I picked starlink because it was the only viable option.
Spectrum supposedly covers my area. But not my house.
They were given billions by the government to bring internet to rural areas, but didn't.
Agree. New neighborhood built right up to my fence line. All new homes offered spectrum or frontier but both say I’m not in their coverage area. SL is my only high speed option.
Did they tell you that you can pay 10k to have a line dug to your house? My neighbors have Spectrum, but we don't. Spectrum will happily charge us 10k to have the privilege to pay them for their services though.
I'm in the exact same situation. Sate just got 2bil. Has previously funneled tens of millions to spectrum.. and here I am paying over $200/month combined for starlink and adsl as backup.
It's a love hate thing. On one hand, we wouldn't have been able to move here without starlink and it's usually above 100meg down. But on the other hand, it drops out a lot and costs a bit much. Also... their tech support is hot garbage.
Yep I dumped DSL for starlink and dropped starlink as soon as 5G became available.
I mostly agree with not telling people how to spend their money, but SL keeps raising their prices where there's too heavy of a load and it's pricing the people that could really use it out of the market instead.
> It's dumb to pick starlink when other high speed option is available.
I have fiber on my house but it costs $20 + $0.12/GB. At my usage that puts it at ~$200/month. So I use StarLink as my primary. (live in the middle of nowhere, rural telephone company ran fiber to all of their customers about 10 years ago).
Imean, it’s a forum, there’s a built in premise of publishing opinions. People get to spend their money how they like, people also get to say what they like.
It's our right to publicly stigmatize dumb financial decisions. Paying for starlink when you have access to symmetrical gig for $100 a month is just objectively dumb.
That's different. I also do this, as a backup internet connection. We're the ideal customer for folks like OP because we fund the service while not normally using any bandwidth.
So it’s a dumb financial decision to pay for just one ISP but it’s not dumb to pay for two simultaneously? Make this make sense. I don’t even depend on my home internet for a job, I can just drive to the office 15 miles away if it’s down.
If you don't need a backup Internet source but are paying for one for no reason, yes it's a dumb decision. If someone is paying for dial-up when they can get faster traditional dsl for cheaper, yes that's a dumb decision. I'll say again, if you're paying for starlink when you have access to symmetrical gig fiber and the fiber is cheaper, yes that's a dumb decision. You're paying for a worse service at a higher price. It's not a difficult concept. People are free to do with their money as they please, but it doesn't mean it's not a dumb decision.
Nah, it’s not dumb - I use Starlink roaming every single month and I also use my fiber at home. Couldn’t work remote when I travel every week without taking PTO otherwise. I don’t *need* it, but I certainly *want* it.
Ok well that's different, you're using the service. I'm not arguing against those using starlink for RV/travel/backup when they have a better ISP option as their main provider.
Maybe I'm just not communicating my point correctly. I'm referring to the, "I dropped my $90 a month frontier fiber for starlink." Or, "Verizon just ran fios down our road, I'm sticking with starlink" kinda reasoning. It's dumb.
Tbh if Verizon ran fios down my road and I had starlink, I’d stay on Starlink because I hate Verizon :)
People have their own reasons for hopping ISPs other than ends justifying the connections, Mr. Machiavelli.
Rural area for my use case. This or DSL. We have decent 5G, but none of the providers offer it or I’d totally go that route.
That being said, two years in and it’s been great.
Build your own 5G setup and spoof the IMEI of a business/tablet plan. It's what I did for YEARS in our RV. AT&T thought I was using 1TB+ of data on my $20 unlimited iPad plan but it was in a custom modem/router.
I don't think it's an unpopular opinion. I can see Starlink being useful for those in remote areas or who are constantly in the move... Or even as a backup for catastrophic failure but I see no reason if you are staying in a single place with access to high-speed fiber.
Me, myself I like to look at people commenting about Starlink and how the service is but I don't think I would even own one (unless my condition change)
My opinion is if I had access to anything better then sub 1 mb/s $50 per month telus internet I would choose it over starlink. But being on the side of a mountain next to a river… we have no cell service. Starlink is a fine choose for us in rural BC Canada even at $$$ it is worth it to be able to make calls with our cell phones, watch shows, game… not so bad
I just use 5g during power outages. I've never had the power go out and cellular data at the same time. I just bought a little ethernet dongle for my phone and I hook it up directly to my routers internet port so everything in the house just works like normal. It's fast enough that we don't even notice any difference from the normal gigabit cable connection.
Yea I would swap to fiber in a heart beat but I live in a rural area where the internet company has a monopoly and boy are they awful. At one point I was getting 3 daily 30-60m disconnects and 1-5% promised speed. Starlink is literally 200x faster than what I had on a bad day (at one point I had 5 BYTES per second.)
\^This. We had 1Gbps service with a major brand ISP. Bought Starlink as a backup. The ISP failed so many times it was ridiculous. It would go down. They couldn't fix it. 3 days to wait for a truck roll. If it wasn't for Starlink we would have been SOL and since we both work from home that was not acceptable. 4G LTE is not an option for us because we use a lot of bandwidth and we would tear through our max cap in less than a day. After a number of outages with the ISP and on their last rate raise to $200/mo for their really bad service we dropped them and stayed with Starlink.
Best decision we have ever made. Especially now that we have the Starlink Mini to boot. Now we can be mobile while away from home.
> but I see no reason if you are staying in a single place with access to high-speed fiber.
The reason would be this fiber pricing: https://nntc.net/internet/
That’s 150$ for 1TB. Not really that expensive. I pay like 30$ less for the same thing from Comcast and it’s not fiber or symmetrical 1 gig. They charge extra when you go over a TB of data in a month. That’s not as outrageous as you made it sound.
At my usage it is $200/month. Why would I pick that over $120/month for unlimited data?
Also, the pricing used to be $0.20/GB which was $200/TB. They have slowly dropped it over the last several years. If it ever gets down to $0.07/GB I will reconsider.
Although it still makes me nervous because I am just one spinning process away from a massive internet bill.
I just have a different perspective. I got my parents a Starlink because all that was available to them was unreliable DSL which was supposed to be 3/.75 (3Mbps down and 0.75 Mbps up) but, generally was closer to 1.5/.3. That was $140 a month. So read yeah, I’d pay for the fiver and use a seed box/VPS or what have you to run whatever is is that you’re doing. Only pulling down what I actually need on my home connection. My mom and dad are in an area where when their neighbors tried to get Starlink service after they did, it wasn’t available to them. So it’s either at capacity or oversold in their location. So I’m of the mindset that people using it over a fiber connection are sometimes taking that option away from a rural household without any other options. Of course that is dependent on location, specific circumstances, etc. However, it’s an issue that a lot of people here don’t seem to understand. With DSL speeds like that there’s no streaming, no working from home, no console gaming without a disc and even then, updates often take days or even a week, and that’s if the connection stays stable. It’s a huge impact to their lives and also their ability to succeed. So much education takes place online.
Anyway, people are ultimately free to do what they want, and I won’t begrudge someone their choice. I just think that sometimes people should consider things like this when they have a number of options available. If everyone thought about others a little more and themselves a little less, the world would be a little bit better.
Just to be clear, the situation outlined above may not apply to your geographic location. In the the DelMarVa area so rurual areas are close to the cities and it’s a real issue here, where someone using Starlink in Baltimore is ultimately taking that possibility away from someone 40 minutes away who only has access to the aforementioned DSL. For what it’s worth I hope the fiber prices continue to drop for you.
You're not. But you have to understand there's Islands of unreliability everywhere.
Areas where there's service of and on and you can't expect it all the time
I’m in a rural area and have Ziply as the other option. Ziply would go out every 5 minutes and starlink is 20x faster so while I have ‘another option’ I’m definitely going with the fastest and more reliable option.
Yes, that’s crazy. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing Starlink, and it’s not a cheap alternative, so they are probably choosing it for a reason that’s important to them. In my case, it’s mobility. I’m moving in a couple of months, need good internet, and don’t want to have to break a contract to change location.
It was Starlink or DSL! Tried T-Mobile home internet for a minute but it wasn't much better than DSL and it would just stop working for days at a time.
As my only alternative is 7mb (on a good day) ADSL (1998 woo), I would agree. However, one of the appeals of Starlink was that our internet and cameras couldn't be disabled by someone while breaking into the house, so... I guess that could be a consideration for a minute percentage of people, among others.
