Let them eat starlink!
Let them eat starlink!
221 comments
-
Not even a flat rate for that money
-
I live in a rural area. We were thinking about starlink a few years ago, then fiber came to our area. Thank goodness. We've literally had no issues, speeds are amazing, and no price hikes.
-
Fibre is racist and woke, that's what tramp said at least.
-
Given his steady diet of hamberders, I'm sure he does think fiber is woke
-
-
I'm super jealous. I'm out here in Western Maryland and I'd be happy to see us get plain old telephone service.
-
-
I'm one of those people for who Starlink very much is the only option. I moved from Northern Virginia to Western Maryland. This land used to be state park and all it has is electricity and mail delivery. No water, no sewage, no telephone, no internet other than cell hotspot or Starlink. It sucks but I have to try and separate my distaste for Musk with the engineers and people who actually run Starlink day to day, because at the end of the day the service is pretty damn good. The only issue I have (besides the price) is with VoIP traffic; but SIP acts fucky even with Cat5/6 sometimes so idk. I looked up the current policy and at least in the US they do not have a soft data cap. They did when the service initially launched AFAIK but that's been replaced with a more general "network management" policy (throttling, etc) as far as I can tell. https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1470-99699-90?regionCode=US
-
Just gonna let you know, if ya have 5g available more specifically T-Mobile then ya can get an at home 5g router. It is most definitely cheaper and may have lower latency, though I don't know how their network is on the East coast furthest east I've gone is Utah.
-
Yep, Starlink is the only internet that works out here. In WV, can confirm.
-
-
These are the prices and data I see. I currently have the $10 plan.
-
And this is why capitalism utterly sucks at providing public services.
-
It's not really capitalism anymore if the CEO runs the government too.
Idk what else the USA has to do to show the obvious oligarchy y'all have.
-
Even if the politicos unironically started referring to themselves as oligarchs, a significant population of US citizens would likely either take it as a joke and hand-wave it away, or take it as further proof that that's just what you do to get ahead.
-
CEO running the government is late stage capitalism.
-
-
Capitalism is antithetical to public services, at least according to Milton Friedman.
-
monopolism* utterly sucks at providing public services (except for some governmental monopolies because those can be democratically controlled)
once the starlink monopoly is broken this will happen less and less because if they raise prices the customers can switch to a different system from another company and spacex will lose money.
-
-
Oof, my current data consumption for the past 30 days is 1.2 TB on buttery smooth 1Gb fiber. I can't imagine being bound to 500 GB like is the 2007 dark ages.
-
I haven't thought about a data cap in years once I was lucky enough to get fiber in my house.
Same as you: symmetrical 1gbps up and down, baby.
-
What I think is crazy: at your 1 gigabit per second speed, if you use your full speed for only 3 hours you will go over your data limit. For the month.
-
-
This kind of shit would have been surprising to me 15 years ago, but today it's just, how it fucking is, and I hate it.
-
Ah, so this is why Elon wanted the rural broadband bill killed.
-
Why provide a public service when some capitalist can squeeze every penny from that same service?
-
-
I wouldn't use this service unless I literally had no other option. But sadly "no other option" is why they are able to jack up the prices and change the terms and conditions as they feel like with impunity.
-
What's worse is, because it's an option. The work that was being done for other reliable works will be put on indefinite hold. Musk monopolized our orbit. He needs to be brought before an effective tribunal and have his decision scrutinized harshly. I know, I know. "But he won't". If everyone had that attitude we would still be riding horses so help or shut up.
-
Yup, were i live it's not even that rural but I only have 1 option and it's basically double the price it should be if I was in a competitive market... 300 down 30 up for $100.
-
Yep. Got one for my mother who lives in remote Jamaica so we could check on her after hurricanes.
-
-
Starlink is out again. I figured this is how it would end up.
-
I am unsurprised. I thought it would take longer for it to become outrageously priced, but here we are. this specific pricing is extra crazy IMO.
In any case, I scoffed at the pricing when it was almost reasonable during their trial phases.... Back then IIRC it was like $100-150 usd/mo. or something.... That's too much for me already. Seems like they've previously increased it to around $200-300 and now they've lost their damn minds.
Star link was never economically sensible, price hikes were inevitable. There's just too few people in their target audience and too many satellites that are simply too costly to maintain at the levels they previously had. I hoped, for the sake of anyone who required starlink for a reasonable Internet connection speed, that the business plans and corporate users would shoulder most of the cost, but here we are.
-
I think it’s between $120 a month for home use and $165 a month for RV / travel use.
-
-
He sees you when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake....
-
🎼 He sees you when you're pooping.
He knows when you're online...
He knows when you've been fash or woke
So be fash for tesla's sake 🎶
-
-
This doesn't make sense to me. Don't Starlink plans offer unlimited data?
-
Sales and marketing documentation/websites are always bullshit.
All it ever takes is a tiny stipulation in terms+conditions to overrule ANY advertising or claims you've ever seen.Any company at any time: "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."
-
Some of the boat plans are limited data. It's a completely arbitrary and bullshit restriction (and expensive) since boats can be held to ransom because the alternatives are even worse - sat phones and suchlike.
