4 ms·

For people who used to be on old satellite systems, Starlink is still the best value by far. The qualitative difference between 105Mbps and 53Mbps is much less

For people who used to be on old satellite systems, Starlink is still the best value by far. The qualitative difference between 105Mbps and 53Mbps is much less than 2x: there's not much you can't do with one that you could with the other. Not being an apologist, just trying to keep perspective. People who really need Starlink are still getting a great value compared to how it was a couple years ago.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mdasen 4y ago
It's probably also more beneficial from a policy standpoint to get twice as many people signed up at 50Mbps. As you note, the jump from 50Mbps to 100Mbps isn't that big, but the jump from 3Mbps DSL to 50Mbps Starlink means that you can suddenly use a lot of the internet that never really worked well before. It could definitely be annoying to customers who had signed up and are now getting significantly less speed at the same price, but Starlink has a bit of a captive audience since they're mostly serving people without other options.
kccqzy 4y ago
I moved from one room in the house to another room when working remotely, and I experienced a similar drop in my speed due to being farther away from the Wi-Fi access point. And yes, there's not much you can't do with one that you could with the other. I made this choice voluntarily but tech geeks should visit the homes of non-tech people and see that (a) their speed is limited more by their connection to the Wi-Fi access point than by the ISP, and (b) they aren't bothered by it.
test6554 4y ago
I pay $110 per month for internet at my farm land that I visit two to three days every 60 days. If they can pretend I deserve to pay as much as people who use it as their primary internet service, I should be able to pay a lower amount if they halve the bandwidth on me.
- ulfw 4y ago
  Then why do you pay basically $110 a day for internet? Can't be a day without on the farm? No 2G/3G either?
imglorp 4y ago
There's also altitude. Starlink is LEO at 550km, while all the legacy is GEO at 36000 km, ignoring Iridium of course. This is a huge latency difference, allowing normal video calls.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mdasen 4y ago

It's probably also more beneficial from a policy standpoint to get twice as many people signed up at 50Mbps. As you note, the jump from 50Mbps to 100Mbps isn't that big, but the jump from 3Mbps DSL to 50Mbps Starlink means that you can suddenly use a lot of the internet that never really worked well before. It could definitely be annoying to customers who had signed up and are now getting significantly less speed at the same price, but Starlink has a bit of a captive audience since they're mostly serving people without other options.

kccqzy 4y ago

I moved from one room in the house to another room when working remotely, and I experienced a similar drop in my speed due to being farther away from the Wi-Fi access point. And yes, there's not much you can't do with one that you could with the other. I made this choice voluntarily but tech geeks should visit the homes of non-tech people and see that (a) their speed is limited more by their connection to the Wi-Fi access point than by the ISP, and (b) they aren't bothered by it.

test6554 4y ago

I pay $110 per month for internet at my farm land that I visit two to three days every 60 days. If they can pretend I deserve to pay as much as people who use it as their primary internet service, I should be able to pay a lower amount if they halve the bandwidth on me.

ulfw 4y ago
Then why do you pay basically $110 a day for internet? Can't be a day without on the farm? No 2G/3G either?

imglorp 4y ago

There's also altitude. Starlink is LEO at 550km, while all the legacy is GEO at 36000 km, ignoring Iridium of course. This is a huge latency difference, allowing normal video calls.