Only if you are running a wired connection that they can't cut. If your cameras and security system are using wifi, it's easier to knock them off the wifi than to bother with cutting someone's fiber.
Pretty sure this isn't as unpopular an opinion as you may think.
On one hand, city hipsters that choose starlink over fiber are funding the continued expansion of the services, but it is dumb and bogs everything down for folks who have no other option. Kind of a break even, I suppose.
I hear my little rural community should be getting fiber soon, and I can't wait. Starlink has treated me well and continues to do so, but it'll be nice to have consistent service at similar rates, and much faster upload speeds again.
I think it's a typical opinion, unless you count the people that have options that aren't better. People in other countries often say starlink is better than their other internet options, but they're not overcrowded either. I think it's only the se us that was oversold, and there seems to be enough satellites now so that's not really a problem anymore.
I'm with you. Our area (rural CO) only has CenturyLink DSL...and they're oversold. So for about 9 months I could only get one line. Then I was able to get 2 DSL lines and bond them for a whopping 20/1.5. A single DSL line in my area was 10/0.75. Our neighborhood was waitlisted for SL until about Spring '22. That was much better, but with a bunch of trees everywhere I'd still get about 3 seconds of signal loss every 2 mins. Not ideal, but at least I could carry on a proper video meeting. Then finally, our regional WISP added an additional antenna that could give coverage and I jumped at the chance. 99.99% uptime, 20-30ms of latency, 100/20 speed, and slightly cheaper than SL. And to top it off, by switching I'm making others' speeds faster or allowing an additional customer. Not many people in my neighborhood can see the WISP's antenna, so 95% of the houses here are on SL.
I've had Spectrum Fiber since last December but kept my Starlink equipment just in case I have issues with Spectrum. My Starlink service isn't active, but I can plug it in and reactivate it in about 30 minutes if need be.
I agree 100%.
I'm in rural Maine and have literally zero options for anything else, I can't even hotspot from my phone because it stays on SOS at my home, yet my rates were raised last month by $30.
My take: I got Starlink because the fiber internet here sucks and keeps having issues. Starlink has been working well and consistently and I don't have to support the shitty cable company.
Starlink has a consistent ping rate better than any other internet provider I’ve ever had. I had direct to home fiber previously.
It’s not a zero sum game. More users means more money means more satellites.
I can get at least three different options where I live and I still have Starlink as a backup because it's what makes more sense as an actual alternative in case something goes wrong with fiber. I don't use it actively, most of the time nine just sits in its box, but I rely on internet access to do my job and while I don't need it to be immediately available, it does need to be an option I can switch to in a reasonable time.
So, in my use case, if something cut the main lines going to my house where the fiber cable of any of the other ISPs I can get would be, then it wouldn't matter whether I had the three of them or not, they would all go out at once. Starlink gives me the freedom of either setting it up here in a few minutes if needed or even if I lose power and I need to work, I can take it with me to any location and just have a decent internet connection.
I get your point but I don't think that for a company that has grown as much as Starlink did, just sticking to those that are in remote locations where no other services get would be the best, there are other use cases that also help those people by supporting the overall cost.
Oh wow so you pay for both at same time? Not as crazy as it sounds tbh. I pay for 2 cell phone lines from 2 different providers just in case I’m out in middle of nowhere, maybe one has service… super paranoid about it enough to spend extra cash on it
I just consider it a business expense so yes, I pay for a fiber connection and Starlink. I rely on internet access not just for my job but for a lot of my daily activities and my wife's job requires it as well so it's not unreasonable to pay for a backup. I'm not in the US so prices might make more sense here, between Starlink and a 500Mbps symmetrical fiber package I pay about $116 USD per month. I probably spend more on tacos, Oreos and pizza than I do on internet bills haha.
Unpopular and out of date. Starlink has a huge constellation now. No one is lacking for bandwidth. And we just acquired Starlink Mini which lets us have Internet away from home. What terrestrial ISP can provide high speed internet when you are away from home? None. Starlink for the win.
To answer your question? Yes you are crazy.
Yes and no. Running a business isn't cheap. Getting satellites into orbit is particularly not cheap. If Starlink service is going to thrive and grow, and if the service fees are going to be ~~affordable~~ achievable by most customers, they need quite a large number of customers. So, to an extent, you need some of those people who have choices with internet suppliers, and who will share some of your local bandwidth, to use Starlink too.
I agree mostly except for situations where your only option is Cable and that company has data caps and your monthly usage exceeds that. now they usually have an unlimited add on but that's usually $50 extra a month which exceeds starlink prices by a mile for pricer plans.
I’m down a dirt road and stepped up from 3mbps dsl to holy fkn shit speed with Starlink. Props to my son who happens to be autistic for putting up with 1990’s tech on Fortnite. He’s much more relaxed now. Fiber will be coming out here but we’re 8th on the list for county improvements and a few years out
in the town that I moved to this year we have fiber that offers 2 gigs up and down or more and yet I see a few people with Star Link. Its rather odd to me but its not my money lol.
My new home has access to 2Gbps cable and it is their only Unlimited data plan...However, it is priced at nearly 3x that of Starlink. If I price match the cable plan to starlink I'm looking at nearly identical speeds but a data cap of 250 Gigs. At the end of the day I'd rather pocket the difference.
This stance makes sense to me if Starlink was often/commonly unable to meet potential because the links were saturated. If there’s bandwidth to spare, then a location using it instead of theoretically available fiber is harmless.
I used to think the same thing about streaming movies on Netflix. Thought the traffic would overload the internet.
I was wrong.
I underestimated the commercial value of high speed internet and therefore underestimated how much money companies would invest in ever larger bandwidth.
I think you’re making the same mistake.
No you're not crazy. I'm one of those people that has a fiber line and a Starlink. Starlink is only kicked on (automatically) when we lose power and our backup house battery kicks on. I agree with everything you said, but there are a few use cases to have Starlink and a fiber line, mainly for availability/contingency.
I picked Starlink because I'm rural and the other internet options are really slow and unreliable.
I'd go with fibre in a heartbeat if it was available. I don't really need the extra speed but it's half the price of Starlink..
I’m kind of the only one in my small neighborhood who even has Starlink out in the woods. The upfront cost is the main reason why more won’t easily pick up Starlink around me.
The local internet provider is hiring labourers to finally install fibre internet lines. They're slated to be done in October. Right now we have basic internet with a max bandwidth of 25mb. So starlink is the best option for this area. I'm switching to fibre as soon as it's available. Then I'll have my starlink permanently connected to my RV.
If you’re out in the woods and you get over a 1mb then you’re good. People have the right to choose and many of the fiber options are pretty bad so I wouldn’t blame anyone picking Starlink over other isp offers especially when they can pack it up and take it with them.
Doesn't quite work like that. There is a "cone" RF pattern from each satellite that covers approx 100 sq miles. There's only so much bandwidth that can be delivered to that area. Under the current design, you can't just crush it with more satellites as the RF only has so much overlap before you start to have huge RF interference. So per 100 square miles (10x10 according to musk when he discussed on Rogan), you are sharing a very limited amount of bandwidth per the area.
There's a band of RF the satellites use as per the FCC allocation right? 2 satellites near each other use different RF for interference and bandwidth reasons don't they?
They have a certain airspace they have allocated to them, so they can't get closer to earth. As long as they are at the height they are at, their antennas will radiate a pretty large area, limiting how many more satellites can service the same area.
I don't know what their tolerances are, but even RF on separate frequencies will annihilate one another if they are too close and the system isn't designed for it. Assuming each satellite is tuned for every frequency they are licensed for, the noise and how close together they can get the overlap will depend on how much engineering went into the noise separation work. Way too complex for my limited knowledge of how their system works, but I can't imagine they can squeeze any tighter than the designed constellation size. This was the main reason they lost that fcc $800B, because they said they could service everyone, but the reality is if too many people in dense areas took up service, there wouldn't be enough bandwidth.
Why do people like OP make such statements? You don’t like a service, don’t use it. If you don’t understand a technology, look it up, learn about. You’ll be a better person even if you decide not to use it.
I wish I had better options. I'm dropping it as soon as I can. I left town for 3 months, so I put it on standby, so I wasn't paying $90 a month while gone. Came home, restarted my subscription to now they are charging me $120. I was so pissed. Soon as that fiber they have been promising for years cones down my road, I'm selling my dish and never looking back.
