4 ms·

Plus $500 sign up fee ;) This might all seem reasonable in rural America but it’s hugely expensive for internet in Europe.

modeless 5y ago
That pays for the antenna. The antennas are expensive now because they are new technology, never manufactured on this scale before, but that is changing fast. The fee will get smaller soon enough. Ground-based infrastructure will not be experiencing any analogous rapid cost reduction. And in rural areas it costs a lot more than $500 per residence already. What infrastructure exists is heavily subsidized.
- laumars 5y ago
  I know it pays for the antenna but the fact remains the cost of Starlink isn’t just $99/month like you’ve claimed.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I think when I got my first cable broadband the modem cost ~$300, probably more than $500 now after inflation.
Dylan16807 5y ago
> Plus $500 sign up fee ;) That's going to average out to less than $10 a month pretty quickly.
- yread 5y ago
  Let's first see if you can even keep using the same make of antenna before replacing it with a new model for 5 years
- laumars 5y ago
  The problem with that logic is that it’s not paid across 50 months. It’s a sign up lump sum to pay for the antenna rather than a fixed monthly cost added to your contract duration. Also your post doesn’t take into account the life span of the antennae, that could be less than 5 years. It doesn’t take into account any competing services that you might want to switch to (eg some internet contracts in the U.K. typically run for 2 years and you’re encouraged to shop around at that point). Nor does it take into account any other personal circumstances that might lead one to cancel Starlink.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    I had to pay hundreds for my first cable modem, so the early stage costs are comparable.
    - laumars 5y ago
      My point wasn’t whether the cost is reasonable. My point was just that the first month is a $600 bill rather than $100 like the GP suggested. For some that cost is still reasonable for what they’re getting. And that’s fine. But from a purely mathematical standpoint the GP was significantly off in terms of the price they quoted. You can all argue about whether that matters or not but that’s really just a subjective matter. Some folk cannot afford a $500 sign up cost. Whereas for others it will be an absolute bargain for what they need. It really depends on their income/savings, what other internet providers are available to them and how dependent they are on the internet. So the answer to the point you’re discussing is going to vary depending on the individual.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        Thanks for clarifying, it's a fair point. Especially since lots of folks who don't have the upfront costs will finance it on a credit card and end up paying even more in the long run. (Hoping they wouldn't also do that for the monthly charge too, but lots of people finance normal living expenses every month, beyond their monthly income, until their credit breaks under the load)
  - lkbm 5y ago
    If we're using price as a proxy for environmental cost, it seems irrelevant whether it's paid up front or over time. Lifespan certainly matters, but the financial structure doesn't.
    - laumars 5y ago
      You do realise not everyone has $500 to spare? For some people the distinction matters a lot. It’s the same reason some people with high end phones pay a larger monthly phone bill. They want a phone they cannot afford to buy so they pay in instalments as part of their mobile contract. So yes, it absolutely does matter to a lot of people.

modeless 5y ago

That pays for the antenna. The antennas are expensive now because they are new technology, never manufactured on this scale before, but that is changing fast. The fee will get smaller soon enough. Ground-based infrastructure will not be experiencing any analogous rapid cost reduction. And in rural areas it costs a lot more than $500 per residence already. What infrastructure exists is heavily subsidized.

laumars 5y ago
I know it pays for the antenna but the fact remains the cost of Starlink isn’t just $99/month like you’ve claimed.
ineedasername 5y ago
I think when I got my first cable broadband the modem cost ~$300, probably more than $500 now after inflation.

Dylan16807 5y ago

> Plus $500 sign up fee ;) That's going to average out to less than $10 a month pretty quickly.

yread 5y ago
Let's first see if you can even keep using the same make of antenna before replacing it with a new model for 5 years
laumars 5y ago
The problem with that logic is that it’s not paid across 50 months. It’s a sign up lump sum to pay for the antenna rather than a fixed monthly cost added to your contract duration. Also your post doesn’t take into account the life span of the antennae, that could be less than 5 years. It doesn’t take into account any competing services that you might want to switch to (eg some internet contracts in the U.K. typically run for 2 years and you’re encouraged to shop around at that point). Nor does it take into account any other personal circumstances that might lead one to cancel Starlink.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I had to pay hundreds for my first cable modem, so the early stage costs are comparable.
  - laumars 5y ago
    My point wasn’t whether the cost is reasonable. My point was just that the first month is a $600 bill rather than $100 like the GP suggested. For some that cost is still reasonable for what they’re getting. And that’s fine. But from a purely mathematical standpoint the GP was significantly off in terms of the price they quoted. You can all argue about whether that matters or not but that’s really just a subjective matter. Some folk cannot afford a $500 sign up cost. Whereas for others it will be an absolute bargain for what they need. It really depends on their income/savings, what other internet providers are available to them and how dependent they are on the internet. So the answer to the point you’re discussing is going to vary depending on the individual.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Thanks for clarifying, it's a fair point. Especially since lots of folks who don't have the upfront costs will finance it on a credit card and end up paying even more in the long run. (Hoping they wouldn't also do that for the monthly charge too, but lots of people finance normal living expenses every month, beyond their monthly income, until their credit breaks under the load)
- lkbm 5y ago
  If we're using price as a proxy for environmental cost, it seems irrelevant whether it's paid up front or over time. Lifespan certainly matters, but the financial structure doesn't.
  - laumars 5y ago
    You do realise not everyone has $500 to spare? For some people the distinction matters a lot. It’s the same reason some people with high end phones pay a larger monthly phone bill. They want a phone they cannot afford to buy so they pay in instalments as part of their mobile contract. So yes, it absolutely does matter to a lot of people.