Outside of the Ukrainian war, I’m not seeing much good use of this Starlink constellation.
Urban areas are already built to 5G, meaning high-speed wireless internet at far cheaper prices than satellite could ever hope to deliver.
Suburban areas have high 5G coverage, though it isn’t perfect yet. As well as aging 4G (okay), but also a plentitude of fiber options from Verizon and Comcast. No, it isn’t perfect, but the crappiest Comcast connection is still better than the best Starlink could ever offer in terms of price and reliability.
Rural areas are already covered by Viasat. Which is going to be more efficient due to the simple nature of only needing like 5 to 10 satellites in the 100-year orbit height… rather than 60,000+ Starlink satellites in the 5-year orbit height.
Ukraine gets a benefit because Russians are actively trying to jam the communications, so ~5 to 10 satellites could get disrupted, but its a lot harder to jam 60,000 satellites floating around. So yes, Starlink did manage to find a niche… only to have the lord of the communications openly claim that Crimea belongs to Russia and shutdown a Ukrainian operation.
So suddenly, Ukraine can’t trust Starlink anymore. So who the hell wants to use this constellation?
You realize that the Ukrainians are spending $2500 / month per terminal, right?
This isn’t a cheap system. Yeah, focusing on America where we have subsidies for rural internet (Government to pay part of those costs) is for a damn good reason. I’m not sure who can afford this in practice.
It is said that the terminal costs $1,300. And I’d expect that the communications will be hundreds+ / month. There’s not actually a lot of people around the world who can afford that, but shoot. You can tell me which countries you think this is a good business idea for.
As I said earlier: Ukraine has crazy requirements where the Russians are conducting electronic warfare (and other… warfare…) where the costs are worth it. Anyone else? Because Viasat is right there at like $100/month. Unless you NEED a way to escape the Russian jamming of traditional satellites, why would you pay Starlink’s crazy high costs?
“Rural” includes oceans. So airplanes who are flying across oceans use Viasat right now, and its likely cheaper and more available than Starlink in practice thanks to the far fewer satellites that Viasat needs to launch and maintain. Yeah, 10 satellites are way, way cheaper than 40,000+ satellites. Who’d a thunk it?
I work on a ship and am in the Galapagos right now. Thr island is covered in Starlink terminals and they’ve changed the internet existence here. Posting this via public starlink WiFi. I have a friend in the Philippines, and same there, huge impact.
His point about your US centric point is valid.
Starlink has many issues network wise, but the price point is per country so it is still being well used around the world in rural existence.
Companies today run below costs to trick you into thinking they are legitimate businesses.
You need to calculate the actual costs of launching 60,000 satellites every 5 years because this dumbass idea literally falls out of the sky because the orbit paths are so low.
Much like how Uber or MoviePass have fake business models with fake prices for years, Starlink has a fake price on the consumer facing side.
So how do we get closer to the real price? We look at the thousands of terminals or other large scale deployments of Starlink. Like Ukraine’s $2500 price point.
I understand that $100/month internet is gamechanging. However, it is also fake if it’s coming from Starlink, because we Americans can find companies for years to make a loss in 3rd world countries and fake our growth.
Adjust the stats closer to reality, and you see the immediate problems.
Hey you make some really good points and I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, but maybe dial it back 20% on the sass. You don’t need to make it personal by saying
You don’t understand today’s economy
Anyways, assuming that your assertions are accurate, what’s the angle for Musk? You’re implying Starlink will corner the market in certain areas with unrealistic price points, and then raise prices eventually? Or is there a more insidious corporate strategy I’m not recognizing?
You’re implying Starlink will corner the market in certain areas with unrealistic price points, and then raise prices eventually?
Basically, yeah. I’m not saying they “will” do that, but this is what they’re hoping to accomplish.
Think jet.com, Uber (and UberEats), WeWork, Bird scooters, etc. etc. This isn’t anything particular to Musk, this is just how US companies have operated over the past 10 years.
Musk is good at this strategy mind you. But he’s hardly unique in regards to doing it. MoviePass was really bad at this strategy, but plenty of others “succeeded”. (Not true success in my books, but a financial success in that they got big enough that a big bank bought them out and they’re hundred-millionaires now. Even if the company is worthless with terrible business plan like jet.com was, if the company leaders/owners were bought out, they see that as a personal success). Key to this strategy is raising more-and-more money from venture capitalists and IPO / SPOs by hyping (over-hyping) and misleading your statistics a bit. Speaking in half truths, pretend you’re solving world-changing problems (We’re going to Mars!!!), etc. etc. Its all a package deal.
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.
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.
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.
I was waitlisted a while back but because of all the Elon bullshit when I got my email saying it was available I opted to just stick with Viasat.
Thats the thing.
Outside of the Ukrainian war, I’m not seeing much good use of this Starlink constellation.
