stolen from https://old.reddit.com/...
alekwithak 89 points a year ago
I looked into Starlink years ago when I was RVing. It came out to over $600 up front in equipment costs, THEN $240 a month or w/e. And it's not like Elon wasn't a piece of shit back then, either. $50 a month for T-Mobile "5G at home" with no upfront or hidden costs did the trick nicely and bridged the gap until I found a place with cheap fiber. Now I have 2.5Gbps up and down and it's still less than half the price of Starlink before this price hike.
Tar_alcaran 19 points a year ago
Yeah, but the 5000 people that applies to can't afford the entire network.
desktop_user 1 point a year ago
I've heard it also works well to put pressure on rural Alaskan GCI (the scam that is 0.25¢/GB).
halcyoncmdr 29 points a year ago
Starlink makes sense for the scenario it was designed fill the gap for. A lack of any other terrestrial options.
Legacy satellite has always been terrible, but the only option in many rural areas, and obviously the middle of nowhere. Starlink is an insanely reliable and decent deal in most of those circumstances. That's it's bread and butter.
But if you have literally any other option, it's usually not the best choice, it's not meant to be the best choice, it's intended for use where it's likely the only choice.
Graphy 20 points a year ago
One of my brothers is in Alaska right now. It’s wild to me that he even gets internet where he’s at. Where he’s at they don’t even have mailboxes just PO Boxes.
He is sharing 1TB a month among ~60 people tho
A_Union_of_Kobolds 34 points a year ago
I know one guy where he's just on a damn mountain. Not many other options.
Not saying it's the option I'd take, just saying. If you're in the sticks in a red state...
crusa187 20 points a year ago
Yeah there are always exceptions of course. I’ve seen some in that position able to get away with direct line-of-sight connections for a reasonable rate, but it depends heavily on the layout of the surrounding mountains and location of the service provider plus you have to shell out for an antennae or dish. For any wondering, that’s almost always cheaper than the Starlink sign up costs.
Then again, if internet is important to someone, gotta consider if mountain-side living is the right choice to begin with. I’m sure your acquaintance has his reasons though!
Cornelius_Wangenheim 21 points a year ago path: 0 17051598 17057845, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 3
RandomVideos 14 points a year ago
But for those large parts of the world, 240 USD per month is even more ridiculous
Avatar_of_Self 2 points a year ago
I haven't looked at the FCC map but I bet Starlink takes Last Mile credit for everywhere.
So every tax payer pays Starlink plus tax payers that are their customers pay Starlink a second time with these high prices.
kryptonianCodeMonkey 14 points a year ago
I cant speak for other countries, but in the US, we are spending hundreds of dollars a month per household in these areas to the richest man in the world for shitty internet service instead of EITHER holding ISPs to the contracts they agreed to when municipalities gave then the right to build without competition from public services for which they were meant to supply high speed wired services to everyone, OR throw those contracts away and build reliable and profitable public services anyway and fuck the useless ISPs over. Instead we are just inviting in another ISP to fill the gap, this one also a racist fascist who is littering space with unregulated junk.
Whorehoarder 16 points a year ago
Radical leftist city.
Also, I'd just like to say that even 240 is expensive as hell.
FlexibleToast 3 points a year ago
For mobile satellite internet, it's an absolute steal. If that's what they had.
M137 8 points a year ago
I pay €18 for 250/100, of course unlimited data, and the company has no tracking and fully supports privacy etc. It also comes with a great VPN, ID security and antivirus from f-secure (not that I use it since I'm on linux). And they just opened a datacenter inside an old war bunker in my city, with this description: "Freedom of communication and the virtual world need to withstand both Russian bombs and Donald Trump's Cloud Act. This industrial bunker is built for just that." In Sweden, if you hadn't guessed.
The "government response" part of their wiki page is a fun read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahnhof
GissaMittJobb 4 points a year ago
Flat fee of ~€70 to connect and then free for as long as I live in this apartment. 1000/1000 speeds as well, pretty sick honestly
x00z 132 points a year ago
I only have this to say: Fuck the sky pollution. Starlink has been ruining stargazing and star photography and Elon lied about its impact. He claimed they would be invisible with his amazing paint but they're still visible and fuck it up for people who enjoy watching the stars.
Retro_unlimited 55 points a year ago
I see them all the time without a camera. They are bright as the stars when they pass over.
