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.
I guess that’s the only thing consistent of his behavior… kinda sucks that companies like SpaceX are all related to him. I’d love to root for Starship to achieve it’s set goals but also I’d hate to see him get even more rich… if that makes sense
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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 hate the fact that a billionaire moron from another continent is ruining sky over my country
a musk company over promising and under delivering. Surprise surprise
At least he’s consistently underwhelming across the board though.
I guess that’s the only thing consistent of his behavior… kinda sucks that companies like SpaceX are all related to him. I’d love to root for Starship to achieve it’s set goals but also I’d hate to see him get even more rich… if that makes sense
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
removed by mod
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 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.
removed by mod
I paid the deposit over 3 years ago and they still haven’t done shit.
Given how stable Elon is with his other companies, why would anyone be skeptical of letting him supply them with a utility service?
No way in hell I’d entrust my internet service to someone who unblocks Nazis and blocks the people who complain about Nazis.