Yeah we have no other option if we want useable internet. They raised our prices to $120 it made us a little angry but Hughes was $90 for totally worthless internet.
Yup. SpaceX wants to block the expansion of fiber connections or fixed wireless so they can continue to charge prices that are double what people would otherwise pay if they have a better option.
I just think they're weird if they do that.
I also live in the literal middle of nowhere, 10 miles back on a dirt road in New Mexico. Starlink is pretty amazing given what I'm getting for where I live, but it's definitely worse than basically every cable connection I've had in the last two decades when I lived in metro areas, and while the monthly bill is similar, there was no $1500 up front cost.
If you live in an urban area, I can't see why you'd ever want Starlink over another provider unless you're dead set on sticking it to Comcast or whatever (and hey, this is also owned by a complete tool so...)
Why should you use satellite internet if fiber is an option? I never heard anyone saying that fiber is available to them but they prefer Starlink 😅 Obviously SL can’t compete with fiber.
It started out at $0.20/GB, but they have slowly dropped the price over the years. It would need to get down to about $0.07/GB before I could consider it.
I do have it connected as a backup because it only costs $20/month if you don't use it.
I agree, but people with money are still going to buy it for their cabin and their RV and their yacht, or whatever they have. And sometimes people are just ignorant of the differences between satellite and fiber optic services.
This is a primary reason I said people should actually be happy SL recently raised the price for many people from $90 to $120. For the people who *really* need it, they're happy to pay any decent price for high speed internet, and making it less attractive for people that have other options helps those with no other options get better speeds.
Yes you are. Starlink is a business and people are free to spend their money however they choose, the same way someone can go live in the woods if they choose. Good for you in the woods, but I’m stuck in the city — is it really my moral duty to think about your internet speed when I choose the ISP I want? With the money I worked my ass off for? While you chill in the woods living your best life? Lol
-which really annoys me because it’s just taking bandwidth from someone 20 miles out in the woods away from internet that has no other high-speed option.-
That's not how it works. There is not one pipe for all of Starlink. There are multiple stations scattered around the world. No one is taking bandwidth from anyone else.
Well, first off, we are all free to use whatever we like. Yes, Optic is faster, but who wants to deal with Spectrum and the likes! Not me!!! I choose to support Starlink. In my opinion, support for good people and products is more important than price or speed.. I at remote, but even if I were not, I would use Starlink due to the freedom of not using the others.
I’d love to use starlink over my current isp because it’s about 40 bucks a month cheaper but it’s not stable enough it seems especially for a semi work from home situation
I don’t think it’s unpopular. Most other providers in my area are substantially cheaper, but where we live the best speeds are 4mbps. We even looked into Verizon.
Rural doesn’t even dictate need, no telling who’s is or isn’t within a footprint of a hardline provider. Major ISPs don’t even have 100% accurate maps of their footprints
I had att for years and it’s shit now. I decided to try Verizon before starlink due to monthly cost and equipment cost. So far I have great speeds and latency is low also. BUT I don’t have any other options at my house.
Valid opinion. I'm rural and my only other option that I used for years was the wifi system in the valley we have. Advertised as 12 down and 6 up, decent gaming latency (I'm not a gamer). When the weather gets super hot or between 8 and 10 on weekdays it would really droop. Starlink is only $35 more and Sweet Baby Jesus so much faster. Plus I got a system on sale direct for $340 ish out the door.
Technically speaking choosing any RF over wireline internet should be discouraged, then again some of the terrestrial ISPs are horrible. I feel for anyone who hates there ISP so badly as to pay $120-$150 a month for a sub GB service out of spite.
I'm the 20 miles out. Before SL, I had.5 up and 5 down. Theoretically, based on grant money, not based on population density, we may be getting fiber, don't know yet. Even if we do, I'll probably hang onto SL as a backup. I have no other passable backup option. I almost bought baby dishy this week as a backup for HW failure, but the 50GB/month is too low to be feasible. Most streaming services will use the bandwidth given, so 50 GB gets eaten up fast. Wife likes to fall asleep with the TV going, for example.
If baby dishy would just slow the speed after the cap is hit, I'd have bought it already.
Initially - yes, but as the network gets improved and built out further with greater reliability and bandwidth - I think it is less of an issue. IMO - someday Starlink will be the default option for most - someday.
I really don't think a lot of people pick Starlink over another terrestrial option. It's pretty good, but it isn't THAT good, and it isn't that cheap.
But I think your take has some merit.
Though in that case, if you get priority you should also maybe pay extra. It would be nice if the folks like me that have Starlink, but only as a backup to the terrestrial cable internet, could pay half as much since I barely ever use it.
The alternative for me was shitty 30Mbps FttN internet that dropped out in my one on one meetings with my manager all the time. Let alone larger meetings with more webcams. This is pretty show stopping as a fully remote employee. Starlink is great, but we’re getting FttP installed atm, they’re running the fibre. Once that’s available, I’ll switch back to a local ISP.
For reference, this was my recent experience with our FttN connection:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nbn/s/TXoK3Kjx4k
There are some people who purchased it because it's kinda "cool" getting Internet from a satellite even though this technology isn't new, Elon's team just made it affordable and not shitty compared to regular satellite service which has very high latency.
Personally I need this service for my parents home they purchased in Mexico in Jalisco and it's in a town where Internet service is provided by fixed wireless antennas that the signal is sent to a relay in a mountain top kilometers away.
The speeds at best don't go higher then 10 Mbps and that's on a good day.
Here in Mexico my speeds are at almost 400 Mbps and I'm only paying 60 bucks in the amount of pesos.
I'm 100% with you, every time there is someone posting in our Facebook group about internet recommendations someone says Starlink, and I ask them why. We have 1000/50 fibre available for significantly LESS than Starlink, so it should be a no brainer. Save your money and get a better service that won't be interrupted by trees or solar storms.
Just had Fiber ran from a Covid Grant, still can’t believe they ran fiber too my rural area when the cable company has been in the area for years but wouldn’t bridge the gap even though there’s a ton more houses now. $54.95 for 1Gig up and down. Was paying $200 for shitty DSL for a Decade as OP describes but ours wasn’t on the poles it was old copper lines from the phone company. Ya know those boxes that ALL have missing faces/doors and have been hit by something so there sitting sideways lmfao. Then $150 for Roam cause East coast wasn’t full open till late 23, I think October. Then $120 for past 18months. Now I’m enjoying my lil member owned Co-op Fiber company just like my Power! Pays too be Rural sometimes 🤷♂️
Starlink was great when my other choices were ViaSat and Hughes. When I moved to an area with fiber, I now have even faster + TV for the same price. Not sure why anyone would want less for the same or lower price.
Moved from the city to a real area, I liked the city but the noise really fuckin sucked. Anyway love our new spot but the only other option besides starlink for net was some $70 a month 5mbps MAX satellite Internet. And it's connected to the owners business and house too so id be hogging their bandwidth lol.
It's working good for now. I can play online games again with my friends! I agree with your statement but thank God speeds have been quite good so far.
Sounds like quite a pointless discussion. Nobody will restrain from using Starlink because of such a comment.
I got fiber recently and keep Starlink because the provider already played ugly games when they dug towards our house. Therefore I don't want to be in any way dependent on this one.
I also can't connect to the internet using IPv6 over fiber because they see no need, because in such a small country there are plenty of IPv4 addresses..
While this is not essential, for me as a software developer and administration it's important to keep pushing forward.
Here also Starlink is cheap, obviously because fiber is now deployed everywhere, so only few use Starlink. The only effect, for anyone who is not me is, that Starlink gets more money.
There were other options in my area but those was also dish set ups, which either had crappy service and not worth the price and or both had to have a contract between 2 and 4 years and rent the equipment. So yeah Starlink way better service. As I was paying $85 for 44 mps, now I'm paying $120 for in-between 230mps -360mps. This is extremely good for an area that doesn't even have traffic lights lol
Each state is in the process of rolling out plans to expand high speed internet using funding from the $42.5 Billion BEAD program that was part of the 2021 bi-partisan infrastructure bill. This $ will greatly expand the amount of fiber optic networking in areas that don’t have good connectivity and that will also enable more fixed wireless coverage as well. The retail pricing for this expanded coverage is likely to be far lower than Starlink. $50-60/month is a reasonable expectation and there will be lower priced plans as well.
When you see Elon complaining about the BEAD program on Xitter it’s because he knows this program is going to capture a huge number of people who might otherwise use Starlink.