-
-
I thought starlink was just an alibi company to buy rocket launches from SpaceX, and make SpaceX appear profitable on paper?
-
Starlink is owned by spaceX so they've never purchased a rocket, they just launch
And because of starlink SpaceX will be an insanely profitable company. Starlink is already bankrolling the very expensive starship development.
-
Leopards ate his.. internet?
-
Then what, are you going to tell us next that going to Mars also was? Come on! /s
-
-
The former $240/mo was not outrageous to begin with?…
These Elon fanboys just love getting scammed by him. I can almost hear the little pay piggies squealing now.
-
Like it or not, it's the only option for high speed internet for large swaths of the world. ViaSat is the only competitor and they're even worse: slower, unusably high latency and ridiculously low data caps.
-
I cant speak for other countries, but in the US, we are spending hundreds of dollars a month per household in these areas to the richest man in the world for shitty internet service instead of EITHER holding ISPs to the contracts they agreed to when municipalities gave then the right to build without competition from public services for which they were meant to supply high speed wired services to everyone, OR throw those contracts away and build reliable and profitable public services anyway and fuck the useless ISPs over. Instead we are just inviting in another ISP to fill the gap, this one also a racist fascist who is littering space with unregulated junk.
-
But for those large parts of the world, 240 USD per month is even more ridiculous
-
-
I looked into Starlink years ago when I was RVing. It came out to over $600 up front in equipment costs, THEN $240 a month or w/e. And it's not like Elon wasn't a piece of shit back then, either. $50 a month for T-Mobile "5G at home" with no upfront or hidden costs did the trick nicely and bridged the gap until I found a place with cheap fiber. Now I have 2.5Gbps up and down and it's still less than half the price of Starlink before this price hike.
-
It's worth it.
If you're in the middle of the Pacific often.
-
Starlink makes sense for the scenario it was designed fill the gap for. A lack of any other terrestrial options.
Legacy satellite has always been terrible, but the only option in many rural areas, and obviously the middle of nowhere. Starlink is an insanely reliable and decent deal in most of those circumstances. That's it's bread and butter.
But if you have literally any other option, it's usually not the best choice, it's not meant to be the best choice, it's intended for use where it's likely the only choice.
-
-
I know one guy where he's just on a damn mountain. Not many other options.
Not saying it's the option I'd take, just saying. If you're in the sticks in a red state...
-
Yeah there are always exceptions of course. I’ve seen some in that position able to get away with direct line-of-sight connections for a reasonable rate, but it depends heavily on the layout of the surrounding mountains and location of the service provider plus you have to shell out for an antennae or dish. For any wondering, that’s almost always cheaper than the Starlink sign up costs.
Then again, if internet is important to someone, gotta consider if mountain-side living is the right choice to begin with. I’m sure your acquaintance has his reasons though!
-
-
-
Amazon is launching a competing service on its own satelites.
-
If you're sick of funding billionaire douchebags, Telsat (formerly Telsat Canada, a Canadian crown corporation and responsible for the first communications satellite Anik-A1 in 1972) will be live with Telsat Lightspeed in 2026. Faster, better, and far more ethical.
-
-
Damn, maybe you should move to a radical leftist city where fiber internet is $50 a month.
-
Us lucky fiber users, I can get 8gig symmetrical for $300 and 2 gig for $75 a month. Still nothing like other non American countries but damn do I have it good for living here.
-
I only have this to say: Fuck the sky pollution. Starlink has been ruining stargazing and star photography and Elon lied about its impact. He claimed they would be invisible with his amazing paint but they're still visible and fuck it up for people who enjoy watching the stars.
-
I see them all the time without a camera. They are bright as the stars when they pass over.
-
pros and cons...
pros:
- internet in remote places
cons:
- at the cost of literallt everything else
-
-
If you think ruining stargazing is the biggest problem, don't look up Satellite Collision Cascades
The fucking muskrat is going to lock us down to Earth and make launches too dangerous due to debris fields
And all of you are just complaining about artificial light
-
Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit and deorbit naturally after a few years because of the small amounts of escaping atmosphere slowing them down. A collision cascade can't really happen because it's a fundamentally decaying orbit.
At least, there's no risk of lasting orbital debris, at the cost of the satellites having a much shorter lifespan.
-
Well I don't see myself going to space any time soon. But I do see myself watching the nightsky a lot.
You're right though. It's another thing he doesn't care about.
-
-
-
Slide to switch plan
Ooooh, that's cutesy.
How about "Point a firearm at the screen and scowl menacingly to cancel the service"
-
this slide to switch sums up Elon's perspective on tech, he will want something super impractical and unnecessary implemented as long as he thinks it is cool
-
-
Starlink was never a viable business prospect. It never will be. Anybody who signed up to Starlink was just waiting for this to happen without knowing it.
-
It is a viable business product, latest estimates are Starlink will bring in a revenue of 12 billion in 2025 with about 2 billion being profit. Of course it's not a public company so we don't get official numbers, but you're flat out wrong.