Angry_Autist 4 points a year ago
If you think ruining stargazing is the biggest problem, don't look up Satellite Collision Cascades
The fucking muskrat is going to lock us down to Earth and make launches too dangerous due to debris fields
And all of you are just complaining about artificial light
Angry_Autist 3 points a year ago
It's important that we think of future generations, statistically this cascade could easily happen in our lifetimes
VeganCheesecake 1 point a year ago
They are low enough that it'd probably fix itself over time. It'd be a big problem, but I feel comming generations have bigger ones.
orange_squeezer 1 point a year ago
Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit and deorbit naturally after a few years because of the small amounts of escaping atmosphere slowing them down. A collision cascade can't really happen because it's a fundamentally decaying orbit.
At least, there's no risk of lasting orbital debris, at the cost of the satellites having a much shorter lifespan.
Angry_Autist -2 points a year ago
I have aerospace engineering friends that disagree, but I'm sure your wikipedia university degree is useful somewhere
Ablative cascades have more than enough energy to kick debris fields up orbit as impact velocities can hit 10 kilometers a second
JSYK that kind of energy can punch a paint flake through a quarter inch of titanium
orange_squeezer 2 points a year ago
... Well, fortunately, I don't manage satellite deployments, but your friends are welcome to tell NASA that their aerospace engineers are actually wrong and need to stop SpaceX before they ground humanity. I'm sure they would love to hear it.
conditional_soup 92 points a year ago
Ah, so this is why Elon wanted the rural broadband bill killed.
conditional_soup 7 points a year ago
Well, we'll provide the service once we buy it from them because they ran it into the ground as a vulture capital operation, and then once we've invested a trillion taxpayer dollars into fixing it up, we'll sell it back to them for pennies.
Tar_alcaran 22 points a year ago
perpetually burning up satellites in the atmosphere is a pretty shitty business though.
Exactly. The business isn't remotely sustainable. All that money being invested into new satellites will, by next year, need to be invested constantly to keep the network at the same size.
Starlink needs run as fast as it can, just to stay in the same place, and the investment money is finite when people see it's not going to grow.
quediuspayu 2 points a year ago
What was the life expectancy of each satellite? I think I read something like 5 to 7 years. If we were talking about dozens of satellites I would say no problem, but thousands?
Tar_alcaran 5 points a year ago
On https://satellitemap.space/ you can see the numbers pretty accurately under "status over time". The current launch cadence is steady since mid 2022, and the burn rate is climbing to match. It seems to have a 5 year delay, but it's possible the new satellites will last a little longer.
Which means that by mid 2027 earliest and mid 2029, the current "investment" in "growth" will have become the regular maintenance spending. And up to that point, maintenance costs will continue to climb to consume the entire investment budget.
LeninOnAPrayer 1 point a year ago path: 0 17053345 17057570 17057773 17073123, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
Zetta -4 points a year ago
Starlink is already making more money than it costs to expand and operate, you are wrong. This is sustainable (financially) and counter to your beliefs over the next 10 years I'd wager the starlink network will balloon to many times its current size, 20,000 plus satellites in orbit.
SpaceX is the most successful company/entity in history that does space launch, it doesn't cost them a whole lot of money to launch new batches of Satellites and that cost will continue to decrease as the Falcon 9 program continues to improve and as starship becomes operational over the next few years.
Tar_alcaran 2 points a year ago
Starlink is already making more money than it costs to expand and operate, you are wrong.
Honestly, there are no realistic, reliable figures either way. There are plenty of guesstimates, and they show a profit now, but that with a very significant investment in growth. And that investment comes in large part from external sources, which means that when the happy time ends and the satellites fail at the same rate as they're currently launches, they need to either make WAY more money, or rely on external funding.
and counter to your beliefs over the next 10 years I'd wager the starlink network will balloon to many times its current size, 20,000 plus satellites
Definitely, they're on track to stabilize at around 36.000 with the current launch cadence. That's where every new satellite is a replacement. But that doesn't count money, which is the problem, and will be more of a problem when expenses replace growth.
and that cost will continue to decrease as the Falcon 9 program continues to improve and as starship becomes operational over the next few years.