For decades, the FCC has given massive publicly funded handouts to ISPs with no requirement that the funding was used to provide actual service. The BEAD program is little more than the federal government letting the state PUCs decide which ISPs get the handouts.
Now it no longer matters which ISPs have funded federal politicians, what matters is which ISPs have funded state level politicians.
Aside from using the free money to give bonuses to executives and increase dividends for shareholders, the ISPs will invest the funds where they can make the most profits for the ISPs, and that means higher density urban and suburban areas that are not served with 100/100 service. Basically, any place that AT&T currently offers 25/3 DSL is eligible for BEAD funding.
So let's hear your policy proposal to increase true high speed internet service in places that do not currently have that coverage where the private sector has zero economic interest in expanding coverage.
Elon Musk would love to get a big chunk of those federal subsidies so he could offer free terminals and get more customers to pay $100+/month indefinitely. If he could block expanded fiber or fixed wireless that would lock in tens of millions of additional customers.
90%of that money won’t be spent on laying out new fiber. There will be a few places that get access, but for the most part, just like any other government program, it will all be fettered away.
You are obviously free to believe whatever you want but the governments in each state have control of this money and a strong incentive to deploy coverage to places where the private sector would otherwise not have sufficient profit motive to build infrastructure. Like any human endeavor, some states will do a better job than others but the majority of work will be done by private / profit seeking companies. Those companies are very eager to see this investment happen. They put of \~ 25% of the cost and the government pays approximately 75%.
This is just like rural electrification efforts which was well worth it. Some people are so cynical about any government / collective effort to improve things that they cannot appreciate a wise investment when they see it. Good day to you sir.
[https://connect.la.gov/bead/](https://connect.la.gov/bead/)
Not holding my breath! More government boondoggle wasted taxpayer money that made politicians and friends rich without any cable laid. The usual graft and corruption.
Maybe you should define “better” a little bit. I live in a a suburb of Los Angeles and the options I have are shitty company that doesn’t care, raised my prices every single month (sometimes a few bucks, sometimes tens of dollars) without notification, would throttle my speeds randomly and would auto charge me the moment I went over 1tb of data.
Starlink is reliable, fast, cordless and the price doesn’t change randomly month to month. Also believe it or not their customer service is leagues better than what I had.
I’m sorry that you feel like this service should suit only a category of people that *includes you* but if you don’t like it, then make your own internet company where you can decide who is excluded.
I guess I am under the impression that most cities have access to better internet and many options. You're saying that these cities like the one you're in, don't have any other cheaper & unlimited options at all? I just find that very hard to believe that a populated city has 1 conglomerate ISP and thats it. There's just no way
Yes, in Rancho Palos Verdes there was Cox internet. Worst customer service ever. I ended up switching to Starlink about 3 years ago and loved it. About a year or so ago, ATT also laid cable down and they are here as well but I don’t have a desire to switch. I’ve also had att before and they treat their customers worse than cox
those people are complete morons. you should just be happy knowing that they're paying more for shitter internet. I doubt it is happening enough to cause much congestion because anyone with two brain cells could see that starlink is more expensive for worse performance.
Agree. Have people in town tell me they hear starlink is great. I say if you have cable, fibre or 5g, don't do it. I wouldn't. Especially for the price.
At least where I am I’m not taking bandwidth from anyone. You have to drive a long way to reach anywhere without other options. I’m pretty sure it makes Starlink much faster for me because there’s very few users in my cell.
I live on the satellite side of the digital divide, and as long as the tourists with mobile starlink don't negatively affect my residential service, I don't care.
Why would you think that’s an unpopular opinion? Many have been saying it since Starlink started — when some jumped on the bandwagon because they thought it was cool, or just so they could tell their current ISP to f’off. Before Starlink my fastest option was 12/3, now I’m normally about 20x faster and can get up to 30x. I can now get Verizon 5Guw on parts of my property, and I’m considering trying that with an external antenna, and setting it up as a backup, or load balanced WAN. If it works well, and reliably, I’ll step aside and let others have my bandwidth.
Not remotely how society operates.
People without houses should be first in line before those with multiple homes.
Multiple cars. Multiple children.
Etc etc.
Humans are greedy fickle creatures. No point trying to insist they follow your rules.
You might reconsider when Starlink closes down then. I am in the same boat as you and I love that it's available, but I am already concerned about the business viability. The monumental cost of this network, launching sats and replacing dying ones needs a lot of revenue to justify.
Starlink is already [quite profitable](https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/ars-live-caleb-henry-joins-us-to-discuss-the-profitability-of-starlink/), projected to generate an estimated $6.6 billion in revenue this year.
Agreed. In most cases I think its a status thing. "Oh I have Starlink and a Tesla" type thing. But i did agree with someone in here who pays for starlink as a backup when the lines go down in a storm or something. I think thats more than fair
Aww boohoo here we go with the pc equitability crap.
I bet you stomped ur feet as a child screaming... "But that's not fair"!!!
Get over it. Starlink is a privately funded, entrepreneurial venture that owes no one no thing.
If you dont like their business plan, you better start building rockets and satellites yourself!
FYI, I live 50 miles and two hours drive offgrid. Im happy to have satellite internet of any capacity.
Starlink was overhyped - so people don't look for other local options which might be better. Plus people don't understand bandwidth and what they actually need. A 50/5 DSL is in most cases better then a 250/25 PEAK Starlink.
Its not really that- A lot of us in rural areas HAVE looked. We get 1 other option, 6.5/0.5 which isnt enough to run Netflix movies without buffering every now and then. There are no other options for me. There is that one, Hughesnet (which isn't highspeed and has limited use), and probably other satellite options that are all worse. According to the internet, Starlink is the best possible satellite option out there
I am in very similar situation. (7/0.8) But there are plenty of people which switch from a perfectly working DSL with 50+ mbits to Starlink and think it must be better in every way just because they don't understand and see the high screenshots posted here.
Oh I see what you're saying now. Jeez I didn't think people actually switched because they thought it was better. No satellite is going to outperform DSL. Its just not as fast & will be more delay ( at least until tech advances )
I picked starlink because it was the only viable option. Spectrum supposedly covers my area. But not my house. They were given billions by the government to bring internet to rural areas, but didn't.
Agree. New neighborhood built right up to my fence line. All new homes offered spectrum or frontier but both say I’m not in their coverage area. SL is my only high speed option.
Did they tell you that you can pay 10k to have a line dug to your house? My neighbors have Spectrum, but we don't. Spectrum will happily charge us 10k to have the privilege to pay them for their services though.
They wouldn’t even do that!! They’re building a new house 70 feet from mine but I’m out of the service area.
I'm in the exact same situation. Sate just got 2bil. Has previously funneled tens of millions to spectrum.. and here I am paying over $200/month combined for starlink and adsl as backup. It's a love hate thing. On one hand, we wouldn't have been able to move here without starlink and it's usually above 100meg down. But on the other hand, it drops out a lot and costs a bit much. Also... their tech support is hot garbage.
Same here. Starlink and ADSL. Neighbors have Spectrum, but we are just beyond the limit for some reason.
You're free to have this opinion, just as people are free to pick their ISP (when there is a choice).
Agree, but…I do feel his pain! My other options: nothing, nothing or nothing. On the other hand, Starlink needs to be profitable to continue.
For what it’s worth, someone living in an urban area using Starlink is helping to subsidise costs and increase speeds of those people in rural areas
It's dumb to pick starlink when other high speed option is available. But that's not up to you to tell people how to use their money.
Yep I dumped DSL for starlink and dropped starlink as soon as 5G became available. I mostly agree with not telling people how to spend their money, but SL keeps raising their prices where there's too heavy of a load and it's pricing the people that could really use it out of the market instead.
They keep reducing the price in Spain.
Right. And starlink needs the subscribers / revenue
Elon can afford it.
That's not how any of this works.
> It's dumb to pick starlink when other high speed option is available. I have fiber on my house but it costs $20 + $0.12/GB. At my usage that puts it at ~$200/month. So I use StarLink as my primary. (live in the middle of nowhere, rural telephone company ran fiber to all of their customers about 10 years ago).
Fiber with a per gb usage charge‽ that's nuts.
Tell me about it. I was incredulous when they announced the pricing. I went from being super excited about fiber to being totally bummed out.
