4 ms·

when it becomes hard to maintain costs with government funding, you start to raise prices, after killing all competition in the way btw, the story of many US co

when it becomes hard to maintain costs with government funding, you start to raise prices, after killing all competition in the way btw, the story of many US companies

brianwawok 4y ago
There is no competition in the US for starlink though. If you are out of Comcast or ATT range, you get nothing or maybe 1.5MB DSL.
- Shadonototra 4y ago
  Of course there is no competition, it's impossible to run a business with such low price, nobody can have access to government funding, that's what i meant by "they kill the competition", and are now raising prices for everything because otherwise it's not profitable, and sudently, the product isn't interesting anymore because it is as expensive as with other actors, but they now got the infrastructure, paid by the GOV and can play with it as they please (satellite surveillance perhaps?, we seen that with ukraine) It's not just starlink it's everything else, tesla/spacex, without government, it's a multi-part story
  - brianwawok 4y ago
    I think it’s still very interesting even at $200. RVs, remote log cabins… get proper internet access from the remote parts of the US.
  - dotnet00 4y ago
    How have they killed the competition when none has existed yet? Internet megaconstellations aren't even 5 years old as a technology accessible to consumers, Starlink is the first mover in the space and the infrastructure isn't even complete yet. You also mention SpaceX, but they revived competition in the industry and still maintain the lowest cost and highest capability in the industry despite having a massive tech lead. The pricing increases have been stated as being to keep up with inflation and considering that inflation is currently at ~8.5%, a price increase of ~10% makes sense.
- uxp100 4y ago
  Satellite internet has existed for decades, and is common out of range of cable. Starlink is better, but it’s not the first.
- cardiffspaceman 4y ago
  Viasat (https://www.viasat.com/ https://www.viasat.com/) has not gone out of business yet. Also https://www.hughesnet.com/ https://www.hughesnet.com/ still has a website. I'm not sure why they are not mentioned in this context.
  - brianwawok 4y ago
    Because they aren't really competitors. It's like if I were talking iPhone 1 compeitotors, and you bring up cordless phones. Like yes, they are similar devices.. but latency / price / bandwidth is RIDICILIOUSLY different. hughesnet is like 15GB of data? They automatically rewrite all your videos to 480p? Latency of 300ms + making it impossible to game and hard to VOIP.
toomuchtodo 4y ago
The roaming surcharge is to manage cell congestion. If everyone roams, capacity planning is more challenging, and everyone will have a degraded experience.
- karmakaze 4y ago
  It depends on volumes. Has this been demonstrated or measured? It seems like a market-will-bear valuation to me.
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    I think with Starlink there are 2 types of congestion: typical oversubscription and available frequency assignments in a cell. The former the market can evaluate like any other carrier but the latter is really more a known hard limitation they have to avoid.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  A flat-rate surcharge doesn't mitigate the problem, not to mention they seem to already be solving the problem with deprioritizing roaming traffic anyway, thus the surcharge being a BS money grab.
twox2 4y ago
It's not really raising prices if it's an add-on feature though.
- robert_foss 4y ago
  Separate from this, prices have been increased.
  - Auracle 4y ago
    At the same time, speeds have gone down. I’m considering going back to my Verizon hotspot.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  It is if the feature was assumed to be added later and just wasn't technically feasible. I mean, if TSLA rolled out full foolproof self-driving tomorrow, but wanted an additional 10k to enable "passenger mode" where you could watch TV while the car was driving itself people wouldn't be like "oh that's fine, new feature"
wildzzz 4y ago
Unlike fiber and cable, starlink does not benefit having a bunch of customers located in one spot. Bandwidth is limited and adding more requires either newer satellites with higher bandwidth backbone or more overlap on satellite coverage. The fee is to discourage people from being completely mobile with the ground station. Additionally, there's little competition for starlink because it's such a new tech. There are a bunch of companies working on similar tech that will launch in the next few years. Mobile satellite internet has been pretty shitty in the past with major companies like Inmarsat, Iridium, and Hughes that can only provide slow, expensive links. The best service from Iridium is only good for 700kbps.

when it becomes hard to maintain costs with government funding, you start to raise prices, after killing all competition in the way btw, the story of many US companies

brianwawok 4y ago

There is no competition in the US for starlink though. If you are out of Comcast or ATT range, you get nothing or maybe 1.5MB DSL.