Eh, I wouldn't be too sure of that. Falcon 9 costs haven't gone down in years. Falcon Heavy is supposed to be cheaper per ton, yet somehow is almost never used for Starlink or anything else. Starship isn't even projected to be cheaper than Falcon 9 (I except in what are basically ads).
bane_killgrind 8 points a year ago
There's a bunch of technology problems that make it undesirable, like the light and projectile pollution in leo
WoodScientist 2 points a year ago
I mean, ultimately, that's probably inevitable. We need to decide as a species whether we actually want to have a future in space in a big way. If you actually want to see a future where humanity spreads across the solar system, we're going to need a vast infrastructure in orbit. That's true no matter who is building that infrastructure. So...is it worth giving up that future just for the sake of ground-based astronomy? I would say no. Especially because the same technology and economies that lets you launch enough birds to ruin ground based astronomy also allows you to launch absurd numbers of space based astronomical telescopes.
That seems like a fair trade really. Again, this is just a limitation of the technology. Do you want to see a future where there actually are millions of human beings living and working off Earth? Then we're going to have to give up ground based astronomy. Making low-visibility satellites can help a bit, but it's a fundamentally intractable problem. And again, this is true regardless of who is building that big space infrastructure.
GrosPapatouf 4 points a year ago
First, you don't need tens of thousands of internet satellite in LEO to have an ambitious space program. The current mega-constellations are just a way for billionaires to build a new monopoly, and control internet access. It has nothing to do with getting humanity in the stars or whatever. Second, when are all these space telescopes coming? Launch cost is a very small fraction of building a space telescope because they are fragile, very large and complex pieces of equipment and getting them on a rocket is hard. Third, we will never see millions of human in outer space in our lifetimes. Earth is our only chance, at least for the overwhelming majority of us. So let's protect it from sociopath billionaires.
bane_killgrind 0 points a year ago
No see other posts
Cool_Name 20 points a year ago
I just generally doubt anything Musk does because of his track record. However, is there a particular reason why Starlink is inherently not viable? Could a competent person do it or it is fundamentally flawed? To put it another way is it cybertruck bad (yes people want electric cars but not a barely driveable dumpster held together with glue) or hyperloop bad (physics said no)?
CooperRedArmyDog 25 points a year ago
It is closer to a hyper loop system. For the internet to have low enough latency it has to be put in quite a low earth orbit. That means we need more satlights to make coverage, ballooning costs. However that is not the part that kills it, it is that it is in such low orbit we can expect air resistance to significantly degrade orbits. There are too many satilights to reasonably boost them all, and when they start to degrade it will be too fast to reasonably replace them all.
Olgratin_Magmatoe 16 points a year ago
That, and as they burn up upon re-entry, they're fucking up the environment:
Tar_alcaran 8 points a year ago
And they first batches of the current network are at their end of life. That means that with the same level of investment, growth will slow down, which is terrible for venture capital.
And orbital mechanics is a bitch. You can't add more speed to a certain area (like a city with a lot of people) and less to the empty ocean. So there's a harsh density limit to your subscribes.
GrosPapatouf 4 points a year ago
I mean, the need for internet satellite is mostly in low density areas. In big cities fiber will always be cheaper and more reliable (except maybe in the US where operators are allowed to fuck you). I hate Musk and I guess Starlink is squeezing their monopoly position right now, but I'm not 100% sure they are not profitable.
frezik 0 points a year ago
The number of people willing to put up with the round trip latency to GEO is relatively small. They would only do it if there's no other option. There aren't enough customers to justify the kind of mass deployment Starlink needs to be profitable.
You can put lots of sats in a low orbit and get low latency, but then they either need to be replaced every few years (the kind of capital expenditure that companies are allergic to in the long run) or self-boosting (expensive, and still eventually need to be replaced). You can put them in a higher orbit, but latency goes up noticeably, you need even more sats for coverage, and it's more expensive to put them there. You can put them in GEO and use fewer sats, but latency goes through the roof. These are the options orbital mechanics and current technology allows.
If we had a space elevator or similarly cheap way to access space, then it becomes more viable. Note that while Falcon 9 and Starship potentially make it viable to build one of the space megastructure ideas that have been floating around for decades, it would also crater SpaceX's business model. Chemical rockets would build their own demise (at least for launching from Earth, and there are probably better technologies for scooting around the solar system once you're up there). Musk likely knows that and would fight it.
Or you can build fiber to peoples homes and leave satellites for Antarctica or the Himalayas or such. That works, too.
lagoon8622 0 points a year ago
Wonderful. They can just talk to their server on the phone
Zetta -1 points a year ago
You don't know what you're talking about, the satellites do "reasonably" boost themselves, they have propulsion on board.