Where is this? Just wondering, I have NEVER heard of pricing per amount of data used for fiber. CAPS yes, but never per gig
https://nntc.net/internet/
Geez I would have to pay $400-600 per month with that option.
Indeed there were people in my area that were having $700 internet bills. A few of them switched to StarLink because of it.
Imean, it’s a forum, there’s a built in premise of publishing opinions. People get to spend their money how they like, people also get to say what they like.
It's our right to publicly stigmatize dumb financial decisions. Paying for starlink when you have access to symmetrical gig for $100 a month is just objectively dumb.
I pay for starlink and I pay for symmetrical gig internet too.
Same with me, I need a backup at the house.
That's different. I also do this, as a backup internet connection. We're the ideal customer for folks like OP because we fund the service while not normally using any bandwidth.
I use a decent amount of bandwidth each month, but I also do it in low population areas (frequent traveler with remote work).
Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those that use starlink as their only ISP when they have access to a better alternative.
So it’s a dumb financial decision to pay for just one ISP but it’s not dumb to pay for two simultaneously? Make this make sense. I don’t even depend on my home internet for a job, I can just drive to the office 15 miles away if it’s down.
If you don't need a backup Internet source but are paying for one for no reason, yes it's a dumb decision. If someone is paying for dial-up when they can get faster traditional dsl for cheaper, yes that's a dumb decision. I'll say again, if you're paying for starlink when you have access to symmetrical gig fiber and the fiber is cheaper, yes that's a dumb decision. You're paying for a worse service at a higher price. It's not a difficult concept. People are free to do with their money as they please, but it doesn't mean it's not a dumb decision.
Nah, it’s not dumb - I use Starlink roaming every single month and I also use my fiber at home. Couldn’t work remote when I travel every week without taking PTO otherwise. I don’t *need* it, but I certainly *want* it.
Ok well that's different, you're using the service. I'm not arguing against those using starlink for RV/travel/backup when they have a better ISP option as their main provider. Maybe I'm just not communicating my point correctly. I'm referring to the, "I dropped my $90 a month frontier fiber for starlink." Or, "Verizon just ran fios down our road, I'm sticking with starlink" kinda reasoning. It's dumb.
Tbh if Verizon ran fios down my road and I had starlink, I’d stay on Starlink because I hate Verizon :) People have their own reasons for hopping ISPs other than ends justifying the connections, Mr. Machiavelli.
Hey, sometimes stupid financial decisions are necessary for moral reasons.
Not when you also use it for an rv.
We are all free to tell people how they should use their money. Whether or not they follow that advice is up to them though.
Rural area for my use case. This or DSL. We have decent 5G, but none of the providers offer it or I’d totally go that route. That being said, two years in and it’s been great.
None of the 5G available to our rural location is fast enough to run my work VPN or I sure wouldn’t be paying Starlink prices either!
Build your own 5G setup and spoof the IMEI of a business/tablet plan. It's what I did for YEARS in our RV. AT&T thought I was using 1TB+ of data on my $20 unlimited iPad plan but it was in a custom modem/router.
I don't think it's an unpopular opinion. I can see Starlink being useful for those in remote areas or who are constantly in the move... Or even as a backup for catastrophic failure but I see no reason if you are staying in a single place with access to high-speed fiber. Me, myself I like to look at people commenting about Starlink and how the service is but I don't think I would even own one (unless my condition change)
My opinion is if I had access to anything better then sub 1 mb/s $50 per month telus internet I would choose it over starlink. But being on the side of a mountain next to a river… we have no cell service. Starlink is a fine choose for us in rural BC Canada even at $$$ it is worth it to be able to make calls with our cell phones, watch shows, game… not so bad
Imagine someone in the middle of Vancouver trying to run the SL cable down the side of a high-rise apartment and into their window.
I Starlink from my apartment balcony during power outages.
I just use 5g during power outages. I've never had the power go out and cellular data at the same time. I just bought a little ethernet dongle for my phone and I hook it up directly to my routers internet port so everything in the house just works like normal. It's fast enough that we don't even notice any difference from the normal gigabit cable connection.
There are other circumstances where it makes sense. Some have access to another service but it is slower or extremely unreliable or both.
Yea I would swap to fiber in a heart beat but I live in a rural area where the internet company has a monopoly and boy are they awful. At one point I was getting 3 daily 30-60m disconnects and 1-5% promised speed. Starlink is literally 200x faster than what I had on a bad day (at one point I had 5 BYTES per second.)
\^This. We had 1Gbps service with a major brand ISP. Bought Starlink as a backup. The ISP failed so many times it was ridiculous. It would go down. They couldn't fix it. 3 days to wait for a truck roll. If it wasn't for Starlink we would have been SOL and since we both work from home that was not acceptable. 4G LTE is not an option for us because we use a lot of bandwidth and we would tear through our max cap in less than a day. After a number of outages with the ISP and on their last rate raise to $200/mo for their really bad service we dropped them and stayed with Starlink. Best decision we have ever made. Especially now that we have the Starlink Mini to boot. Now we can be mobile while away from home.
> but I see no reason if you are staying in a single place with access to high-speed fiber. The reason would be this fiber pricing: https://nntc.net/internet/
That’s 150$ for 1TB. Not really that expensive. I pay like 30$ less for the same thing from Comcast and it’s not fiber or symmetrical 1 gig. They charge extra when you go over a TB of data in a month. That’s not as outrageous as you made it sound.
At my usage it is $200/month. Why would I pick that over $120/month for unlimited data? Also, the pricing used to be $0.20/GB which was $200/TB. They have slowly dropped it over the last several years. If it ever gets down to $0.07/GB I will reconsider. Although it still makes me nervous because I am just one spinning process away from a massive internet bill.
I just have a different perspective. I got my parents a Starlink because all that was available to them was unreliable DSL which was supposed to be 3/.75 (3Mbps down and 0.75 Mbps up) but, generally was closer to 1.5/.3. That was $140 a month. So read yeah, I’d pay for the fiver and use a seed box/VPS or what have you to run whatever is is that you’re doing. Only pulling down what I actually need on my home connection. My mom and dad are in an area where when their neighbors tried to get Starlink service after they did, it wasn’t available to them. So it’s either at capacity or oversold in their location. So I’m of the mindset that people using it over a fiber connection are sometimes taking that option away from a rural household without any other options. Of course that is dependent on location, specific circumstances, etc. However, it’s an issue that a lot of people here don’t seem to understand. With DSL speeds like that there’s no streaming, no working from home, no console gaming without a disc and even then, updates often take days or even a week, and that’s if the connection stays stable. It’s a huge impact to their lives and also their ability to succeed. So much education takes place online. Anyway, people are ultimately free to do what they want, and I won’t begrudge someone their choice. I just think that sometimes people should consider things like this when they have a number of options available. If everyone thought about others a little more and themselves a little less, the world would be a little bit better. Just to be clear, the situation outlined above may not apply to your geographic location. In the the DelMarVa area so rurual areas are close to the cities and it’s a real issue here, where someone using Starlink in Baltimore is ultimately taking that possibility away from someone 40 minutes away who only has access to the aforementioned DSL. For what it’s worth I hope the fiber prices continue to drop for you.
You're not. But you have to understand there's Islands of unreliability everywhere. Areas where there's service of and on and you can't expect it all the time
I’m in a rural area and have Ziply as the other option. Ziply would go out every 5 minutes and starlink is 20x faster so while I have ‘another option’ I’m definitely going with the fastest and more reliable option.
Yes, that’s crazy. Everyone has their own reasons for choosing Starlink, and it’s not a cheap alternative, so they are probably choosing it for a reason that’s important to them. In my case, it’s mobility. I’m moving in a couple of months, need good internet, and don’t want to have to break a contract to change location.
It was Starlink or DSL! Tried T-Mobile home internet for a minute but it wasn't much better than DSL and it would just stop working for days at a time.
As my only alternative is 7mb (on a good day) ADSL (1998 woo), I would agree. However, one of the appeals of Starlink was that our internet and cameras couldn't be disabled by someone while breaking into the house, so... I guess that could be a consideration for a minute percentage of people, among others.
Only if you are running a wired connection that they can't cut. If your cameras and security system are using wifi, it's easier to knock them off the wifi than to bother with cutting someone's fiber.
