all 58 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 75 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

Prior to and including IPO they have been on quite a marketing kick. Referral schemes, equipment rentals, discount plans for low usage etc. Seems like they’re trying hard to make the business make sense. I maintain that LEO (and WISP) ISPs should be limited to more extreme applications yet I see them all over the place in residential areas. Their technical achievements are impressive but if phone systems to remote areas were possible, then so should fibre optics.

Also this should be built by international organisations, not billionaires. A plague on Musk and a plague on Bezos.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    Ma Bell had several decades to gain good ROI with POTS, while the rate of technology change today shrinks that outlook to just one to two decades. Plus the most profitable high income areas to be installing fiber now often have local laws requiring much more expensive underground installations so residents don't have to see the ugly poles with wires hanging between them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Seems like every other 4x4 has one on the roof, every camper, people even mount them on their motorcycles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t think that’s really the issue, it’s the streaming that really does them in.

    On one hand you have Netflix trying to cram 4k through and the neighbour is trying to have a phone call.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    True, I don't know if they already do it, but limiting media streams to 480p like cell providers do on some plans would probably lower congestion a lot. And maybe limiting large file transfers over a certain size to a lower priority and speed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    they were, for months, literally giving the hardware away. no hardware cost. no recurring fees. just 20 bucks for shipping, then the whatever for the actual internet plan itself. a flat $80/mo i think the lowest cost one was. i have a few users on it that bought into that deal. i think it was just before the ipo where they started tacking-on an extra monthly fee.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago

    The corporate version of privatize the profits, socialize the costs. Get in bed with billionaires and you're an enemy of humanity.

  • source
  • [–] 61 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    I hate everything about this. We're ruining our astronomical observations and risking Kessler Syndrome so a trillionaire can price gouge rural internet subscribers because he wants to get the high score on net worth because he can't get a high score on twitter likes (despite owning it) or any video game (despite having paid help). Who the hell told the United States that we have regulatory authority over our shared sky anyway?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    TIL about Kessler Syndrome. Thanks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Starlink is extremely competitive for rural customers, due in no small part to the USA’s extreme reluctance to make telecoms with monopolies actually reach people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not sure I would characterize a $1500 access surcharge as "extremely competitive" but I agree we should run fiber to rural areas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    If you’re referring to the dish purchase, they’re free these days. But even so, when your competitor is $200-500 upfront for a latent multi hop WISP topping out at 30 or 50mbps for $100 per month, a solid 300mbps for $130 and $1000 for a dish is cheap

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    I've been having occasional Internet issues over the last few years and was thinking about having a backup ISP.

    A lot of people in my town suggest Starlink... And well, I'd rather not have Internet at all!

    However, I did recently find these guys: https://www.computers4people.org/shield I'm gonna give these guys a shot.

    It's probably not comparable, but no way in hell am I ever signing up for Starlink.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    I think that makes a lot of sense, it would be nice if they clarified if you could BYO router. My guess is you can, as long as it has a sim slot, but can't be too sure. Make sure T-Mobile coverage is good in your area first as well

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    Nah hes running out of dupes. Private equity is very, very stupid but theyre catching up

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    Yes, there is a high demand for SpaceX to be less insolvent.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Elon Musk Is Charging Starlink Customers Gigantic Bogus Fees Because Its Network Is Being Crushed by [Musk's] “High Demand” for more money

    FTFY

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago

    Lol. Lmao, even.

    Skimping out on backbone capacity is definitely a Musk move 😂

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    So if you're out on a farm, what's the best option for Internet? Is 3g an option? (Either unlimited or a very large amount) Any line of sight service good?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago*

    Biden’s broadband equity program earmarked over $42MM to expand broadband; past admins were incentivizing telecom to take action, but lo and behold, doge slashed a gutted to move funding toward starlink.

    Is there any source of high speed internet? You could look into a community mesh network.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    If you're out on a farm, you fit the intended use case for starlink.

    The issue is that all them city folk see starlink as a way of escaping the locked in municipal ISPs. So they clog up satellite bandwidth when they have fibre/5G/HFC/wireless/xDSL options literally at their front door.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Depends on the place. In a lot of countries, the countryside has complete coverage of 3G and 4G. There are also places with at least coax, and even fiber.

    In places like the US, companies like Starlink have lobbied so that no cable is installed and no nationwide 3G/4G coverage exists (5G coverage would be near impossible due to the limitations of the technology).

    Imho we should be focusing on running cable everywhere instead of trying to maintain a massive network of thousands of satellites in LEO. It's probably cheaper in the long run, and it doesn't ruin scientific observations or the ozone layer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Sieze his assets and throw him in prison

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    If you use starlink, you deserve far worse. 5g is usually sufficient unless you’re out in the ocean or something. Either way it’s ruining the night sky, making launches more dangerous, destroying the ozone layer we tried so hard to repair, and supporting death and fascism.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    destroying the ozone layer

    This made me ask "wait, is that true" and apparently it is. Super, skin cancer for everyone. 🤦

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    And it'll take ages to have an impact too.

