281–290 of 526 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Highest demand for normal starlink is in cities. ?? cities have fiber, who wants starlink in a city?
I noticed a starlink terminal on the side of a building in SF yesterday near the bay bridge. I really wonder why they are using it. I work at a rural farm with no good internet options and we love our starlink, but I’d really have thought there’d be better options in SF.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Highest demand for normal starlink is in cities. ?? cities have fiber, who wants starlink in a city?
I noticed a starlink terminal on the side of a building in SF yesterday near the bay bridge. I really wonder why they are using it. I work at a rural farm with no good internet options and we love our starlink, but I’d really have thought there’d be better options in SF.
Edit: a fatal assumption that it's the airlines providing the service underpins my original post below, whereas instead it's the providers charging passengers directly. That's an entirely different model from below, so disregard my original comment aside maybe my last line. Preserving the comment for context though. --- At 25,000/mo, assuming a jet makes 60 trans-con segments in the US per month and a price of $20 pe…
Assuming a plane has about 100 passenger per flight in average, that's $4/passenger. I can see airlines like Southwest making wifi free just like how they provide checked bags for free. Also, to me free wifi sounds better than those laggy entertainment systems I never use.
Southwest is not providing free bags out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s purely a profit-oriented business decision.
- Free bags means fewer people putting carry on bags in the overhead bins.
- Fewer carry on bags means faster boarding.
- Faster boarding means less time spent at the gate.
- Less time spent at the gate means the plane is in the air for more time.
- More time the plane is in the air means more profit made (generally speaking, provided loads, schedule and routing allows)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let’s not forget that this could be a value add, they can easily increase flight ticket prices by $20 and offer the service for free. They can also remove inflight monitors from the planes, reducing the weight of the overall plane, increase plane tickets by $10 and offer it Free. There’s many ways to play with the numbers
They could add around $3 per ticket and pay for it. But removing seat-back would be bold - 100 people using a shared 350 connection would probably not work well. 200-odd using it would kill it. Leaving your passengers with a very unhappy experience.
And on top of that all the major streaming services allow for download for offline viewing. I'm just going to download a bunch of stuff ahead of time to make sure I can watch what I want.
This just serves the folks who want to pay to access the rest of the Internet. And I don't see incentive for anyone to pay and try to use a streaming service. More useful for someone traveling on business needing to join a call or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend lives in a city with a lot of startups, a lot of technology companies and a research university that's been on the internet since before the DNS. He's on the waiting list for Starlink because the fastest residential connection he can get is 3Mbps. There's much fiber there, but also many streets where no fiber is available. AFAICT that kind of spottiness is the most common case and few cities have uniformly g…
I don't believe this. A city full of startups can't be stuck w/ maximum 3Mbps Internet. Can it?
EDIT: typos
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the time a plane is over farm fields or water. Highest demand for normal starlink is in cities. Not gonna be flying over NYC w this. Kind of a good fit I would think in terms of utilization.
> Highest demand for normal starlink is in cities. ?? cities have fiber, who wants starlink in a city?
How is Starlink in terms of latency?