Pretty sure this isn't as unpopular an opinion as you may think. On one hand, city hipsters that choose starlink over fiber are funding the continued expansion of the services, but it is dumb and bogs everything down for folks who have no other option. Kind of a break even, I suppose. I hear my little rural community should be getting fiber soon, and I can't wait. Starlink has treated me well and continues to do so, but it'll be nice to have consistent service at similar rates, and much faster upload speeds again.
I think it's a typical opinion, unless you count the people that have options that aren't better. People in other countries often say starlink is better than their other internet options, but they're not overcrowded either. I think it's only the se us that was oversold, and there seems to be enough satellites now so that's not really a problem anymore.
I'm with you. Our area (rural CO) only has CenturyLink DSL...and they're oversold. So for about 9 months I could only get one line. Then I was able to get 2 DSL lines and bond them for a whopping 20/1.5. A single DSL line in my area was 10/0.75. Our neighborhood was waitlisted for SL until about Spring '22. That was much better, but with a bunch of trees everywhere I'd still get about 3 seconds of signal loss every 2 mins. Not ideal, but at least I could carry on a proper video meeting. Then finally, our regional WISP added an additional antenna that could give coverage and I jumped at the chance. 99.99% uptime, 20-30ms of latency, 100/20 speed, and slightly cheaper than SL. And to top it off, by switching I'm making others' speeds faster or allowing an additional customer. Not many people in my neighborhood can see the WISP's antenna, so 95% of the houses here are on SL.
I agree with you however more people buying starlink will drive hardware/sub costs down over time. Also, more $$ for R&D
I've had Spectrum Fiber since last December but kept my Starlink equipment just in case I have issues with Spectrum. My Starlink service isn't active, but I can plug it in and reactivate it in about 30 minutes if need be.
I agree 100%. I'm in rural Maine and have literally zero options for anything else, I can't even hotspot from my phone because it stays on SOS at my home, yet my rates were raised last month by $30.
I chose Starlink because I am the one in the woods.
My take: I got Starlink because the fiber internet here sucks and keeps having issues. Starlink has been working well and consistently and I don't have to support the shitty cable company.
Starlink has a consistent ping rate better than any other internet provider I’ve ever had. I had direct to home fiber previously. It’s not a zero sum game. More users means more money means more satellites.
I can get at least three different options where I live and I still have Starlink as a backup because it's what makes more sense as an actual alternative in case something goes wrong with fiber. I don't use it actively, most of the time nine just sits in its box, but I rely on internet access to do my job and while I don't need it to be immediately available, it does need to be an option I can switch to in a reasonable time. So, in my use case, if something cut the main lines going to my house where the fiber cable of any of the other ISPs I can get would be, then it wouldn't matter whether I had the three of them or not, they would all go out at once. Starlink gives me the freedom of either setting it up here in a few minutes if needed or even if I lose power and I need to work, I can take it with me to any location and just have a decent internet connection. I get your point but I don't think that for a company that has grown as much as Starlink did, just sticking to those that are in remote locations where no other services get would be the best, there are other use cases that also help those people by supporting the overall cost.
Oh wow so you pay for both at same time? Not as crazy as it sounds tbh. I pay for 2 cell phone lines from 2 different providers just in case I’m out in middle of nowhere, maybe one has service… super paranoid about it enough to spend extra cash on it
I just consider it a business expense so yes, I pay for a fiber connection and Starlink. I rely on internet access not just for my job but for a lot of my daily activities and my wife's job requires it as well so it's not unreasonable to pay for a backup. I'm not in the US so prices might make more sense here, between Starlink and a 500Mbps symmetrical fiber package I pay about $116 USD per month. I probably spend more on tacos, Oreos and pizza than I do on internet bills haha.
Very cool man, glad that works out for you!
Unpopular and out of date. Starlink has a huge constellation now. No one is lacking for bandwidth. And we just acquired Starlink Mini which lets us have Internet away from home. What terrestrial ISP can provide high speed internet when you are away from home? None. Starlink for the win. To answer your question? Yes you are crazy.
Yes and no. Running a business isn't cheap. Getting satellites into orbit is particularly not cheap. If Starlink service is going to thrive and grow, and if the service fees are going to be ~~affordable~~ achievable by most customers, they need quite a large number of customers. So, to an extent, you need some of those people who have choices with internet suppliers, and who will share some of your local bandwidth, to use Starlink too.
So then by your logic they should shut down all the other divisions because they don't service people but companies?
I agree mostly except for situations where your only option is Cable and that company has data caps and your monthly usage exceeds that. now they usually have an unlimited add on but that's usually $50 extra a month which exceeds starlink prices by a mile for pricer plans.
I’m down a dirt road and stepped up from 3mbps dsl to holy fkn shit speed with Starlink. Props to my son who happens to be autistic for putting up with 1990’s tech on Fortnite. He’s much more relaxed now. Fiber will be coming out here but we’re 8th on the list for county improvements and a few years out
in the town that I moved to this year we have fiber that offers 2 gigs up and down or more and yet I see a few people with Star Link. Its rather odd to me but its not my money lol.
My new home has access to 2Gbps cable and it is their only Unlimited data plan...However, it is priced at nearly 3x that of Starlink. If I price match the cable plan to starlink I'm looking at nearly identical speeds but a data cap of 250 Gigs. At the end of the day I'd rather pocket the difference.
This stance makes sense to me if Starlink was often/commonly unable to meet potential because the links were saturated. If there’s bandwidth to spare, then a location using it instead of theoretically available fiber is harmless.
I have a office with ~35 employees, we use fiber as our primary link and starlink as redundancy. This is a good use case.
I used to think the same thing about streaming movies on Netflix. Thought the traffic would overload the internet. I was wrong. I underestimated the commercial value of high speed internet and therefore underestimated how much money companies would invest in ever larger bandwidth. I think you’re making the same mistake.
No you're not crazy. I'm one of those people that has a fiber line and a Starlink. Starlink is only kicked on (automatically) when we lose power and our backup house battery kicks on. I agree with everything you said, but there are a few use cases to have Starlink and a fiber line, mainly for availability/contingency.
Very fair point, agreed
I picked Starlink because I'm rural and the other internet options are really slow and unreliable. I'd go with fibre in a heartbeat if it was available. I don't really need the extra speed but it's half the price of Starlink..
Same boat!
I’m kind of the only one in my small neighborhood who even has Starlink out in the woods. The upfront cost is the main reason why more won’t easily pick up Starlink around me.
I was stuck on the same thing, but glad I invested in it when I did
Oh yeah last year the service for me was horrible with lag spike when playing games. With more sats up its night and dayz
I agree. It shouldnt be used by people with access to good speed normal ISP’s
The local internet provider is hiring labourers to finally install fibre internet lines. They're slated to be done in October. Right now we have basic internet with a max bandwidth of 25mb. So starlink is the best option for this area. I'm switching to fibre as soon as it's available. Then I'll have my starlink permanently connected to my RV.
We had fiber run down our rural road 2.5 years ago. Still not lit. Still on SL.
Thats insane. Just no provider wants to turn it on?
Apparently. I have put my address on every service att, Verizon etc to get a notice when they have service to my address. Nothing yet.
Definitely only for rural use for me.
If they want to pay for it they have just as much of a right to it as anyone else.
If you’re out in the woods and you get over a 1mb then you’re good. People have the right to choose and many of the fiber options are pretty bad so I wouldn’t blame anyone picking Starlink over other isp offers especially when they can pack it up and take it with them.
I can't imagine using starlink if I had fiber available. Or even a good cable internet.
Yes you are. The more customers the more satellites the better accessibility for all.
Doesn't quite work like that. There is a "cone" RF pattern from each satellite that covers approx 100 sq miles. There's only so much bandwidth that can be delivered to that area. Under the current design, you can't just crush it with more satellites as the RF only has so much overlap before you start to have huge RF interference. So per 100 square miles (10x10 according to musk when he discussed on Rogan), you are sharing a very limited amount of bandwidth per the area.
There's a band of RF the satellites use as per the FCC allocation right? 2 satellites near each other use different RF for interference and bandwidth reasons don't they?
They have a certain airspace they have allocated to them, so they can't get closer to earth. As long as they are at the height they are at, their antennas will radiate a pretty large area, limiting how many more satellites can service the same area. I don't know what their tolerances are, but even RF on separate frequencies will annihilate one another if they are too close and the system isn't designed for it. Assuming each satellite is tuned for every frequency they are licensed for, the noise and how close together they can get the overlap will depend on how much engineering went into the noise separation work. Way too complex for my limited knowledge of how their system works, but I can't imagine they can squeeze any tighter than the designed constellation size. This was the main reason they lost that fcc $800B, because they said they could service everyone, but the reality is if too many people in dense areas took up service, there wouldn't be enough bandwidth.