Shadonototra 4y ago
Of course there is no competition, it's impossible to run a business with such low price, nobody can have access to government funding, that's what i meant by "they kill the competition", and are now raising prices for everything because otherwise it's not profitable, and sudently, the product isn't interesting anymore because it is as expensive as with other actors, but they now got the infrastructure, paid by the GOV and can play with it as they please (satellite surveillance perhaps?, we seen that with ukraine) It's not just starlink it's everything else, tesla/spacex, without government, it's a multi-part story
- brianwawok 4y ago
  I think it’s still very interesting even at $200. RVs, remote log cabins… get proper internet access from the remote parts of the US.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  How have they killed the competition when none has existed yet? Internet megaconstellations aren't even 5 years old as a technology accessible to consumers, Starlink is the first mover in the space and the infrastructure isn't even complete yet. You also mention SpaceX, but they revived competition in the industry and still maintain the lowest cost and highest capability in the industry despite having a massive tech lead. The pricing increases have been stated as being to keep up with inflation and considering that inflation is currently at ~8.5%, a price increase of ~10% makes sense.
uxp100 4y ago
Satellite internet has existed for decades, and is common out of range of cable. Starlink is better, but it’s not the first.
cardiffspaceman 4y ago
Viasat (https://www.viasat.com/ https://www.viasat.com/) has not gone out of business yet. Also https://www.hughesnet.com/ https://www.hughesnet.com/ still has a website. I'm not sure why they are not mentioned in this context.
- brianwawok 4y ago
  Because they aren't really competitors. It's like if I were talking iPhone 1 compeitotors, and you bring up cordless phones. Like yes, they are similar devices.. but latency / price / bandwidth is RIDICILIOUSLY different. hughesnet is like 15GB of data? They automatically rewrite all your videos to 480p? Latency of 300ms + making it impossible to game and hard to VOIP.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

The roaming surcharge is to manage cell congestion. If everyone roams, capacity planning is more challenging, and everyone will have a degraded experience.

karmakaze 4y ago
It depends on volumes. Has this been demonstrated or measured? It seems like a market-will-bear valuation to me.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  I think with Starlink there are 2 types of congestion: typical oversubscription and available frequency assignments in a cell. The former the market can evaluate like any other carrier but the latter is really more a known hard limitation they have to avoid.
Nextgrid 4y ago
A flat-rate surcharge doesn't mitigate the problem, not to mention they seem to already be solving the problem with deprioritizing roaming traffic anyway, thus the surcharge being a BS money grab.

twox2 4y ago

It's not really raising prices if it's an add-on feature though.

robert_foss 4y ago
Separate from this, prices have been increased.
- Auracle 4y ago
  At the same time, speeds have gone down. I’m considering going back to my Verizon hotspot.
HWR_14 4y ago
It is if the feature was assumed to be added later and just wasn't technically feasible. I mean, if TSLA rolled out full foolproof self-driving tomorrow, but wanted an additional 10k to enable "passenger mode" where you could watch TV while the car was driving itself people wouldn't be like "oh that's fine, new feature"

wildzzz 4y ago

Unlike fiber and cable, starlink does not benefit having a bunch of customers located in one spot. Bandwidth is limited and adding more requires either newer satellites with higher bandwidth backbone or more overlap on satellite coverage. The fee is to discourage people from being completely mobile with the ground station. Additionally, there's little competition for starlink because it's such a new tech. There are a bunch of companies working on similar tech that will launch in the next few years. Mobile satellite internet has been pretty shitty in the past with major companies like Inmarsat, Iridium, and Hughes that can only provide slow, expensive links. The best service from Iridium is only good for 700kbps.