5 ms·

Starlink beta pricing revealed as SpaceX sends invite emails

dgritsko 6y ago
$99/month, with a one-time fee of $499 for equipment. No data cap, or at least no mention of one.
- entropicdrifter 6y ago
  Plus if you're buying the equipment that means no rental fees
tumetab1 6y ago
What do USA customers think about this price if it was not a beta? Worth if when no DSL, Fibre or 4G options are available? Worth even if other options are available because latency/price? Coming from a country with a lower purchasing power in dollars, 100$ would make this not an option even for many even if no other options are available. Still, if the same connection was shared between 4 homes it would be a great improvement.
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  For those without available wired broadband options, the price point is a no-brainer. In rural areas, your only option is often cellular (3G/4G) "hotspots" and the monthly cost will be outrageous unless you can convince everyone in your house to stay off of Netflix, etc. If you're in a rural area and you want Internet access for streaming video or your kids who are in school or just don't want to have to deal with or worry about data caps (with outrageous overage fees!), this is quite likely your best ption. The $100 monthly cost isn't unreasonable. You're going to be paying probably $60-70 for spotty cellular service with a data cap and/or throttling anyways, so might as well pay the little bit extra and not have to worry about it. The one-time $500 setup/equipment fee will be harder to justify. I expect Starlink will offer an option to spread that out over a year or two which would make it much easier for some households.
  - samcheng 6y ago
    Cable companies (notoriously) bundle-in an equipment rental fee, which makes many times the equipment cost over the lifetime of the customer. I'd assume they will move to that model in the long term. Probably the $500 fee is a way to ensure dedicated / "bought-in" beta customers.
    - entropicdrifter 6y ago
      On the flipside, cable companies are legally required to allow you to buy your own modem if you so choose, so if you're willing to drop $50-$200 on a good modem it'll pay for itself within a year and you can minimize the amount of data snooping your ISP can do. That said, only techies seem to bother with that even though it's generally worth it for the power efficiency alone, let alone the equipment rental costs
      - olyjohn 6y ago
        I’ve always just picked them up used. Never paid more than $10 for a cable modem. I even keep a spare around in case my first one blows up. So many people have these things sitting around from changing providers or moving.
    - Thetawaves 6y ago
      I don't think that is a universal rule - that equipment fees make back many times the cost of the device. A high end DVR may cost close to 1000$ and a 20$/month equipment fee will barely break even over the life of the device...
      - NeutronStar 6y ago
        A high end DVR might, the shitty DVR they'll loan you will.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- OldHand2018 6y ago
  > What do USA customers think about this price if it was not a beta? If you have no other option, this is a very good price. In a lot of places with options, this is still a good price. Performance is more than just a set of numbers, so we shall see how well it works. If it's good, I think it will cause a revolution in American broadband. Having a service like this would allow me to truly expand where I could have a weekend house, to the point where the money saved on the house could pay for a decade or more of this service, with plenty left over.
  - dgritsko 6y ago
    > In a lot of places with options, this is still a good price. It will be interesting to see if any existing providers feel the need to lower their prices in response to Starlink becoming more widely available. That's how competition is supposed to work, right?
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  I’m in a rural area with limited options. The local DSL company was really bad until this year (I wonder why...), but it’s still $70 a month for up to 50 meg and I believe it has a cap. Until this year it was the same price for up to 15mb/s, which in the evening meant more like 1mb/s. I’m on some hotspot plans that are no longer available that have no caps, but I’m pretty lucky with the speeds I get. For me it’ll depend on what speeds Starlink gets in my area, and I might keep one hotspot anyways as it’s handy to have.
- beezle 6y ago