Why do people like OP make such statements? You don’t like a service, don’t use it. If you don’t understand a technology, look it up, learn about. You’ll be a better person even if you decide not to use it.
I wish I had better options. I'm dropping it as soon as I can. I left town for 3 months, so I put it on standby, so I wasn't paying $90 a month while gone. Came home, restarted my subscription to now they are charging me $120. I was so pissed. Soon as that fiber they have been promising for years cones down my road, I'm selling my dish and never looking back.
Yeah we have no other option if we want useable internet. They raised our prices to $120 it made us a little angry but Hughes was $90 for totally worthless internet.
Yup. SpaceX wants to block the expansion of fiber connections or fixed wireless so they can continue to charge prices that are double what people would otherwise pay if they have a better option.
I just think they're weird if they do that. I also live in the literal middle of nowhere, 10 miles back on a dirt road in New Mexico. Starlink is pretty amazing given what I'm getting for where I live, but it's definitely worse than basically every cable connection I've had in the last two decades when I lived in metro areas, and while the monthly bill is similar, there was no $1500 up front cost. If you live in an urban area, I can't see why you'd ever want Starlink over another provider unless you're dead set on sticking it to Comcast or whatever (and hey, this is also owned by a complete tool so...)
Why should you use satellite internet if fiber is an option? I never heard anyone saying that fiber is available to them but they prefer Starlink 😅 Obviously SL can’t compete with fiber.
I have fiber on my house but use StarLink as my primary because of the cost of fiber (at my usage about $200/month): https://nntc.net/internet/
That’s a crazy price. Never saw a fiber connection paid per GB data usage 😅
It started out at $0.20/GB, but they have slowly dropped the price over the years. It would need to get down to about $0.07/GB before I could consider it. I do have it connected as a backup because it only costs $20/month if you don't use it.
I agree, but people with money are still going to buy it for their cabin and their RV and their yacht, or whatever they have. And sometimes people are just ignorant of the differences between satellite and fiber optic services.
This is a primary reason I said people should actually be happy SL recently raised the price for many people from $90 to $120. For the people who *really* need it, they're happy to pay any decent price for high speed internet, and making it less attractive for people that have other options helps those with no other options get better speeds.
I'm happy that it is so easy to exploit the desperate
Yes you are. Starlink is a business and people are free to spend their money however they choose, the same way someone can go live in the woods if they choose. Good for you in the woods, but I’m stuck in the city — is it really my moral duty to think about your internet speed when I choose the ISP I want? With the money I worked my ass off for? While you chill in the woods living your best life? Lol
-which really annoys me because it’s just taking bandwidth from someone 20 miles out in the woods away from internet that has no other high-speed option.- That's not how it works. There is not one pipe for all of Starlink. There are multiple stations scattered around the world. No one is taking bandwidth from anyone else.
Well, first off, we are all free to use whatever we like. Yes, Optic is faster, but who wants to deal with Spectrum and the likes! Not me!!! I choose to support Starlink. In my opinion, support for good people and products is more important than price or speed.. I at remote, but even if I were not, I would use Starlink due to the freedom of not using the others.
I also have a tmobile @home setup that I usually have for primary service but am stuck using SL at this Campground due to poor tmo signal.
I’d love to use starlink over my current isp because it’s about 40 bucks a month cheaper but it’s not stable enough it seems especially for a semi work from home situation
I don’t think it’s unpopular. Most other providers in my area are substantially cheaper, but where we live the best speeds are 4mbps. We even looked into Verizon.
Due to my money, investment goes on, so the dude in the forest gets even better performance.
Rural doesn’t even dictate need, no telling who’s is or isn’t within a footprint of a hardline provider. Major ISPs don’t even have 100% accurate maps of their footprints
We just signed up because we don't have fiber, just rusty broken copper wiring. Hughes is not an option either because they data cap you. Been there.
I had att for years and it’s shit now. I decided to try Verizon before starlink due to monthly cost and equipment cost. So far I have great speeds and latency is low also. BUT I don’t have any other options at my house.
If it can drop the monthly price I’m all for more people getting it.
It was my only option. I tried every alternate before pulling the trigger. I don't hate it but it's not the same. I just don't game online anymore lol
We have options, but none as good as Starlink
Valid opinion. I'm rural and my only other option that I used for years was the wifi system in the valley we have. Advertised as 12 down and 6 up, decent gaming latency (I'm not a gamer). When the weather gets super hot or between 8 and 10 on weekdays it would really droop. Starlink is only $35 more and Sweet Baby Jesus so much faster. Plus I got a system on sale direct for $340 ish out the door.
Valid
Technically speaking choosing any RF over wireline internet should be discouraged, then again some of the terrestrial ISPs are horrible. I feel for anyone who hates there ISP so badly as to pay $120-$150 a month for a sub GB service out of spite.
I'm the 20 miles out. Before SL, I had.5 up and 5 down. Theoretically, based on grant money, not based on population density, we may be getting fiber, don't know yet. Even if we do, I'll probably hang onto SL as a backup. I have no other passable backup option. I almost bought baby dishy this week as a backup for HW failure, but the 50GB/month is too low to be feasible. Most streaming services will use the bandwidth given, so 50 GB gets eaten up fast. Wife likes to fall asleep with the TV going, for example. If baby dishy would just slow the speed after the cap is hit, I'd have bought it already.
Initially - yes, but as the network gets improved and built out further with greater reliability and bandwidth - I think it is less of an issue. IMO - someday Starlink will be the default option for most - someday.
I really don't think a lot of people pick Starlink over another terrestrial option. It's pretty good, but it isn't THAT good, and it isn't that cheap. But I think your take has some merit. Though in that case, if you get priority you should also maybe pay extra. It would be nice if the folks like me that have Starlink, but only as a backup to the terrestrial cable internet, could pay half as much since I barely ever use it.
The alternative for me was shitty 30Mbps FttN internet that dropped out in my one on one meetings with my manager all the time. Let alone larger meetings with more webcams. This is pretty show stopping as a fully remote employee. Starlink is great, but we’re getting FttP installed atm, they’re running the fibre. Once that’s available, I’ll switch back to a local ISP. For reference, this was my recent experience with our FttN connection: https://www.reddit.com/r/nbn/s/TXoK3Kjx4k
There are some people who purchased it because it's kinda "cool" getting Internet from a satellite even though this technology isn't new, Elon's team just made it affordable and not shitty compared to regular satellite service which has very high latency. Personally I need this service for my parents home they purchased in Mexico in Jalisco and it's in a town where Internet service is provided by fixed wireless antennas that the signal is sent to a relay in a mountain top kilometers away. The speeds at best don't go higher then 10 Mbps and that's on a good day. Here in Mexico my speeds are at almost 400 Mbps and I'm only paying 60 bucks in the amount of pesos.
I'm 100% with you, every time there is someone posting in our Facebook group about internet recommendations someone says Starlink, and I ask them why. We have 1000/50 fibre available for significantly LESS than Starlink, so it should be a no brainer. Save your money and get a better service that won't be interrupted by trees or solar storms.
Just had Fiber ran from a Covid Grant, still can’t believe they ran fiber too my rural area when the cable company has been in the area for years but wouldn’t bridge the gap even though there’s a ton more houses now. $54.95 for 1Gig up and down. Was paying $200 for shitty DSL for a Decade as OP describes but ours wasn’t on the poles it was old copper lines from the phone company. Ya know those boxes that ALL have missing faces/doors and have been hit by something so there sitting sideways lmfao. Then $150 for Roam cause East coast wasn’t full open till late 23, I think October. Then $120 for past 18months. Now I’m enjoying my lil member owned Co-op Fiber company just like my Power! Pays too be Rural sometimes 🤷♂️
Starlink was great when my other choices were ViaSat and Hughes. When I moved to an area with fiber, I now have even faster + TV for the same price. Not sure why anyone would want less for the same or lower price.
Satillite Internet is my only option, Starlink is much better the Hughsnet.
I have 3 ISPs. Starlink is for if both ground ISPs are cut or offline.
It’s my only option besides a WiFi hotspot off cell towers.