    Furthermore, we find that these reentry byproducts may take up to 30 years to settle from the top of the mesosphere into the stratospheric ozone layer. Upon reaching an altitude of about 40 km, aluminum oxides catalyze chlorine activation which promotes ozone depletion.

    So the "reentry byproducts" from a satellite re-entering now, won't start breaking down ozone until 2056, and by then there will be another 30 years' worth of byproducts deposited in the upper atmosphere.

    And since it's a catalyst, it won't even be consumed in the process like CFCs are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Tell me you know nothing about rural living without telling you know nothing about rural living

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    Fortunately in my area in Australia we have wireless broadband. There are small towers installed and operated by a local company that provide a good service. The whole lot of towers interconnect using microwave too so can span a large area. In any case, fibre isn’t coming to my place probably ever.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    5G in rural America is terrible. I can't make a phone call in my house, let alone get an internet connection. I'm not even in a particularly remote area.

    There are Starlink dishes everwhere you look here because it's currently the only real option. It will probably be a while until they get some competition from Amazon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Because they lobbied to shutdown running fiber to your community.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    there is 100s of miles of fiber spools just sitting for years at a utility maintenance yard here. the provider that was doing the work to expand services just took the rest of the free money and split.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Guess this Nazi welfare queen's government handouts aren't enough.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Posted 3 days ago with almost 300 comments to this same community

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Violence against billionaires and trillionaire is not the answer. It is the question. And the answer IS YES.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Company gives me a Starlink for deep remote work. I'm doing my part!

  • source
  • 12 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 25 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    If they can get people to pay $1,500 fees for access, surely that money would be better directed towards installing fiber in these rural areas to circumvent the need for highly expensive satellite infrastructure?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    For the cost of these satellites, we could have full connectivity across the world with land based infrastructure, which would last longer, be easier and cheaper to maintain and recyclable at end-of-life. Oh the satellites are also causing insane damage to the ozone layer as they burn up in it.

    LEO internet should have been made illegal the moment it was conceived.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Unfortunately running cable is insanely expensive. $60k per mile to trench.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    What till you hear about the rocket equation!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    That just means the high up front costs of either trenching fiber or launching satellites need to serve a lot of people to recover that cost. That means the last mile for rural residents tends not to be cost effective for fiber, because there aren't enough connections served by any given segment.

    But making it so any given satellite can serve lots of people in its footprint at any given moment might make it cost effective to serve rural residents.

    One common strategy is to run fiber to a specific central location and run point to point microwave antennas to the individual houses/buildings served. That way the fiber itself can carry the traffic of hundreds of users, and each house just needs to have an antenna with line of sight to the place where the fiber is terminated. Rural WISPs have been doing this from before Starlink.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    You only dig fibre once. You need new starlink satellites every couple of years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, but if they spread the cost across many customers, the cost per customer is going to be much smaller, even if it doesn't last as long before needing a replacement.

    If it costs $100,000 to build a fiber line to a single home for 30 years (360 months) that house will need to pay $278/month for 30 years to break even. Throw in interest rates/inflation, and it'll be more.

    But if a satellite that costs $1.5 million to build and launch into orbit can serve even 200 customers for 5 years, that's only $125/month per customer.

    As it stands right now, Starlink serves something like 12 million customers on 10,000 satellites. So that's an average of 1200 customers served by each satellite, which is what makes $50/month service feasible as a business.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I think you're missing the amortization of the r+d and capital upkeep of the whole launch complex. Since the satellites have such a short lifespan you can't only count the upfront costs of manufacturing and launching, you have to include the whole shebang. The starlink system has to include the entire Falcon 9 architecture as overhead. And since it's so integral to their ultimate business model you should also include all the development costs of starship to each starlink satellite. The ROE probably doesn't look so good including all that, which explains Space Ai.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I think the $1.5 million per satellite includes the amortized costs from everything else. They've launched 10,000 satellites so far, so the other fixed costs are spread around across all the satellites and the service itself. And they have lots of paying customers, including maritime and aviation customers. The rural customers who can be served by the network are already additional revenue, and don't cost any extra to serve.

    Similarly, the development costs of each rocket should be amortized across all the ways the rocket is used, including external paid customers unrelated to Starlink, who just pay for their own payloads to go to space.

    Looking it up, SpaceX had $11.4 billion in revenue from Starlink in 2025. As far as I can tell, that segment of their company is profitable, and it's everything else that is a disaster.

    But my point is simple: the useful lifespan of a satellite just changes the amortization calculation. If there are enough customers who will use it, then it can still be cheaper than fiber trenched to a single customer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    we have had a solution to this for ages ... I've lived in rural places without fiber where there is a Microwave repeater at the distribution point and you setup a dish in your house to receive it.

    I was a good 2 - 3 miles away from the uplink and I still got gigabit speeds. It was very sensitive to weather .... but it beats not having broadband at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    Don't hold your breath, there's little chance of USA's regulators going after the oligarch's company.

  • source