  I have a 20/10 dsl line that requires phone service so end of day cost is about $89 a month. For $11 more, I can get 50/25. I'm not eligible for the 100/X service which would be about $25 more. I don't have to pay for a rooter. Above in a rural area by a local monopoly. Given the apparent high initial cost, this does not look like a viable option to replace my current service. I think cost would need to get down to 75 ish a month and maybe 200 startup. Does anyone know how this has help up in bad weather (rain? snow?)
  - moftz 6y ago
    Rain does a pretty good job at degrading digital satcoms. There's potentially a stronger signal from the Starlink satellite because it's in LEO vs GEO so it could work but it also could just not work well at all. If you want high reliability, look into terrestrial microwave links but that's not available everywhere.
joezydeco 6y ago
I like the wording in the dish mounting guide PDF: Ensure the power is disconnected before accessing, moving or installing the Starlink (aka“Dishy McFlatface”) https://www.docdroid.net/Wc9unhw/ridgeline-mount-guide-pdf#page=2 https://www.docdroid.net/Wc9unhw/ridgeline-mount-guide-pdf#p...
haunter 6y ago
Interesting there are 3 mounts: - Tripod (you get it by default) - Volcano $24 https://www.docdroid.net/YObvsZP/volcano-mount-guide-pdf https://www.docdroid.net/YObvsZP/volcano-mount-guide-pdf - Ridgeline $99 https://www.docdroid.net/Wc9unhw/ridgeline-mount-guide-pdf https://www.docdroid.net/Wc9unhw/ridgeline-mount-guide-pdf
- walrus01 6y ago
  fairly normal, the same sort of non penetrating roof mounts used for consumer grade VSAT, TVRO and WISP antenna installations. https://www.3starinc.com/non-penetrating-mounts https://www.3starinc.com/non-penetrating-mounts
Someone1234 6y ago
Just for context HughesNet Satellite Internet is 25 Mbps and costs between $60-150/month (10-50 GB data caps). If this price ($99 for unlimited data, 50 Mbps minimum) went live after beta, then it would wipe out everyone else in the Satellite internet space, and only really be competing with 5G cellular in certain circumstances. I suspect we'll see more price discrimination, they have a really competitive product, but also one that is incredibly expensive to develop: So they'll need to recoup their capital investment ($1m-$250K per Starlink satellite, 1400+ total satellites). There may be a $99 plan forever, but the details could change (e.g. Data caps? Different speeds? Etc). The email itself explains why it is the price it is (unreliable/beta testing). Until there's more direct competition at these speeds/coverage, I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't leverage their market position to the maximum. Keep in mind that Western markets are where they'll make back most of their investment, even if poor nations benefit.
- samcheng 6y ago
  HughesNet is geostationary, though, with a painful latency. Starlink should beat e.g. HughesNet, even with the same bandwidth and data budget, because the satellites are in low-earth orbit.
  - Someone1234 6y ago
    I'm extremely confused by this reply. I essentially said this destroys HughesNet Gen5, and then went on to explain why its dominant market position could result in higher prices, and you felt that needed a reply saying that Starlink is superior to HughesNet? Huh?
    - cinntaile 6y ago
      He's not saying you're wrong, he just provides more context. You focused on price while he mentions latency as a major factor all else being equal. Maybe latency was implied in your original message, in that case he made it explicit.
ZnZirconium 6y ago
Interesting. On the one hand Starlink costs 10x as much for equipment and 10x as much for service as compared to LTE. On the other hand Starlink is 10x faster and half the latency of LTE. A simple factor of 10 increase in both price and speed is not impressive. I'm gonna say I'm not overwhelmingly convinced until Starlink delivers more for less.
- m463 6y ago
  You are not the target market. You probably have LTE, and most likely a number of providers to choose from. To the people who are the target market - these things are of little consequence.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > On the other hand Starlink is 10x faster and half the latency of LTE. Hmm, are you sure you're actually on LTE? That sounds more like HSDPA numbers. Just did a speed test on an iPhone 11 with Vodafone Ireland's not-very-inspiring LTE, in an urban area. Latency: 21ms, 147/19mbit. This costs 20 euro with a cap, mind you. Capless LTE is also available, but on a generally somewhat worse network.
  - vardump 6y ago
    I've seen LTE reaching 12-13ms a lot of times, ping to first host.