After 5 years yes they trash them, but that nots not cost prohibitive for SpaceX. Starlink is brining in a significant amount of money, and it doesn't cost SpaceX all that much to launch a new batch to replace the old. You all seem to forget they are the cheapest and most impressive launch company to date.
What you and nobody else seems to understand is that every year SpaceX is launching more and more rockets and they will only continue to increase their launch cadence. In the next one or two years, they will start using Starship for Starlink launches, and that will significantly increase the amount of bandwidth they can add to the network per lanch.
I'm sure I'll get hate because I'm defending an elon company but everyone here is plain wrong and just making shit up.
jj4211 8 points a year ago
The physics of it mean you basically have to be constantly launching new satellites to replace the 5 year old ones de orbiting. Further, it will also be disadvantaged to anything closer with ability to choose a cable medium. All this adds up to the most expensive infrastructure that exclusively targets very low population density areas and/or areas too poor to afford good Internet. The people that could afford to sustain this can afford to move somewhere with a bit more infrastructure or at least within reach of a terrestrial tower and have an even better result.
WoodScientist 2 points a year ago
The physics of it mean you basically have to be constantly launching new satellites to replace the 5 year old ones de orbiting.
I mean...so what if the birds only last 5-7 years? My only real concern is that they're not made with environmentally damaging materials. Let them fall over the South Pacific and be atomized on the way down. It really depends on how cheaply you can launch them. All infrastructure has a finite life span. 5-7 years is lower than most terrestrial infrastructure, but this is all a function of launch costs. If those can be made cheap enough, the concept is perfectly viable.
Zetta 8 points a year ago
It is a viable business product, latest estimates are Starlink will bring in a revenue of 12 billion in 2025 with about 2 billion being profit. Of course it's not a public company so we don't get official numbers, but you're flat out wrong.
barneypiccolo 0 points a year ago
When it's all finished, and operating, that's when the next Democratic government should take it from him. One person, especially one demonstrated to be mentally unstable, should not control the world's Internet.
Zetta 1 point a year ago
You keep showing how you don't know anything about this, there are no subsidies on these items. Starlink is owned by SpaceX, so it is essentially free to launch besides the fuel it costs to launch. They are going to spend the money on operations, no matter what. If you want to call that a subsidy fine, but it's a subsidy that's never going away.
Secondly, prices have not gone up for the most popular plan that normal folks have. Prices were only raised for customers that do not have a fixed location, such as people who use their dish on a boat or RV.
Third, It's funny how confident you are when the fact is that this is such a good business model that other companies are desperately trying to fill the space as competitors.
Amazon's Kupier just starter launching their network, and have significantly greater launch costs than starlink because they do not own the launch vehicles, still Kupier will print money for Amazon in 10 years. You are talking out of your ass.
I see you responding to many of my comments, it shows you are unreasonably upset about something that shouldn't upset you. Yes Elon musk is a horrible person that will hopefully die soon, doesn't change the fact SpaceX and Starlink are both incredibly successful and will continue to be in the future.
Also last I read the cost to manufacture a terminal was now lower than the cost they sell them at, and that will continue to drop as production scales up (because there is significant demand despite what you may believe)
KickMeElmo 56 points a year ago
Strange, I've downloaded almost 6TiB over the last month so far and my bill is still $120/mo.
EDIT: This appears to be for global priority customers (movable dish between addresses, on boats, etc) and seems to be because he's increasing his data cap by choice, not because rates are actually getting hiked. Us normal residential customers are the same as always. Fuck Musk anyway, but this one seems to be a non-issue.
grue 18 points a year ago
global priority customers (movable dish between addresses, on boats, etc)
Because of-fucking-course anybody who wants to buy and live aboard a cheap (easily $50k or less) old sailboat instead of paying rent forever or grinding for a $500K house is a "rich yacht owner" who can obviously afford $1000/month Internet. And have their home sunk by orcas while we're at it, because why not?
Just when I thought I had a viable plan to escape this shithole consumer trap of a country, the Internet service I would need to do it not only ends up being run by a goddamn Nazi, but they also jack up the price on that use-case.
KickMeElmo 12 points a year ago
Look into Eutelsat. I've heard mention recently that they're expanding as a viable starlink competitor. I have no direct knowledge, but maybe they'd cover your needs cheaper.
partial_accumen 7 points a year ago
First, screw Musk. Second, you would only need this level of satellite internet service for your boat if you want to be able to use full broadband speed with over 1TB of transfer in the middle of the ocean far away from terrestrial cellular networks. If you really need full broadband speeds in the middle of the ocean and you only need 50GB of it a month its only $250/month.
