5 ms·

> $120/mo for service and $599 for hardware Noope. no thank you. https://www.starlink.com/ https://www.starlink.com/

by 2h 3y ago

0xffff2 3y ago
This service is not for you if that is your reaction. Until recently I lived in a location where there is literally no other option capable of supporting Teams calls. Before Starlink I rented a second house in a "nearby" (49 minutes each way) town to use as an office. Comparatively, Starlink is a phenomenal deal.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  What does competition look like for Starlink? Will competitors have to launch their own mesh of satellites? If you want to actually have your own IPv4 address you will have to pay $250 per month + $2500 for the terminal. This is despite the fact an IPv4 address only costs them a one time cost of about $40.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    I think the closest they have to a competitor is oneweb, which hasn't completed the roll out for their first constellation yet. They are surprisingly close though, and could've been able to actually have an operational internet service if it wasn't for a scrapped launch related to the Russian invasion. I remember thinking they were basically dead, but they have recovered surprisingly well. Though their satellites are more likely to remain in space since they don't deorbit as easily as starlink. Otherwise the "traditional" satellite internet providers don't really even count as actual competitors. Also, I thought starlink didn't provide customers with IP addresses and that the whole thing was going through a CGNAT and the sats themselves used private internal addresses. Even starlink business users don't get a static IP, just a publically addressable one through DHCP that could in theory change at any time more or less. That means that the premium is most probably due to the added complexity that comes with making some of their network publically addressable rather than having anything to do with IPv4 costs. From what I'm reading they also seem to be working on ipv6 support (soon™), which is hopefully going to make IPv4 pricing matter a lot less for users. Until then they are probably limited by their CGNAT architecture. I'll look it up since it could've been just some launch date speculation.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      IPv6 is not a solution when there still is a lot of people whose networks don't support it. Making the network publicly routable shouldn't be any more complex than any other ISP which seem to do this just fine.
      - mardifoufs 3y ago
        Wait, I don't know tons about networking but my impression was rhat CGNAT basically does not allow your users to be publically addressable? Have I misunderstood what CGNAT does, or it just that they should've used a publically addressable architecture in the first place?
        charcircuit 3y ago
        CGNAT has multiple users share a single IP address which means that there needs to be some logic to know which user an incoming packet should go to which is why they are normally not publicly addressable. Not all ISPs use CGNAT though. >just that they should've used a publically addressable architecture in the first place? I would be okay if there was a way to get assigned a dedicated, though not necessarily a static one, IP address that was not at a massive margin.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        IPv6 is 24.5 years old. When there's enough time for you to conceive a new child, send them through school, then university, then most of a PhD program… If your network equipment supplier doesn't support the tech, demand better of them rather than blaming the ISP that's specifically intended for people who weren't being properly served until now anyway.
        charcircuit 3y ago
        >IPv6 is 24.5 years old. And Chinese is hundreds of years old and I still don't know it. People don't invest into supporting things the instant they release. >If your network equipment supplier... In this hypothetical my network supplier would, but someone who is trying to connect isn't. IPv6 isn't even at 50% support in the US. That means if you want your friend group to all connect to your server there is a very good chance that some of them will not be able to. What are you supposed to tell them? That they should complain to their ISP?
  - sgtnoodle 3y ago
    For a slight latency cost, you could always VPN to an endpoint in the cloud with a routable IP address.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      It's ridiculous to need to add that many hops just to do something as basic as receive a packet from someone else on the internet.
      - sgtnoodle 3y ago
        Well, as was said, you could just pay more for the service that includes a routable IP address.
        charcircuit 3y ago
        I'm pointing out that there is a market inefficiency if I have to pay over $100 a month to be able to lease something that is worth only $40.
        sgtnoodle 3y ago
        It seems like it would cost about $10/month to set up a public IP address through a service like NordVPN. You would take a bit of a latency hit, but presumably on the order of milliseconds. If you're serving something latency sensitive, you can run your server in the cloud closer to the trunk of the internet, or you can pay SpaceX $100 month to shave off the latency. It seems like SpaceX probably doesn't want people running servers on the starlink network for no good reason. So, their pricing doesn't seem like market inefficiency to me. It just seems like them charging a fair price for their service. Hopefully they get IPv6 working soon? Then you'll at least be able to route your own personal stuff without NAT punch-through.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Frankly, Starlink seems underpriced for the people whose alternative is long latency, limited data, and itself expensive options.
ghaff 3y ago
$120/month is about what I pay for wired Internet about 40 miles outside of a major metro in the US) and about half what I pay for electricity. It hardly seems excessive to get Internet where the alternative for a lot of people is nothing or at least nothing that lets you stream video, music, etc.