$99/month, with a one-time fee of $499 for equipment. No data cap, or at least no mention of one.

entropicdrifter 6y ago
Plus if you're buying the equipment that means no rental fees

What do USA customers think about this price if it was not a beta? Worth if when no DSL, Fibre or 4G options are available? Worth even if other options are available because latency/price? Coming from a country with a lower purchasing power in dollars, 100$ would make this not an option even for many even if no other options are available. Still, if the same connection was shared between 4 homes it would be a great improvement.

jlgaddis 6y ago
For those without available wired broadband options, the price point is a no-brainer. In rural areas, your only option is often cellular (3G/4G) "hotspots" and the monthly cost will be outrageous unless you can convince everyone in your house to stay off of Netflix, etc. If you're in a rural area and you want Internet access for streaming video or your kids who are in school or just don't want to have to deal with or worry about data caps (with outrageous overage fees!), this is quite likely your best ption. The $100 monthly cost isn't unreasonable. You're going to be paying probably $60-70 for spotty cellular service with a data cap and/or throttling anyways, so might as well pay the little bit extra and not have to worry about it. The one-time $500 setup/equipment fee will be harder to justify. I expect Starlink will offer an option to spread that out over a year or two which would make it much easier for some households.
- samcheng 6y ago
  Cable companies (notoriously) bundle-in an equipment rental fee, which makes many times the equipment cost over the lifetime of the customer. I'd assume they will move to that model in the long term. Probably the $500 fee is a way to ensure dedicated / "bought-in" beta customers.
  - entropicdrifter 6y ago
    On the flipside, cable companies are legally required to allow you to buy your own modem if you so choose, so if you're willing to drop $50-$200 on a good modem it'll pay for itself within a year and you can minimize the amount of data snooping your ISP can do. That said, only techies seem to bother with that even though it's generally worth it for the power efficiency alone, let alone the equipment rental costs
    - olyjohn 6y ago
      I’ve always just picked them up used. Never paid more than $10 for a cable modem. I even keep a spare around in case my first one blows up. So many people have these things sitting around from changing providers or moving.
  - Thetawaves 6y ago
    I don't think that is a universal rule - that equipment fees make back many times the cost of the device. A high end DVR may cost close to 1000$ and a 20$/month equipment fee will barely break even over the life of the device...
    - NeutronStar 6y ago
      A high end DVR might, the shitty DVR they'll loan you will.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
OldHand2018 6y ago
> What do USA customers think about this price if it was not a beta? If you have no other option, this is a very good price. In a lot of places with options, this is still a good price. Performance is more than just a set of numbers, so we shall see how well it works. If it's good, I think it will cause a revolution in American broadband. Having a service like this would allow me to truly expand where I could have a weekend house, to the point where the money saved on the house could pay for a decade or more of this service, with plenty left over.
- dgritsko 6y ago
  > In a lot of places with options, this is still a good price. It will be interesting to see if any existing providers feel the need to lower their prices in response to Starlink becoming more widely available. That's how competition is supposed to work, right?
AuryGlenz 6y ago
I’m in a rural area with limited options. The local DSL company was really bad until this year (I wonder why...), but it’s still $70 a month for up to 50 meg and I believe it has a cap. Until this year it was the same price for up to 15mb/s, which in the evening meant more like 1mb/s. I’m on some hotspot plans that are no longer available that have no caps, but I’m pretty lucky with the speeds I get. For me it’ll depend on what speeds Starlink gets in my area, and I might keep one hotspot anyways as it’s handy to have.
beezle 6y ago
I have a 20/10 dsl line that requires phone service so end of day cost is about $89 a month. For $11 more, I can get 50/25. I'm not eligible for the 100/X service which would be about $25 more. I don't have to pay for a rooter. Above in a rural area by a local monopoly. Given the apparent high initial cost, this does not look like a viable option to replace my current service. I think cost would need to get down to 75 ish a month and maybe 200 startup. Does anyone know how this has help up in bad weather (rain? snow?)
- moftz 6y ago
  Rain does a pretty good job at degrading digital satcoms. There's potentially a stronger signal from the Starlink satellite because it's in LEO vs GEO so it could work but it also could just not work well at all. If you want high reliability, look into terrestrial microwave links but that's not available everywhere.

