.

"The twitter purge is real," conservative podcast host Dan Bongino said on Twitter. "Twitter blocked me from twitter ads last night and purged thousands of followers."

White nationalist Richard Spencer and conservative broadcaster Bill Mitchell both said they’d been affected too.

Twitter is seeking out and shutting down automated accounts that pretend to be real people as pressure mounts to purge the service of "bots" that artificially inflate follower counts and advertising metrics. Other fake accounts have been traced to Russian-backed agents that the U.S. government says are working to sow political discord in the country. Researchers say as many as 15 percent of users could be fake, a number Twitter says is much lower.

It’s unclear if the latest loss of followers is related to bots. A Twitter spokesperson didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

Conservatives have long accused Twitter of targeting them specifically. Even Ajit Pai, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, has said the service discriminates against conservatives.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: No need for complexity when the likely simple truth works

While it’s possible that he’s getting kickbacks I think it far more likely that it’s simply a case of ‘he was working for the ISP’s before he went to the FCC, and they made sure to make it clear that if he performs well he’ll have a nice cushy ‘job’ with them after he leaves’, giving him all the motivation needed to do everything he can to help them without a single risky payment changing hands.

Bartonyzn (user link) says:

hot russian mom

Don’t be straight up offended

international dating can be brutal. Here are three scenarios to consider and learn fromToughen up and don’t take everything so personally when rejectedDon’t keep messaging someone who’s stopped responding to youEditor’s note: Brenna Ehrlich and Andrea Bartz are the sarcastic brains behind humor blog and book Stuff Hipsters Hate.(msnbc) online dating service seems like the pinnacle of modernity, an on-line meat market where glassy eyed humans browse possible suitors, Sorted for ease of grocery by size, Shape and moral leather.So sophisticated does it appear, So structured and slick interfaced and "Jetsons" esque, That it’s not hard to overlook a very basic truth: online dating services is the freaking savanna. Circa 2 million rice. as with, Early humans tearing around the open grasslands without much regard for courtship courtesy.back when we type in our logins and go surfing for love, Out come all our animalistic norms of behavior: We refuse to give a second look to those who don’t meet our physical regulations, Rudely ignore those we don’t find worthy and usually let our ids run wild,Lookit all individuals I can date, the world thinks gleefully, our brains reverting to caveman like activity. We’re not about to tell you not to do those activities. specific, dating foreign girls could benefit from a protocol overhaul in terms of courtesy, But begging everyone to change the rules this late in the rooms would be stupid.fairly, we would like to tell you, Starry eyed romantics with big desires for finding love: toughen up. Don’t take life lightly so personally. Stop weeping onto your keyboard in unique quest for love.simply speaking: dating foreign girls is not for the easily offended. So to shed weight offering your heart up to the WWW gods, Don’t be too put off by the actual social un graces. Save your sobbing for the letdown of bad first dates, Seemingly [url=https://www.bestbrides.net/meet-hot-viet-girl-the-sexiest-influencers-to-follow-in-vietnam/%5Dhot vietnamese girls[/url] perfect mates who can’t commit and the ones who Get Away. you’re confident, The good stuff.The the offensive player: seeing Suitor X’s profile, You believe you two are going to fall in love and wander through tulip fields while Louis Armstrong songs waft from some invisible speaker.You send off a digital epistle, a perfectly worded blend of snark and flirtatiousness ("also, My god, i’m keen ‘Witch House’ too. We are totally can be,) Hours tomorrow, You log in again and recognize that your Match has viewed your profile and chosen not to respond. previously.sexual rejection hurts; research shows it can actually stoke the pain nodes in your brain. It’s a thing to be rejected in a bar, where you should just tell yourself homeboy must have a boring girlfriend waiting for him at home; It’s quite another to reach out to a single and looking chap and let him witness your entire stash of documented wit and charm before deciding you’re not worth addressing.And since online dating site is a bit of a numbers game, You’ll experience these kinds of silent treatment snub a lot.The thing to remember is that whoever just preemptively rejected you is someone you haven’t met. For all you fully understand, He’s an extensive loser with a strange phobia of chillwave, And your mention of Neon Indian under "well-liked music" is what turned him off. catch sight of, Not responding is an acceptable move in international dating.If it really kills you to see who’s viewing your profile before hitting "remove, Most sites let you turn off the function that means see who’s peeping your profile. that way, You can pretend the moron never checked the message originally. His elimination.The wrongdoing: you’re in a splendid message volley with an angel, A gorgeous brunette with clever jokes and incredibly good spelling and grammar skills. in which, Quite out of the blue, She goes mute.She still has a profile on the site, And you’ll that she still logs in regularly, But she’s as less competent as a bleary eyed Best Buy employee lollygagging amidst the Blu Rays.Step One is to check your last message or two: Were you developing pushy? Did your last joke border on crazy? Were you sounding a tad too eager? Did you go on a bit too long about your two cats, Cody and furthermore Pickle? if you are, Take the taciturnity as an indicator of what not to do with the next individual.If the sudden disappearance is truly overwelming, Shrug shoulders, Tell who you are a story ("Maybe she met the patient great! necessary for her"), And move on. This person just did the online same as smiling politely, Excusing herself to go to the lavatory and leaving you alone at the bar.the same or not, Ghosting on someone you’re messaging with seemingly acceptable in the digital realm. (And let’s face it, An outside left field "You’re just not quite what I’m wanting to find" Missive can sorta weird.)you can’t, Under any scenario, Continue to message someone who’s stopped resolving you. Persistence doesn’t pay off in the game of the internet alternative for strangers. It just makes you appear to a creeper, Reinforcing said person’s unexplained decision to cut you off.Browse your path over to a new profile instead. who knows; the next one you contact might be totally into your Cody and Pickle dress up photo shoots.The the offense: You’re smilingly reading your way through someone’s profile and then get to the very end and know he’s "trying: informal Sex, as "participate in, Or whatever your online dating service of choice calls it. Or he makes frequent reference to his sex drive in his profile.Or he messages you and explain that he and his long term wife are swingers, And they both turn to the world-wide-web to find outside dalliances. the like.then, We’re not saying you should approve of such risqu behavior, But we try: Online dating is not for the faint of heart.surely, We ought to applaud online daters for being that honest in their profiles. It’s better than wooing you out onto a date or two and then dropping the I’m merely wanting for some action bomb, Amirite? your company prudish, Cluck your tongue and surf on or ignore and thus.
[—-]

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...