> $120/mo for service and $599 for hardware Noope. no thank you. https://www.starlink.com/ https://www.starlink.com/

by 2h 3y ago

> $120/mo for service and $599 for hardware Noope. no thank you. https://www.starlink.com/ https://www.starlink.com/

This service is not for you if that is your reaction. Until recently I lived in a location where there is literally no other option capable of supporting Teams calls. Before Starlink I rented a second house in a "nearby" (49 minutes each way) town to use as an office. Comparatively, Starlink is a phenomenal deal.

charcircuit 3y ago
What does competition look like for Starlink? Will competitors have to launch their own mesh of satellites? If you want to actually have your own IPv4 address you will have to pay $250 per month + $2500 for the terminal. This is despite the fact an IPv4 address only costs them a one time cost of about $40.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  I think the closest they have to a competitor is oneweb, which hasn't completed the roll out for their first constellation yet. They are surprisingly close though, and could've been able to actually have an operational internet service if it wasn't for a scrapped launch related to the Russian invasion. I remember thinking they were basically dead, but they have recovered surprisingly well. Though their satellites are more likely to remain in space since they don't deorbit as easily as starlink. Otherwise the "traditional" satellite internet providers don't really even count as actual competitors. Also, I thought starlink didn't provide customers with IP addresses and that the whole thing was going through a CGNAT and the sats themselves used private internal addresses. Even starlink business users don't get a static IP, just a publically addressable one through DHCP that could in theory change at any time more or less. That means that the premium is most probably due to the added complexity that comes with making some of their network publically addressable rather than having anything to do with IPv4 costs. From what I'm reading they also seem to be working on ipv6 support (soon™), which is hopefully going to make IPv4 pricing matter a lot less for users. Until then they are probably limited by their CGNAT architecture. I'll look it up since it could've been just some launch date speculation.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    IPv6 is not a solution when there still is a lot of people whose networks don't support it. Making the network publicly routable shouldn't be any more complex than any other ISP which seem to do this just fine.
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      Wait, I don't know tons about networking but my impression was rhat CGNAT basically does not allow your users to be publically addressable? Have I misunderstood what CGNAT does, or it just that they should've used a publically addressable architecture in the first place?
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        CGNAT has multiple users share a single IP address which means that there needs to be some logic to know which user an incoming packet should go to which is why they are normally not publicly addressable. Not all ISPs use CGNAT though. >just that they should've used a publically addressable architecture in the first place? I would be okay if there was a way to get assigned a dedicated, though not necessarily a static one, IP address that was not at a massive margin.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      IPv6 is 24.5 years old. When there's enough time for you to conceive a new child, send them through school, then university, then most of a PhD program… If your network equipment supplier doesn't support the tech, demand better of them rather than blaming the ISP that's specifically intended for people who weren't being properly served until now anyway.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        >IPv6 is 24.5 years old. And Chinese is hundreds of years old and I still don't know it. People don't invest into supporting things the instant they release. >If your network equipment supplier... In this hypothetical my network supplier would, but someone who is trying to connect isn't. IPv6 isn't even at 50% support in the US. That means if you want your friend group to all connect to your server there is a very good chance that some of them will not be able to. What are you supposed to tell them? That they should complain to their ISP?
- sgtnoodle 3y ago
  For a slight latency cost, you could always VPN to an endpoint in the cloud with a routable IP address.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    It's ridiculous to need to add that many hops just to do something as basic as receive a packet from someone else on the internet.
    - sgtnoodle 3y ago
      Well, as was said, you could just pay more for the service that includes a routable IP address.
      - charcircuit 3y ago
        I'm pointing out that there is a market inefficiency if I have to pay over $100 a month to be able to lease something that is worth only $40.
        sgtnoodle 3y ago
        It seems like it would cost about $10/month to set up a public IP address through a service like NordVPN. You would take a bit of a latency hit, but presumably on the order of milliseconds. If you're serving something latency sensitive, you can run your server in the cloud closer to the trunk of the internet, or you can pay SpaceX $100 month to shave off the latency. It seems like SpaceX probably doesn't want people running servers on the starlink network for no good reason. So, their pricing doesn't seem like market inefficiency to me. It just seems like them charging a fair price for their service. Hopefully they get IPv6 working soon? Then you'll at least be able to route your own personal stuff without NAT punch-through.
ghaff 3y ago
Frankly, Starlink seems underpriced for the people whose alternative is long latency, limited data, and itself expensive options.

ghaff 3y ago

$120/month is about what I pay for wired Internet about 40 miles outside of a major metro in the US) and about half what I pay for electricity. It hardly seems excessive to get Internet where the alternative for a lot of people is nothing or at least nothing that lets you stream video, music, etc.