I also have more than a decade of experience with satellite internet, and geostationary satellites in particular. Nobody has ever said starlink will be technica

I also have more than a decade of experience with satellite internet, and geostationary satellites in particular. Nobody has ever said starlink will be technically impossible; the arguments from the start have been that it is not financially solvent. Temporary VC money obviously doesn't tell us whether they're going to be profitable, but I haven't seen any real analysis that shows they have anywhere near the number of subs they need to become profitable. And increasing the subs will surely decrease the quality of the service, because that's always what these satellite companies do. The fact that they just released a more expensive terminal to me means that they are trying to tackle the enterprise market where the cost per bit is significantly higher than with consumers, and those users will for sure get priority over consumers. It also means they are losing money too fast and they needed to at least have a solution that will potentially have higher returns in the short-term. I agree the tech works great for what it is, but I also don't think it's been out anywhere near long enough for people to make judgements about how well it works. I don't think we will have enough longevity data on the terminal for at least a couple more years, so it's not clear if performance will degrade or if the motor will seize due to whether. I think the users that got in now are having a great honeymoon period, but I don't think this will last, and we should not be comparing it to existing, mature services.