If you're at a boat dock you likely have wifi available or even just anchored close to land you can likely just tether your mobile phone.
grue 3 points a year ago
Second, you would only need this level of satellite internet service for your boat if you want to be able to use full broadband speed with over 1TB of transfer in the middle of the ocean far away from terrestrial cellular networks.
Well, the ideal goal would be to be able to do things like work remotely and keep my kids entertained while circumnavigating, so yeah.
partial_accumen 2 points a year ago
I'm not a boat person but it feels like you've got conflicting ideas about whats possible. You said:
Because of-fucking-course anybody who wants to buy and live aboard a cheap (easily $50k or less) old sailboat instead of paying rent forever
...and...
the ideal goal would be to be able to do things like work remotely and keep my kids entertained while circumnavigating
I don't think you're going to find a $50k boat you can buy (and maintain!) that can house four people comfortably for transoceanic cruises while also affording you the ability to work a full time job from the boat. I would think you're looking at a MUCH larger boat, possibly with some full time crew to accomplish that, and at that point $1k a month for global high speed low latency internet is probably a a small fraction of your monthly expenses.
VeganCheesecake 2 points a year ago
Look into a low-power server for your boat, try to host as much of you can locally. I'm pretty sure you could fill mot entertainment needs that way, and 'top up' your content via terrestrial Internet when you resupply.
Then it kinda depends on what you need for work. Upload/download code snippets? Video conferencing all day every day? There's like a big span for the bandwidth you might need.
utopiah 1 point a year ago
work remotely and keep my kids entertained while circumnavigating
FWIW depending on your work you can do a lot of that on the cheap, namely if you work is not heavy bandwidth or latency dependent, code and voice do not take much. You can get a lot of resources offline too, e.g. Wikipedia, Stackoverflow, etc in a convenient package with Kiwix. Download this at the port or prior to the legs of the trip where you don't expect to have good connectivity then update at the next point. It's honestly a matter of hours at most. I do it before every trip and it gets easier every time.
My suggestion anyway for kids entertainment is also offline entertainment, e.g. GCompris but even content. Again you can put Wikipedia from Kiwix on your then local WiFi (no Internet, just all devices on the boat) with a small RPi Zero (low energy consumption) with a 1TB microSD card (so cheap now!) but also a media server with all the videos you want from Internet Archive. There is a TON of content. Once there they can watch with any media player that supports network play, e.g VLC or mplayer.
TL;DR: 1TB from the middle of nowhere on the cheap is indeed tricky but 1TB from a good connection THEN go offline is actually both very easy and more than enough to be entertained for months, if not decades with e.g. Gutenberg project!
sin_free_for_00_days 0 points a year ago
I'm just going with an Iridium for calls and short texts. I save up all the bigger missives for when I hit wifi. That doesn't work for most work situations I think.
VisionScout 1 point a year ago
exactly, this post is ragebait
GenosseFlosse 55 points a year ago
I thought starlink was just an alibi company to buy rocket launches from SpaceX, and make SpaceX appear profitable on paper?
Zetta 23 points a year ago
Starlink is owned by spaceX so they've never purchased a rocket, they just launch
And because of starlink SpaceX will be an insanely profitable company. Starlink is already bankrolling the very expensive starship development.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 6 points a year ago
Who's bankrolling starlink?
With xAI buying twitter and Tesla buying solarcity, Musk seems like he's playing the walnut/pea game.
WoodScientist 9 points a year ago
The original goal was that Starlink would be SpaceX's cash cow. The demand for rocket launches is growing, but it can only grow so fast. If you've built the capability to launch so many satellites that you can't find enough customers for all your launches, one option is to simply find ways to launch your own revenue-generating payloads into orbit. That was the original goal of Starlink, though it seems to be failing at that goal.
Zetta 5 points a year ago
You are 100% correct except for
though it seems to be failing at that goal.
Starlink is expected to bring in 2 billion In profit this year, it is successful https://arstechnica.com/...
Zetta 3 points a year ago
Starlink is bankrolling starlink, it's expected to generate 12 billion In revenue this year with 2 billion of that being profit
Before it paid for itself spacex did and still does have a lot of very wealthy private investors willing to throw significant funds at the company
Retrograde 10 points a year ago
Leopards ate his.. internet?
ramsgrl909 52 points a year ago
I live in a rural area. We were thinking about starlink a few years ago, then fiber came to our area. Thank goodness. We've literally had no issues, speeds are amazing, and no price hikes.
