3 ms·
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 m
by 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 agoHughesNet 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 agoI'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 agoHe'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.