a musk company over promising and under delivering. Surprise surprise
No surprise there. It’s overpriced, the quality is poor, the connection is frequently unstable, and the owner of a company is a bigot, who’s also intervening in a war. To absolutely no one’s surprise, this never would have reached the numbers he promised
Talk for yourself. Some of us need starlink. Quality is great. Price is high but it’s space internet. Again connection is pretty fucking stable. Playing GeForce now on my TV thanks to starlink.
He’s a cunt but product is not
I just checked the price and its $599 for the hardware + $99 deposit + $50 shipping. After that the service costs $120/month. I pay $65/month for fiber at the moment.
If you have fiber, it’s unlikely you will benefit from something like Starling. Transfer data wirelessly through a constellation of satellites will have running costs much higher than just having a fibre. That is unless you have to dog a trench or run a fibre on mast for km for just one customer, which is where Starling starts making more sense.
Starling is for rural customers, mobile customers, and possibly an option to counter monopoly abuse by some Telco companies. But if you are in a city with fibre, then do use the fibre, that’s your better option.
I paid the deposit over 3 years ago and they still haven’t done shit.
Removed by mod
Given how stable Elon is with his other companies, why would anyone be skeptical of letting him supply them with a utility service?
I was waitlisted a while back but because of all the Elon bullshit when I got my email saying it was available I opted to just stick with Viasat.
Thats the thing.
Outside of the Ukrainian war, I’m not seeing much good use of this Starlink constellation.
-
Urban areas are already built to 5G, meaning high-speed wireless internet at far cheaper prices than satellite could ever hope to deliver.
-
Suburban areas have high 5G coverage, though it isn’t perfect yet. As well as aging 4G (okay), but also a plentitude of fiber options from Verizon and Comcast. No, it isn’t perfect, but the crappiest Comcast connection is still better than the best Starlink could ever offer in terms of price and reliability.
-
Rural areas are already covered by Viasat. Which is going to be more efficient due to the simple nature of only needing like 5 to 10 satellites in the 100-year orbit height… rather than 60,000+ Starlink satellites in the 5-year orbit height.
Ukraine gets a benefit because Russians are actively trying to jam the communications, so ~5 to 10 satellites could get disrupted, but its a lot harder to jam 60,000 satellites floating around. So yes, Starlink did manage to find a niche… only to have the lord of the communications openly claim that Crimea belongs to Russia and shutdown a Ukrainian operation.
So suddenly, Ukraine can’t trust Starlink anymore. So who the hell wants to use this constellation?
I support a few business that have locations in Texas that can’t get fiber or cable internet. We use Viasat for them. I wanted starlink since we were seeing people with the service that had way better speeds and latency compared to Viasat.
No wireless communication will beat physical connection ever. Period. There’s not argument in it to be had.
All of wireless bandwidth can be crammed in a single fiber optic cable. All of it, with room to spare. And then you realize you can run as many as you like in parallel while in wireless communication only one device can talk at the time.
Cables are here to stay.
Rural areas are already covered by Viasat. Which is going to be more efficient due to the simple nature of only needing like 5 to 10 satellites in the 100-year orbit height… rather than 60,000+ Starlink satellites in the 5-year orbit height.
Latency sucks with Viasat. You won’t play multiplayer games on it, and even web browsing will be sluggish with how many round trips displaying just a single page requires nowadays.
-
Removed by mod
I just checked and it’s almost double what I’m paying currently for 100/40 fibre.
I don’t know where you got your figures but u suspect they’re faulty.
At best it might be an alternative to Skymuster.
Starlink won’t beat FTTP or FTTN, but it sure as shit beats fixed wireless and sky muster.
Shit, just not having to deal indirectly with NBNCo every time there’s a problem (multiple times per month) has got to be worth $100 per month to me.
No regrets. FUCK NBNCO sideways, with an axe.
Apples and oranges you nong.
The NBN is vdsl,.fibre, fixed wireless and satellite.
Obviously I’m comparing NBN satellite with musk satellite. 🤦
It’s a shame what happened with NBN in Australia. Fantastic idea, shit execution because they cheaped out.
The poor man pays twice
Removed by mod
I hate the fact that a billionaire moron from another continent is ruining sky over my country
I see tons of ads when I drive around rural Indiana for Hughesnet. I’ve never seen an ad for Starlink. Why aren’t they even marketing it to rural midwesterners?
They honestly don’t even seem interested in anyone in the midwest getting it. They’re only really interested in the coasts.
To get Starlink near me you need to be put onto a waiting list for them to roll it out to your area. But closer to the coasts (you don’t even have to be all that close, Idaho gets it) and you can sign up and get started right away.
That’s not the way to get to 20 million users. Not that I’m shocked.