NetworkMachineBroke 26 points a year ago
Given his steady diet of hamberders, I'm sure he does think fiber is woke
andybytes 1 point a year ago
He sure do..... I mean, this can come off as a elitist by saying this, but you have to remember, Yankees live in their own shit and piss. They choose to be ignorant. They choose to be unsophisticated. They choose to look stupid on the world stage. We have every bit that we need to have a great society. We are a nation of idolaters. We worship idols. We are a nation of cults, just like an empire. Empires are filled with cults. We are an empty vessel of lesser things. A pit of despair for some. A Nation of extremes, peaks and valleys of exponential excrement.
OmegaLemmy 38 points a year ago
Oh, now it's worse than every satellite internet company I know. Shame I recommended it to someone because I thought it would be reliable and remain cheap.
MystikIncarnate 35 points a year ago
I am unsurprised. I thought it would take longer for it to become outrageously priced, but here we are. this specific pricing is extra crazy IMO.
In any case, I scoffed at the pricing when it was almost reasonable during their trial phases.... Back then IIRC it was like $100-150 usd/mo. or something.... That's too much for me already. Seems like they've previously increased it to around $200-300 and now they've lost their damn minds.
Star link was never economically sensible, price hikes were inevitable. There's just too few people in their target audience and too many satellites that are simply too costly to maintain at the levels they previously had. I hoped, for the sake of anyone who required starlink for a reasonable Internet connection speed, that the business plans and corporate users would shoulder most of the cost, but here we are.
Retro_unlimited 3 points a year ago
I think it’s between $120 a month for home use and $165 a month for RV / travel use.
MystikIncarnate 0 points a year ago
If I go to the website right now, I see $189 for the "roam" plan.
Your numbers seem off.
Regardless, my comments are based on the image in the OP
Retro_unlimited 1 point a year ago
My numbers are from my Starlink app.
postmateDumbass 35 points a year ago
Amazon is launching a competing service on its own satelites.
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot 36 points a year ago
Maybe they'll collide with each other.
JohnSwanFromTheLough 27 points a year ago
Probably, and well be forever imprisoned on the planet in that scenario because we won't be able to launch anything for a long long time again.
SkunkWorkz 12 points a year ago
Those LEO satellites don’t even stay 10 years in orbit without additional orbital maneuvers. It’s not forever.
wetbeardhairs 5 points a year ago
It'll act like nuclear fission in a reactor. Once a critical point is reached where a few satellites collide, their debris will spread and cause cascading collisions with other satellites. Some of that debris will quickly fall out of orbit but it may take hundreds of years for the rest to deorbit.
JohnSwanFromTheLough 5 points a year ago
Is it not possible that an impact at LEO could send debris into higher orbit potentially hitting more satellites?
quediuspayu 9 points a year ago
We already had undersea mashed potato billionaire, I bet space mashed potato billionaire tastes much better.
Wav_function 7 points a year ago
Maybe with enough space junk we can reflect enough sunlight to stave off global warming.
bampop 6 points a year ago
Maybe we just need stronger spacecraft. I look forward to a future where every trip to space goes through the trash zone where you hear the continuous pattering of small satellites smashing against the hull.
NikkiDimes 3 points a year ago
Fortunately, they're all pretty low orbit, so it isn't super permanent...
LarmyOfLone 2 points a year ago
It's also not as if we can't launch spacecrafts at all, as long as your destination is high orbit the chances of collision are low.
UltraGiGaGigantic 2 points a year ago
Good
Wav_function 6 points a year ago
That would be marvelous
neons 8 points a year ago
path: 0 17057580 17058960 17061299 17065148, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 3
RememberTheApollo_ 29 points a year ago
Ooh, I love rushing towards Kessler Syndrome.
MystikIncarnate 5 points a year ago
We're trying to speed run it, any%.
Threeme2189 1 point a year ago
Nah, we're going straight for the 100% speed run
sugarfoot00 9 points a year ago
If you're sick of funding billionaire douchebags, Telsat (formerly Telsat Canada, a Canadian crown corporation and responsible for the first communications satellite Anik-A1 in 1972) will be live with Telsat Lightspeed in 2026. Faster, better, and far more ethical.
