Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starlink Premium

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: Starlink Premium

#201

Post by gremlinsinc »

gonehome wrote: post #44

$500 deposit, $2500 total cost for the dish, $500/mo for the service. Looks like it's targeting the enterprise market. The dish cost is probably closer to the actual value of the dish. The original dish we bought for $500 I think I read actually cost closer to $3k for them to manufacture (I'm not an expert on this)? Regular service is $500 for a dish and $99 a month which is a great deal for 50-200mbps at pretty low…

That's sticker shock for me... I'm paying $50/month for 1Gig in Rural Utah... I'm good.

Re: Starlink Premium

#202

Post by timbit42 »

partiallypro wrote: post #55

I ordered my Dishy day 1 and have still not gotten it and they are already launching new services. Anyhow, this looks expensive, but for a business it's pretty cheap.

Are you high latitude? You may not have good enough coverage until they get more satellites up.

Re: Starlink Premium

#203

Post by shaklee3 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #197
shaklee3 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with that. the likelihood of them reducing the cost of the antenna to what it needs to be in Africa is close to 0. even legacy satellite providers, with terminals that are 1/5 the cost cannot do it. and those aren't phased array

The legacy providers can't provide slower internet for less money because their slowest package is already unusable.

their fastest package is 100Mbps, which is the same as starlink for most people. I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

Re: Starlink Premium

#205

Post by itsbenweeks »

bpodgursky wrote: post #127
_joel wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're constantly pushing to ECR so much that it saturates a 40Mbps+ upload consistently 24/7? I fear for your bills, god speed.

No, of course not. But when it matters, it matters — there's a huge productivity difference between waiting 5 minutes and 30 minutes when making staging deploys to iterate on bugs (and sometimes I'll do this 5-10 times in a day).

My way around this that's less than $500/mo and indefinite wait times is to have an EC2 image running as a jump box. Then anything downloaded is already on AWS's network, making ECR uploads much faster.

Re: Starlink Premium

#206

Post by yencabulator »

martinald wrote: post #84
dougmwne wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone with a fiber connection available is absolutely not the target market for starlink. It is meant for rural users with few better options. In fact, dense urban or suburban areas would overload the satellites, so subscribers in those areas will need to be limited.

I'm still not 100% convinced on the size of this market. Rural FTTH rollouts are happening and over the next 5-10 years I think will get everywhere you have grid electricity. I constantly see people on the starlink Reddit cancelling their preorders or service because they can get FTTH or cable. There's no doubt it's an amazing technical achievement, and a huge improvement for many people. But I am somewhat struggling…

This rural road has some 20 homes on it. There is absolutely zero chance a local ISP decides to dig up the road on their own just to bring fiber to those 20 homes. We don't even have cable internet here.

I don't understand why people complain that I'm not supposed to use Starlink, when it's the only good internet option I have, and the same price as a much worse performing 10 Mbps option.

Re: Starlink Premium

#207

Post by yencabulator »

pndy wrote: post #61
tsomctl wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my cousin's property (which I spend a lot of time at), for a little less than their monthly price, AT&T gives us an analog telephone line with local calling. That's it.

My city of about 70k people was in the pilot program of this FTTH infrastructure upgrade in the whole country and I'm really happy I could leave my old faulty copper line behind me (tho, phone number was carried over).

Cities of 70k people are not rural... Starlink is better suited for rural locations.

Re: Starlink Premium

#208

Post by bryanlarsen »

shaklee3 wrote: post #203
bryanlarsen wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legacy providers can't provide slower internet for less money because their slowest package is already unusable.

their fastest package is 100Mbps, which is the same as starlink for most people. I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

Did I say anything about their fastest package?

Re: Starlink Premium

#209

Post by shaklee3 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #208
shaklee3 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

their fastest package is 100Mbps, which is the same as starlink for most people. I'm not sure where you're getting your information.

Did I say anything about their fastest package?

so, when you compare to cable do you also say 25-50Mbps speeds? because that's the minimum cable speed I'm my area. But 1Gb is the max. since when has comparing minimum speeds ever been a valid comparison?

Re: Starlink Premium

#210

Post by shaklee3 »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #200
bryanlarsen wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legacy providers can't provide slower internet for less money because their slowest package is already unusable.

and so is their fastest package

That's exactly my point. they are the exact same speeds, which is not what OP said.
Post reply on HN