5 ms·

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 you

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.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested. So you're worrying about that way too early. You'll be able to get starlink without a big upfront fee later, I assure you. It's an issue but it's a separate issue from "high cost of service".
    - laumars 5y ago
      > This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested Not entirely true. The hardware is sold at a huge loss. If I recall correctly the dishes cost a grand to make. Musk expects those costs to come down but the fact remains he’s losing money with every sign up. My point wasn’t about whether the cost is worth it though. It’s that the service costs 6 (!!!) times more than the GP claimed. It’s really not a complicated point I’m making here either. I’m not judging the service, just correcting an error in someone’s post. > So you're worrying about that way too early. I’m not worried. Why would I be worried about how much an ISP I don’t need costs? > You'll be able to get starlink without a big upfront fee later, I assure you. I could afford it now if I wanted it. But I’m also socially aware enough to see that most people aren’t as privileged as we are. > It's an issue but it's a separate issue from "high cost of service". I’m skeptical this will ever become economical for low income families or lesser developed counties. The latter being a group that could really benefit from this. Regarding cost of service, we moved on from the environmental impact a while ago and now just discussing the financial cost of service.

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.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested. So you're worrying about that way too early. You'll be able to get starlink without a big upfront fee later, I assure you. It's an issue but it's a separate issue from "high cost of service".
  - laumars 5y ago
    > This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested Not entirely true. The hardware is sold at a huge loss. If I recall correctly the dishes cost a grand to make. Musk expects those costs to come down but the fact remains he’s losing money with every sign up. My point wasn’t about whether the cost is worth it though. It’s that the service costs 6 (!!!) times more than the GP claimed. It’s really not a complicated point I’m making here either. I’m not judging the service, just correcting an error in someone’s post. > So you're worrying about that way too early. I’m not worried. Why would I be worried about how much an ISP I don’t need costs? > You'll be able to get starlink without a big upfront fee later, I assure you. I could afford it now if I wanted it. But I’m also socially aware enough to see that most people aren’t as privileged as we are. > It's an issue but it's a separate issue from "high cost of service". I’m skeptical this will ever become economical for low income families or lesser developed counties. The latter being a group that could really benefit from this. Regarding cost of service, we moved on from the environmental impact a while ago and now just discussing the financial cost of service.