ArtemisimetrA 10 points a year ago
Even if the politicos unironically started referring to themselves as oligarchs, a significant population of US citizens would likely either take it as a joke and hand-wave it away, or take it as further proof that that's just what you do to get ahead.
andros_rex 2 points a year ago
“Radical feminists” on tumblr are calling themselves fascists because they are happy with the porn ban.
Masks are off, “radical feminism” was always a front.
rekabis -4 points a year ago
Masks are off, “radical feminism” was always a front.
You want to see rampant anti-male gender bigotry in play? Bring up - and be in favour of - “paper abortions”, and watch the hate flow.
Don’t get me wrong, I am absolutely in favour of giving women abortion rights. But giving rights to only one gender and blatantly denying those exact same rights to the other is the dictionary definition of gender bigotry.
And while I may not want porn and smut to be trivially accessible to non-adults - and have absolutely no use for it, myself - I also wholeheartedly support the right of any legal adult to consume that content.
Pollo_Jack 2 points a year ago
CEO running the government is late stage capitalism.
untakenusername 2 points a year ago
monopolism* utterly sucks at providing public services (except for some governmental monopolies because those can be democratically controlled)
once the starlink monopoly is broken this will happen less and less because if they raise prices the customers can switch to a different system from another company and spacex will lose money.
Pnut 12 points a year ago
What's worse is, because it's an option. The work that was being done for other reliable works will be put on indefinite hold. Musk monopolized our orbit. He needs to be brought before an effective tribunal and have his decision scrutinized harshly. I know, I know. "But he won't". If everyone had that attitude we would still be riding horses so help or shut up.
Gsus4 14 points a year ago
Just in time for https://lemmy.world/post/29463383
Any future where these fuckers don't end up in jail is going to become hell.
kieron115 13 points a year ago
I'm one of those people for who Starlink very much is the only option. I moved from Northern Virginia to Western Maryland. This land used to be state park and all it has is electricity and mail delivery. No water, no sewage, no telephone, no internet other than cell hotspot or Starlink. It sucks but I have to try and separate my distaste for Musk with the engineers and people who actually run Starlink day to day, because at the end of the day the service is pretty damn good. The only issue I have (besides the price) is with VoIP traffic; but SIP acts fucky even with Cat5/6 sometimes so idk. I looked up the current policy and at least in the US they do not have a soft data cap. They did when the service initially launched AFAIK but that's been replaced with a more general "network management" policy (throttling, etc) . https://www.starlink.com/...
vaultdweller013 16 points a year ago
Just gonna let you know, if ya have 5g available more specifically T-Mobile then ya can get an at home 5g router. It is most definitely cheaper and may have lower latency, though I don't know how their network is on the East coast furthest east I've gone is Utah.
inclementimmigrant 10 points a year ago
So this is what I did for a long time at my folks place out in the boonies.
- Get yourself another line with unlimited data.
- Buy yourself one of these: GL.iNet GL-MT3000 or GL.iNet GL-AX1800
- Connect the phone to the USB slot.
- Turn on the phone's USB tethering option.
- Go into the router's admin page and tell it to use USB tethering as the WAN option.
kieron115 1 point a year ago
I really miss t-mob from living in northern virginia. I'm up in the Appalachian mountains tucked between two peaks. There was a plan at one time to utilize the old 800mhz band for some sort of municipal internet (since 800mhz can either punch through the rock or "ride" along the earth, been too long since RF school to remember). But as far as I know nothing ever came of it.
FollyDolly 3 points a year ago
Yep, Starlink is the only internet that works out here. In WV, can confirm.
andybytes 1 point a year ago
I like a little bit of chaos and uncertainty, rather than allowing a billionaire to price gouge me. To each their own though, I suppose. But the problem is, if one guy does something, then that means the other guy down the street's gonna have to do it or go out of business. I need the herd to pay attention.
sexy_peach 11 points a year ago
Not even a flat rate for that money
CompostMaterial 11 points a year ago
Oof, my current data consumption for the past 30 days is 1.2 TB on buttery smooth 1Gb fiber. I can't imagine being bound to 500 GB like is the 2007 dark ages.
tankplanker 0 points a year ago
You only get capped if you on one of the lite or priority tariffs.
Lite is fair, you paying less so you get less, not everybody needs a huge data allowance especially if its a backup or other infrequently used service.
Priority is where it gets squirrelly. You only really need priority if you in a high density area for starlink as you will get throttled, but you don't really need priority if you aren't unless you absolutely need to rinse the performance all the time. I typically get about 200mb down and 25mb up, but this can drop to 80mb and 10mb during peak times.