-
It is absolutely not a viable business product. All those numbers don't hold up to even a giggle test when you count the costs of launches alone, not to mention ground operations, etc. Currently Starlink is alive only because of subsidies on these items. When (not if) the subsidies end, Starlink will return to losing hundreds of dollars on every terminal sold.
The fact that prices are jumping up now already kind of hints that it's entering a sales death spiral. Costs go up. Customers go down. Income goes down. Costs go up. Etc. etc. etc.
Starlink is a failure as a business, and as is usual for a Kaptain Ketamine company the "numbers" they cite range misdirection to flat-out fiction.
-
When it's all finished, and operating, that's when the next Democratic government should take it from him. One person, especially one demonstrated to be mentally unstable, should not control the world's Internet.
-
-
well it might’ve worked if he didn’t turn out to be a fascist… but since most people don’t want to support that, kinda fucks up the business model.
perpetually burning up satellites in the atmosphere is a pretty shitty business though.
-
I literally canceled because of his fucking nazi salute. Not giving that pos any money
-
perpetually burning up satellites in the atmosphere is a pretty shitty business though.
Exactly. The business isn't remotely sustainable. All that money being invested into new satellites will, by next year, need to be invested constantly to keep the network at the same size.
Starlink needs run as fast as it can, just to stay in the same place, and the investment money is finite when people see it's not going to grow.
-
There's a bunch of technology problems that make it undesirable, like the light and projectile pollution in leo
-
-
I just generally doubt anything Musk does because of his track record. However, is there a particular reason why Starlink is inherently not viable? Could a competent person do it or it is fundamentally flawed? To put it another way is it cybertruck bad (yes people want electric cars but not a barely driveable dumpster held together with glue) or hyperloop bad (physics said no)?
-
Closer to the latter than the former.
I wouldn't discount people with brains coming up with something Starlink-like that is viable enough that it could at least eke out an OK profit, but Musk can't do anything right.
-
It is closer to a hyper loop system. For the internet to have low enough latency it has to be put in quite a low earth orbit. That means we need more satlights to make coverage, ballooning costs. However that is not the part that kills it, it is that it is in such low orbit we can expect air resistance to significantly degrade orbits. There are too many satilights to reasonably boost them all, and when they start to degrade it will be too fast to reasonably replace them all.
-
The physics of it mean you basically have to be constantly launching new satellites to replace the 5 year old ones de orbiting. Further, it will also be disadvantaged to anything closer with ability to choose a cable medium. All this adds up to the most expensive infrastructure that exclusively targets very low population density areas and/or areas too poor to afford good Internet. The people that could afford to sustain this can afford to move somewhere with a bit more infrastructure or at least within reach of a terrestrial tower and have an even better result.
-
-
-
Oh, now it's worse than every satellite internet company I know. Shame I recommended it to someone because I thought it would be reliable and remain cheap.
-
Strange, I've downloaded almost 6TiB over the last month so far and my bill is still $120/mo.
EDIT: This appears to be for global priority customers (movable dish between addresses, on boats, etc) and seems to be because he's increasing his data cap by choice, not because rates are actually getting hiked. Us normal residential customers are the same as always. Fuck Musk anyway, but this one seems to be a non-issue.
-
exactly, this post is ragebait
-
global priority customers (movable dish between addresses, on boats, etc)
Because of-fucking-course anybody who wants to buy and live aboard a cheap (easily $50k or less) old sailboat instead of paying rent forever or grinding for a $500K house is a "rich yacht owner" who can obviously afford $1000/month Internet. And have their home sunk by orcas while we're at it, because why not?
Just when I thought I had a viable plan to escape this shithole consumer trap of a country, the Internet service I would need to do it not only ends up being run by a goddamn Nazi, but they also jack up the price on that use-case.
-
Look into Eutelsat. I've heard mention recently that they're expanding as a viable starlink competitor. I have no direct knowledge, but maybe they'd cover your needs cheaper.
-
First, screw Musk. Second, you would only need this level of satellite internet service for your boat if you want to be able to use full broadband speed with over 1TB of transfer in the middle of the ocean far away from terrestrial cellular networks. If you really need full broadband speeds in the middle of the ocean and you only need 50GB of it a month its only $250/month.
If you're at a boat dock you likely have wifi available or even just anchored close to land you can likely just tether your mobile phone.
-
-
-
Just in time for https://lemmy.world/post/29463383
Any future where these fuckers don't end up in jail is going to become hell.
-
good ol' bait and switch
-
WOMP ∞/GB PRICELESS x2
-
Grifter gonna grift...
-
Rage bait. It doesn't show his data consumption. How much data did he consume that month and what plan does he have?
-
Bro, a thousand dollars a month for consumer internet? This ain't 2007 anymore, these days you can absolutely demolish 100 GB like nothing with a family using a streaming service.
-
exactly. But one thing is using fiber, other thing is using satellite - that's why knowing the data consumption matters.
-
My Skyrim data file alone is like 120 GB.
-
I do that by myself in like 2-3 days of light torrenting. I got a TB in a weekend more than once.
-
-
221 comments