I chose Starlink because it was literally all I could choose other than a 1.5 megabit DSL connection
Moved from the city to a real area, I liked the city but the noise really fuckin sucked. Anyway love our new spot but the only other option besides starlink for net was some $70 a month 5mbps MAX satellite Internet. And it's connected to the owners business and house too so id be hogging their bandwidth lol. It's working good for now. I can play online games again with my friends! I agree with your statement but thank God speeds have been quite good so far.
Sounds like quite a pointless discussion. Nobody will restrain from using Starlink because of such a comment. I got fiber recently and keep Starlink because the provider already played ugly games when they dug towards our house. Therefore I don't want to be in any way dependent on this one. I also can't connect to the internet using IPv6 over fiber because they see no need, because in such a small country there are plenty of IPv4 addresses.. While this is not essential, for me as a software developer and administration it's important to keep pushing forward. Here also Starlink is cheap, obviously because fiber is now deployed everywhere, so only few use Starlink. The only effect, for anyone who is not me is, that Starlink gets more money.
There were other options in my area but those was also dish set ups, which either had crappy service and not worth the price and or both had to have a contract between 2 and 4 years and rent the equipment. So yeah Starlink way better service. As I was paying $85 for 44 mps, now I'm paying $120 for in-between 230mps -360mps. This is extremely good for an area that doesn't even have traffic lights lol
My fiber installer is here now. Soon my bandwidth will be available to others. Still, I am going to miss Starlink.
You are crazy because that's not how networking works.
Each state is in the process of rolling out plans to expand high speed internet using funding from the $42.5 Billion BEAD program that was part of the 2021 bi-partisan infrastructure bill. This $ will greatly expand the amount of fiber optic networking in areas that don’t have good connectivity and that will also enable more fixed wireless coverage as well. The retail pricing for this expanded coverage is likely to be far lower than Starlink. $50-60/month is a reasonable expectation and there will be lower priced plans as well. When you see Elon complaining about the BEAD program on Xitter it’s because he knows this program is going to capture a huge number of people who might otherwise use Starlink.
For decades, the FCC has given massive publicly funded handouts to ISPs with no requirement that the funding was used to provide actual service. The BEAD program is little more than the federal government letting the state PUCs decide which ISPs get the handouts. Now it no longer matters which ISPs have funded federal politicians, what matters is which ISPs have funded state level politicians. Aside from using the free money to give bonuses to executives and increase dividends for shareholders, the ISPs will invest the funds where they can make the most profits for the ISPs, and that means higher density urban and suburban areas that are not served with 100/100 service. Basically, any place that AT&T currently offers 25/3 DSL is eligible for BEAD funding.
So let's hear your policy proposal to increase true high speed internet service in places that do not currently have that coverage where the private sector has zero economic interest in expanding coverage. Elon Musk would love to get a big chunk of those federal subsidies so he could offer free terminals and get more customers to pay $100+/month indefinitely. If he could block expanded fiber or fixed wireless that would lock in tens of millions of additional customers.
90%of that money won’t be spent on laying out new fiber. There will be a few places that get access, but for the most part, just like any other government program, it will all be fettered away.
You are obviously free to believe whatever you want but the governments in each state have control of this money and a strong incentive to deploy coverage to places where the private sector would otherwise not have sufficient profit motive to build infrastructure. Like any human endeavor, some states will do a better job than others but the majority of work will be done by private / profit seeking companies. Those companies are very eager to see this investment happen. They put of \~ 25% of the cost and the government pays approximately 75%. This is just like rural electrification efforts which was well worth it. Some people are so cynical about any government / collective effort to improve things that they cannot appreciate a wise investment when they see it. Good day to you sir. [https://connect.la.gov/bead/](https://connect.la.gov/bead/)
Not holding my breath! More government boondoggle wasted taxpayer money that made politicians and friends rich without any cable laid. The usual graft and corruption.
the sad truth
Maybe you should define “better” a little bit. I live in a a suburb of Los Angeles and the options I have are shitty company that doesn’t care, raised my prices every single month (sometimes a few bucks, sometimes tens of dollars) without notification, would throttle my speeds randomly and would auto charge me the moment I went over 1tb of data. Starlink is reliable, fast, cordless and the price doesn’t change randomly month to month. Also believe it or not their customer service is leagues better than what I had. I’m sorry that you feel like this service should suit only a category of people that *includes you* but if you don’t like it, then make your own internet company where you can decide who is excluded.
I guess I am under the impression that most cities have access to better internet and many options. You're saying that these cities like the one you're in, don't have any other cheaper & unlimited options at all? I just find that very hard to believe that a populated city has 1 conglomerate ISP and thats it. There's just no way
Yes, in Rancho Palos Verdes there was Cox internet. Worst customer service ever. I ended up switching to Starlink about 3 years ago and loved it. About a year or so ago, ATT also laid cable down and they are here as well but I don’t have a desire to switch. I’ve also had att before and they treat their customers worse than cox
those people are complete morons. you should just be happy knowing that they're paying more for shitter internet. I doubt it is happening enough to cause much congestion because anyone with two brain cells could see that starlink is more expensive for worse performance.
Agree. Have people in town tell me they hear starlink is great. I say if you have cable, fibre or 5g, don't do it. I wouldn't. Especially for the price.
At least where I am I’m not taking bandwidth from anyone. You have to drive a long way to reach anywhere without other options. I’m pretty sure it makes Starlink much faster for me because there’s very few users in my cell.
I live on the satellite side of the digital divide, and as long as the tourists with mobile starlink don't negatively affect my residential service, I don't care.
Why would you think that’s an unpopular opinion? Many have been saying it since Starlink started — when some jumped on the bandwagon because they thought it was cool, or just so they could tell their current ISP to f’off. Before Starlink my fastest option was 12/3, now I’m normally about 20x faster and can get up to 30x. I can now get Verizon 5Guw on parts of my property, and I’m considering trying that with an external antenna, and setting it up as a backup, or load balanced WAN. If it works well, and reliably, I’ll step aside and let others have my bandwidth.
Not remotely how society operates. People without houses should be first in line before those with multiple homes. Multiple cars. Multiple children. Etc etc. Humans are greedy fickle creatures. No point trying to insist they follow your rules.
You might reconsider when Starlink closes down then. I am in the same boat as you and I love that it's available, but I am already concerned about the business viability. The monumental cost of this network, launching sats and replacing dying ones needs a lot of revenue to justify.
Starlink is already [quite profitable](https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/ars-live-caleb-henry-joins-us-to-discuss-the-profitability-of-starlink/), projected to generate an estimated $6.6 billion in revenue this year.
If you have access to fiber or a decent cable connection, there is no reason to have starlink. Just people trying to be quirky or some shit
Agreed. In most cases I think its a status thing. "Oh I have Starlink and a Tesla" type thing. But i did agree with someone in here who pays for starlink as a backup when the lines go down in a storm or something. I think thats more than fair
Aww boohoo here we go with the pc equitability crap. I bet you stomped ur feet as a child screaming... "But that's not fair"!!! Get over it. Starlink is a privately funded, entrepreneurial venture that owes no one no thing. If you dont like their business plan, you better start building rockets and satellites yourself! FYI, I live 50 miles and two hours drive offgrid. Im happy to have satellite internet of any capacity.
Agreed. OP is a huge Karen.
I agree. Who would pay $120 / mo when they have other options? Fiber rules
Would you pick fiber over StarLink if it had this pricing? https://nntc.net/internet/
People can choose whatever they want to use. Who are you to say otherwise?
Starlink was overhyped - so people don't look for other local options which might be better. Plus people don't understand bandwidth and what they actually need. A 50/5 DSL is in most cases better then a 250/25 PEAK Starlink.
Its not really that- A lot of us in rural areas HAVE looked. We get 1 other option, 6.5/0.5 which isnt enough to run Netflix movies without buffering every now and then. There are no other options for me. There is that one, Hughesnet (which isn't highspeed and has limited use), and probably other satellite options that are all worse. According to the internet, Starlink is the best possible satellite option out there
I am in very similar situation. (7/0.8) But there are plenty of people which switch from a perfectly working DSL with 50+ mbits to Starlink and think it must be better in every way just because they don't understand and see the high screenshots posted here.
Oh I see what you're saying now. Jeez I didn't think people actually switched because they thought it was better. No satellite is going to outperform DSL. Its just not as fast & will be more delay ( at least until tech advances )