This isn't the end of the world for me as being able to access high speed internet anywhere, even on a boat is the most important thing. Sure I would like the sync 1gb I have at home while out, but its more than enough when I am away from home in the middle of nowhere.
Obviously I would rather not use starlink at all because fuck Musk and fuck the way the starlink sats are in low orbit for star gazing, but I do not have anything remotely comparable for even his inflated prices.
People always say use 4G or 5G, when I often dont even get 2G and I am reliant on wifi calling via the starlink. I have a proper external 4G antenna and its still shit when properly in the middle of nowhere.
WoodScientist 6 points a year ago
This doesn't make sense to me. Don't Starlink plans offer unlimited data?
Reygle 20 points a year ago
Sales and marketing documentation/websites are always bullshit.
All it ever takes is a tiny stipulation in terms+conditions to overrule ANY advertising or claims you've ever seen.
Any company at any time: "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."
WoodScientist 6 points a year ago
Ok that's nice generic language. But that still doesn't explain the context here at all.
Reygle 8 points a year ago
I suppose I can be more specific.
via https://www.starlink.com/...
OP (or the source of OP's image) didn't cite what plan they're currently on, but I don't currently see them listing anything for $100/mo that also has a 50gb data cap. Guess that package just got cranked to a different "promotional" sign-up rate deal. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
kieron115 3 points a year ago
I'm wondering if it's something with the mobile plan? I only have the fixed address plan and I've never seen a data cap. Hell, I run my homelab off of it with Plex and shit. They seem to be pretty chill but I'm do make sure to throttle my upload to be polite.
arc 8 points a year ago
Some of the boat plans are limited data. It's a completely arbitrary and bullshit restriction (and expensive) since boats can be held to ransom because the alternatives are even worse - sat phones and suchlike.
LordPassionFruit 1 point a year ago
I did some digging and think I found the answer (more details in my comment here). The pricing in the screenshot is for business customers, not residential users.
Retro_unlimited 6 points a year ago
These are the prices and data I see. I currently have the $10 plan.
LordPassionFruit 7 points a year ago
I think I found the answer. When I checked Starlink's site, those prices plans match up with the personal plans, but it appears that the user in the screenshot has a business plan.
Screenshots should be the Business Local Priority & Global Priority pricing respectively. My prices might be different than the original screenshot (I'm in Canada and I'm not sure how they localize pricing), but the data amounts seems to line up with the selections in the screenshot.
Dr_Fetus_Jackson 4 points a year ago
Grifter gonna grift...
DicJacobus 4 points a year ago
im not gonna lie. I halluecenated. and thought the title said "let them eat shit"
seems appropriate, still
VisionScout -16 points a year ago
Rage bait. It doesn't show his data consumption. How much data did he consume that month and what plan does he have?
conditional_soup 31 points a year ago
Bro, a thousand dollars a month for consumer internet? This ain't 2007 anymore, these days you can absolutely demolish 100 GB like nothing with a family using a streaming service.
vaultdweller013 3 points a year ago
My Skyrim data file alone is like 120 GB.
VisionScout 2 points a year ago
exactly. But one thing is using fiber, other thing is using satellite - that's why knowing the data consumption matters.
MystikIncarnate 23 points a year ago
Not sure why his current consumption matters. Those prices are worse than 2010 3G.
Not sure how star link is going to stay in business if this is what they're going to start doing....
VisionScout 2 points a year ago
Of course it matters, it's satellite internet! It's not fiber! Satellite internet is a premium service!
MystikIncarnate 0 points a year ago
So fancy!
DeathsEmbrace 22 points a year ago path: 0 17063888 17064493, hotness: undefined, score: 22, children: 4
wetbeardhairs 4 points a year ago
No that plan said monthly data amount. So 1tb/mo is 1kusd
wetbeardhairs 4 points a year ago
Oh I misread your comment as "1tb in one day?"
VisionScout 2 points a year ago
That's why the data consumption matters. Satellite internet is a premium service. This is just rage bait.
enoughmuskspam
@lemmy.world
3343
948
2437
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
go to feed...
enoughmuskspam
@lemmy.world
3343
948
2437
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
go to feed...
The former $240/mo was not outrageous to begin with?…
These Elon fanboys just love getting scammed by him. I can almost hear the little pay piggies squealing now.
save