4 ms·

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 large

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.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > 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. You and everyone else. Is that implication not obvious? You're so locked on to the privilege issue and misreading the word "you" that you're completely ignoring my point, which is that the privilege of paying a big upfront fee will not be necessary. Just like dozens of other services, you'll be able to sign up for a contract and the equipment fee will become either a small monthly amount or get waived entirely.
    - laumars 5y ago
      Eventually you might be right. But you’re now talking about theoretical future rather than what the literal monetary cost of the service is right now. I say that because my point wasn’t to say that Starlink is uneconomical for the poor and always will be. My point was just that the GPs post was factually incorrect because he left off a hugely significant sum (relative to the first month) for the cost of Starlink right now. The point about privilege only came about after others handwaved that $500 as loose change and I only really made that point to illustrate how ridiculous it was to say “it’s fine to get a payment wrong by half a grand because we’re wealthy”. It just smacks of being out of touch with reality (or perhaps they were just Starlink/Musk fanboys and defending factually incorrect posts if it looks favourably on Starlink?). My personal opinions of Starlink is that it looks really promising. In fact I nearly signed up 9 months ago myself when I moved house. The kicker was I needed it a available within a week and didn’t really want to run two service providers. I’m guess given that Starlink is still beta I was asking a little much there. The problem is my current ISP locks me into a 2 year service and as much as I can afford Starlink there’s other things I’d rather spend my money on than paying for two ISPs just for curiosities sake. I’ll probably review that decision when the contract for the current ISP has > 12 months remaining. I’m sure I’m 5 years time the cost of Starlink will become a lot more attractive to lower income families in the west. Or at least those that might need to depend on it might find it easier to gain access to the service. But I’m skeptical we’ll see the service affordable for most rural communities in Africa, India or South America, to name but a few large regions that could really benefit from such a service. Maybe Musk does have a plan here. He certainly doesn’t owe these people any charity; however it does feel a missed opportunity if some arrangement couldn’t eventually be found. Anyway, that’s my 2c worth of opinions :)
lkbm 5y ago
It makes a huge difference to whether people buy it. It does not make a difference as a measure of "how much carbon does it release when they buy it", which is the question being debated in this thread.
- laumars 5y ago
  > which is the question being debated in this thread. That was discussed elsewhere in this thread. This discussion in this fork is very specifically about monitory costs. Hence all the dollar signs. ;)

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.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > 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. You and everyone else. Is that implication not obvious? You're so locked on to the privilege issue and misreading the word "you" that you're completely ignoring my point, which is that the privilege of paying a big upfront fee will not be necessary. Just like dozens of other services, you'll be able to sign up for a contract and the equipment fee will become either a small monthly amount or get waived entirely.
  - laumars 5y ago
    Eventually you might be right. But you’re now talking about theoretical future rather than what the literal monetary cost of the service is right now. I say that because my point wasn’t to say that Starlink is uneconomical for the poor and always will be. My point was just that the GPs post was factually incorrect because he left off a hugely significant sum (relative to the first month) for the cost of Starlink right now. The point about privilege only came about after others handwaved that $500 as loose change and I only really made that point to illustrate how ridiculous it was to say “it’s fine to get a payment wrong by half a grand because we’re wealthy”. It just smacks of being out of touch with reality (or perhaps they were just Starlink/Musk fanboys and defending factually incorrect posts if it looks favourably on Starlink?). My personal opinions of Starlink is that it looks really promising. In fact I nearly signed up 9 months ago myself when I moved house. The kicker was I needed it a available within a week and didn’t really want to run two service providers. I’m guess given that Starlink is still beta I was asking a little much there. The problem is my current ISP locks me into a 2 year service and as much as I can afford Starlink there’s other things I’d rather spend my money on than paying for two ISPs just for curiosities sake. I’ll probably review that decision when the contract for the current ISP has > 12 months remaining. I’m sure I’m 5 years time the cost of Starlink will become a lot more attractive to lower income families in the west. Or at least those that might need to depend on it might find it easier to gain access to the service. But I’m skeptical we’ll see the service affordable for most rural communities in Africa, India or South America, to name but a few large regions that could really benefit from such a service. Maybe Musk does have a plan here. He certainly doesn’t owe these people any charity; however it does feel a missed opportunity if some arrangement couldn’t eventually be found. Anyway, that’s my 2c worth of opinions :)

lkbm 5y ago

It makes a huge difference to whether people buy it. It does not make a difference as a measure of "how much carbon does it release when they buy it", which is the question being debated in this thread.

laumars 5y ago
> which is the question being debated in this thread. That was discussed elsewhere in this thread. This discussion in this fork is very specifically about monitory costs. Hence all the dollar signs. ;)