joezydeco 6y ago

I like the wording in the dish mounting guide PDF: Ensure the power is disconnected before accessing, moving or installing the Starlink (aka“Dishy McFlatface”) https://www.docdroid.net/Wc9unhw/ridgeline-mount-guide-pdf#page=2 https://www.docdroid.net/Wc9unhw/ridgeline-mount-guide-pdf#p...

haunter 6y ago

Interesting there are 3 mounts: - Tripod (you get it by default) - Volcano $24 https://www.docdroid.net/YObvsZP/volcano-mount-guide-pdf https://www.docdroid.net/YObvsZP/volcano-mount-guide-pdf - Ridgeline $99 https://www.docdroid.net/Wc9unhw/ridgeline-mount-guide-pdf https://www.docdroid.net/Wc9unhw/ridgeline-mount-guide-pdf

walrus01 6y ago
fairly normal, the same sort of non penetrating roof mounts used for consumer grade VSAT, TVRO and WISP antenna installations. https://www.3starinc.com/non-penetrating-mounts https://www.3starinc.com/non-penetrating-mounts

Someone1234 6y ago

Just for context HughesNet Satellite Internet is 25 Mbps and costs between $60-150/month (10-50 GB data caps). If this price ($99 for unlimited data, 50 Mbps minimum) went live after beta, then it would wipe out everyone else in the Satellite internet space, and only really be competing with 5G cellular in certain circumstances. I suspect we'll see more price discrimination, they have a really competitive product, but also one that is incredibly expensive to develop: So they'll need to recoup their capital investment ($1m-$250K per Starlink satellite, 1400+ total satellites). There may be a $99 plan forever, but the details could change (e.g. Data caps? Different speeds? Etc). The email itself explains why it is the price it is (unreliable/beta testing). Until there's more direct competition at these speeds/coverage, I'd be extremely surprised if they didn't leverage their market position to the maximum. Keep in mind that Western markets are where they'll make back most of their investment, even if poor nations benefit.

samcheng 6y ago
HughesNet is geostationary, though, with a painful latency. Starlink should beat e.g. HughesNet, even with the same bandwidth and data budget, because the satellites are in low-earth orbit.
- Someone1234 6y ago
  I'm extremely confused by this reply. I essentially said this destroys HughesNet Gen5, and then went on to explain why its dominant market position could result in higher prices, and you felt that needed a reply saying that Starlink is superior to HughesNet? Huh?
  - cinntaile 6y ago
    He's not saying you're wrong, he just provides more context. You focused on price while he mentions latency as a major factor all else being equal. Maybe latency was implied in your original message, in that case he made it explicit.

ZnZirconium 6y ago

Interesting. On the one hand Starlink costs 10x as much for equipment and 10x as much for service as compared to LTE. On the other hand Starlink is 10x faster and half the latency of LTE. A simple factor of 10 increase in both price and speed is not impressive. I'm gonna say I'm not overwhelmingly convinced until Starlink delivers more for less.

m463 6y ago
You are not the target market. You probably have LTE, and most likely a number of providers to choose from. To the people who are the target market - these things are of little consequence.
rsynnott 6y ago
> On the other hand Starlink is 10x faster and half the latency of LTE. Hmm, are you sure you're actually on LTE? That sounds more like HSDPA numbers. Just did a speed test on an iPhone 11 with Vodafone Ireland's not-very-inspiring LTE, in an urban area. Latency: 21ms, 147/19mbit. This costs 20 euro with a cap, mind you. Capless LTE is also available, but on a generally somewhat worse network.
- vardump 6y ago
  I've seen LTE reaching 12-13ms a lot of times, ping to first host.