• dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

    • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      2 years ago

      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

      • skulblaka@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        The product is objectively the worst possible option in any place that has options, which is most places. It may be useful for some people in some remote parts of the world. Doesn’t make it a good product though. It just makes it the only product on offer.

        • inefficient_electron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          We have options, just not good ones. After Starlink, the next best option where I live is 4G internet, which is way slower. Another satellite service or dialup are other options, both much worse than Starlink. We do not live in a remote location, just barely rural, and only a few kms from a town with gigabit fibre. Starlink is a fantastic service that has only gone down twice for us in the 7 months we’ve had it, and even then only briefly. I don’t think I can fully impress upon you just how much better it has made things.

        • BenPranklin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 years ago

          Its not competing against cable or fiber, its competing against satellite internet and DSL. My family has a place in rural Maine and we used to have Hughesnet satellite internet and starlink is half the price and like 50x the speed.

  • SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • marsokod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

  • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 years ago

    Given how stable Elon is with his other companies, why would anyone be skeptical of letting him supply them with a utility service?

  • i2ndshenanigans@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • dragontamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Thats the thing.

      Outside of the Ukrainian war, I’m not seeing much good use of this Starlink constellation.

      1. Urban areas are already built to 5G, meaning high-speed wireless internet at far cheaper prices than satellite could ever hope to deliver.

      2. 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.

      3. 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?

      • sznio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

      • i2ndshenanigans@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

      • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

  • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Meanwhile, in Australia, the pricing structure and availability of Starlink is so competitive that it is demolishing the national/ state-owned infrastructure (NBN co), who are haemorrhaging users to Starlink.

    In part because the previous conservative government ruined the network for pricing and in part because of the superior performance of the lower satellites. Either way, Starlink is faster and cheaper than infrastructure the citizens already own.

    • Virtual Insanity @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        Apples and oranges you nong.

        The NBN is vdsl,.fibre, fixed wireless and satellite.

        Obviously I’m comparing NBN satellite with musk satellite. 🤦

        • Strykker@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Well if you don’t actually mention what part you are comparing people are going to assume its the part the majority use, ie VDSL and fibre.

          Everyone has always known normal satellite internet sucks dick, it’s slow and high ping.

          But musk is too stupid to market his starlink as a replacement for that, instead trying to win over VDSL and fibre users.

          • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            You don’t get it. Slow and high ping is part of the tech, but not the problem, and not only why people are leaving: it’s the price. Australia owns the satellite and all the infrastructure. The NBN satellite should be cheaper than musklink. It isn’t, because of the Liberal party.

            Musklink isn’t taking vdsl or fibre customers. 5G is.

            You can get 600mbps for $85 a month with Telstra. That is what kills fibre and why metro is leaving the NBN.

            Apples and oranges.

    • lightnegative@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s a shame what happened with NBN in Australia. Fantastic idea, shit execution because they cheaped out.

      The poor man pays twice

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        They didn’t cheap out. Liberals (the name of the conservative party, basically Republicans) spent 3 times as much money for a shitter product, and now Australia has to spend it all over again to redo it.

  • make -j8@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 years ago

    I hate the fact that a billionaire moron from another continent is ruining sky over my country

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    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?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        I can sort of see that with Tesla. The word of mouth thing working for a pricey car brand. But the only way you’re going to get farmers to know about Starlink is to advertise it to them.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

  • Destroyer of Worlds 3000@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    They almost had me on the hook right up to when they decided tiered and throttled plans were the way to go. its essentially a hyped up cellphone plan. so glad I bailed. Also, fuck muskrat.