Urban areas are already built to 5G, meaning high-speed wireless internet at far cheaper prices than satellite could ever hope to deliver.
Suburban areas have high 5G coverage, though it isn’t perfect yet. As well as aging 4G (okay), but also a plentitude of fiber options from Verizon and Comcast. No, it isn’t perfect, but the crappiest Comcast connection is still better than the best Starlink could ever offer in terms of price and reliability.
Rural areas are already covered by Viasat. Which is going to be more efficient due to the simple nature of only needing like 5 to 10 satellites in the 100-year orbit height… rather than 60,000+ Starlink satellites in the 5-year orbit height.
Ukraine gets a benefit because Russians are actively trying to jam the communications, so ~5 to 10 satellites could get disrupted, but its a lot harder to jam 60,000 satellites floating around. So yes, Starlink did manage to find a niche… only to have the lord of the communications openly claim that Crimea belongs to Russia and shutdown a Ukrainian operation.
So suddenly, Ukraine can’t trust Starlink anymore. So who the hell wants to use this constellation?
I find your comment to be a bit North America focused. Surely there are many places in the world where that stuff is handy.
You realize that the Ukrainians are spending $2500 / month per terminal, right?
This isn’t a cheap system. Yeah, focusing on America where we have subsidies for rural internet (Government to pay part of those costs) is for a damn good reason. I’m not sure who can afford this in practice.
It is said that the terminal costs $1,300. And I’d expect that the communications will be hundreds+ / month. There’s not actually a lot of people around the world who can afford that, but shoot. You can tell me which countries you think this is a good business idea for.
As I said earlier: Ukraine has crazy requirements where the Russians are conducting electronic warfare (and other… warfare…) where the costs are worth it. Anyone else? Because Viasat is right there at like $100/month. Unless you NEED a way to escape the Russian jamming of traditional satellites, why would you pay Starlink’s crazy high costs?
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/05/10/1051973/russia-hack-viasat-satellite-ukraine-invasion/
“Rural” includes oceans. So airplanes who are flying across oceans use Viasat right now, and its likely cheaper and more available than Starlink in practice thanks to the far fewer satellites that Viasat needs to launch and maintain. Yeah, 10 satellites are way, way cheaper than 40,000+ satellites. Who’d a thunk it?
I work on a ship and am in the Galapagos right now. Thr island is covered in Starlink terminals and they’ve changed the internet existence here. Posting this via public starlink WiFi. I have a friend in the Philippines, and same there, huge impact.
His point about your US centric point is valid.
Starlink has many issues network wise, but the price point is per country so it is still being well used around the world in rural existence.
You don’t understand today’s economy.
Companies today run below costs to trick you into thinking they are legitimate businesses.
You need to calculate the actual costs of launching 60,000 satellites every 5 years because this dumbass idea literally falls out of the sky because the orbit paths are so low.
Much like how Uber or MoviePass have fake business models with fake prices for years, Starlink has a fake price on the consumer facing side.
So how do we get closer to the real price? We look at the thousands of terminals or other large scale deployments of Starlink. Like Ukraine’s $2500 price point.
I understand that $100/month internet is gamechanging. However, it is also fake if it’s coming from Starlink, because we Americans can find companies for years to make a loss in 3rd world countries and fake our growth.
Adjust the stats closer to reality, and you see the immediate problems.
Hey you make some really good points and I appreciate your contribution to the discussion, but maybe dial it back 20% on the sass. You don’t need to make it personal by saying
Anyways, assuming that your assertions are accurate, what’s the angle for Musk? You’re implying Starlink will corner the market in certain areas with unrealistic price points, and then raise prices eventually? Or is there a more insidious corporate strategy I’m not recognizing?
Basically, yeah. I’m not saying they “will” do that, but this is what they’re hoping to accomplish.
Think jet.com, Uber (and UberEats), WeWork, Bird scooters, etc. etc. This isn’t anything particular to Musk, this is just how US companies have operated over the past 10 years.
Musk is good at this strategy mind you. But he’s hardly unique in regards to doing it. MoviePass was really bad at this strategy, but plenty of others “succeeded”. (Not true success in my books, but a financial success in that they got big enough that a big bank bought them out and they’re hundred-millionaires now. Even if the company is worthless with terrible business plan like jet.com was, if the company leaders/owners were bought out, they see that as a personal success). Key to this strategy is raising more-and-more money from venture capitalists and IPO / SPOs by hyping (over-hyping) and misleading your statistics a bit. Speaking in half truths, pretend you’re solving world-changing problems (We’re going to Mars!!!), etc. etc. Its all a package deal.
Yup, spot on. Neo-robber barons, but this time around they don’t even have to build something tangible to make their fortunes.
What?! The Ukrainians pay for starlink service? I though Musk said he donated them and eat the service cost?
Iirc he did at first until the US military worked out a deal with Starlink.
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.
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.
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.