4 ms·

Yeah but it still sounds like $1,500 demand fee was not a mistake, charging OP was the mistake. People first mentioned these fees at like $100... now you can g

Yeah but it still sounds like $1,500 demand fee was not a mistake, charging OP was the mistake. People first mentioned these fees at like $100... now you can go to Costco, grab a Starlink, and they'll randomly ask for $1,500 to actually start service. Congestion is a thing when each node needs to go to space, but it also feels like they're cashing in on years of "just move to a cabin in the woods and work off Starlink"... once you've done that they have you by the balls even worse than a typical ISP.

wat10000 3mo ago
Isn't this fee specifically before they have you by the balls?
- BoorishBears 3mo ago
  Not unless you had a potential $1500 fee top of mind before you moved... Wanna guess if Starlink is advertising how insane these fees have gotten?
  - wat10000 3mo ago
    Let me guess... if you put the address into their handy text box, they tell you exactly what the demand surcharge is going to be for that location? I tried it, and would you look at that, I was right. I guess if you buy an entire house without checking to see what it costs to get internet service at that location, then you might be in a tough spot. Hard to blame it on anyone else though.
    - bigbadfeline 3mo ago
      > I guess if you buy an entire house without checking We aren't talking about people buying hoses now, these fees weren't there before, so it becomes a typical bait and switch. "Congestion charge" means the starlink network lacks sufficient capacity to accommodate the areas that need it the most and where it was advertised the most. https://tech.yahoo.com/transportation/articles/elon-musk-charging-starlink-customers-170100747.html https://tech.yahoo.com/transportation/articles/elon-musk-cha... Jul 5, 2026The congestion charge was quietly added back in 2024, starting out as a one-time $100 fee, depending on location. By June 2025, that number grew to up to $1,000 in parts of the country, as PCMag reported at the time. As of last month, surcharges can hit $1,500.
      - wat10000 3mo ago
        They're not applying these retroactively. (They did so in the reddit link above, but that was a mistake that they fixed.) The only way you'd have this problem is if you check before you buy, see that it's not there, buy the place, then move in and find out that a surcharge was added in the meantime. That would suck, but I suppose it's a risk you run if you don't lock in your deal ahead of time, and you choose to move somewhere with only one good provider.
      - r3trohack3r 3mo ago
        > Under Carr's leadership, Musk's rocket company has effectively been given carte blanche in its efforts to roll out its orbital Starlink broadband service to more Americans This article is profoundly disturbing. The audacity to think the government has _allowed_ people to voluntarily purchase Internet service from a provider capable of servicing their geography. As if this is an assumption to be broken! I’m sure glad my government has given me permission to purchase goods and services!
        vel0city 3mo ago
        What's the alternative? That anyone should just be able to be free to launch whatever into space or build whatever towers and have it blast whatever RF emissions it wants whenever and however? Sounds like a quick way to make the bands entirely unusable. I'll go ahead and start a wireless home internet service. I'll just set my transmitters to 1575MHz, that'll be fine, its nice and quiet.
        r3trohack3r 3mo ago
        Except that’s not the argument being made or the problem being presented. The FCC does exactly what you asked by namesake, regulate communications. > That's despite concerns over thousands or even millions of satellites cluttering our planet's already extremely busy orbit and the environmentally damaging rocket launches that send them up. The article seems to be arguing that the FCC, whose namesake is exactly what you described, should be doing the namesake of the EPA and the FAA in an attempt to stop Starlink from creating a constellation.
    - BoorishBears 3mo ago
      You're exactly right, you can know you're getting fucked in the ass by Elon before you get fucked in the ass by Elon. I don't go that way, but you do you.
      - wat10000 3mo ago
        I have good fiber, no need for Starlink. If I did, I might complain about the surcharge, but it would be hard to argue they tried to hide it.
naturalmovement 3mo ago
If you're privileged enough to work a six-figure tech job while engaging in a homesteader larp in a "cabin in the woods", you can probably afford the fee. So can "off-grid" YouTuber grifters. It's like everyone feels entitled to something they didn't know existed a few years ago.
- Cyberdogs7 3mo ago
  So we should let companies do what ever anti-consumer practices they want, because you don't like the group they are doing it to? Should a car company be allowed to charge you an extra fee every time you have a passenger?
  - naturalmovement 3mo ago
    If you need a specialized amphibious vehicle to get to your shack in the woods, it's not anti-consumer if it costs you more than a Mitsubishi Mirage.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 3mo ago
      The world is more than rich tech bros living in the woods. Normal income people also wanted to use this service without being bankrupted. Rural homes do have roads that can be reached on a rusty pickup.
    - ben_w 3mo ago
      A few days ago people were telling me the Starlink was brilliant because it gave small African villages with no mains electricity an internet connection to share. This kind of behaviour does rather dampen the value proposition for such people.
      - naturalmovement 3mo ago
        Do you think tech bros who voluntarily choose to live in the woods should pay the same subsidized price as a rural African schoolhouse? Equity and all that.

wat10000 3mo ago

Isn't this fee specifically before they have you by the balls?

BoorishBears 3mo ago
Not unless you had a potential $1500 fee top of mind before you moved... Wanna guess if Starlink is advertising how insane these fees have gotten?
- wat10000 3mo ago
  Let me guess... if you put the address into their handy text box, they tell you exactly what the demand surcharge is going to be for that location? I tried it, and would you look at that, I was right. I guess if you buy an entire house without checking to see what it costs to get internet service at that location, then you might be in a tough spot. Hard to blame it on anyone else though.
  - bigbadfeline 3mo ago
    > I guess if you buy an entire house without checking We aren't talking about people buying hoses now, these fees weren't there before, so it becomes a typical bait and switch. "Congestion charge" means the starlink network lacks sufficient capacity to accommodate the areas that need it the most and where it was advertised the most. https://tech.yahoo.com/transportation/articles/elon-musk-charging-starlink-customers-170100747.html https://tech.yahoo.com/transportation/articles/elon-musk-cha... Jul 5, 2026The congestion charge was quietly added back in 2024, starting out as a one-time $100 fee, depending on location. By June 2025, that number grew to up to $1,000 in parts of the country, as PCMag reported at the time. As of last month, surcharges can hit $1,500.
    - wat10000 3mo ago
      They're not applying these retroactively. (They did so in the reddit link above, but that was a mistake that they fixed.) The only way you'd have this problem is if you check before you buy, see that it's not there, buy the place, then move in and find out that a surcharge was added in the meantime. That would suck, but I suppose it's a risk you run if you don't lock in your deal ahead of time, and you choose to move somewhere with only one good provider.
    - r3trohack3r 3mo ago
      > Under Carr's leadership, Musk's rocket company has effectively been given carte blanche in its efforts to roll out its orbital Starlink broadband service to more Americans This article is profoundly disturbing. The audacity to think the government has _allowed_ people to voluntarily purchase Internet service from a provider capable of servicing their geography. As if this is an assumption to be broken! I’m sure glad my government has given me permission to purchase goods and services!
      - vel0city 3mo ago
        What's the alternative? That anyone should just be able to be free to launch whatever into space or build whatever towers and have it blast whatever RF emissions it wants whenever and however? Sounds like a quick way to make the bands entirely unusable. I'll go ahead and start a wireless home internet service. I'll just set my transmitters to 1575MHz, that'll be fine, its nice and quiet.
        r3trohack3r 3mo ago
        Except that’s not the argument being made or the problem being presented. The FCC does exactly what you asked by namesake, regulate communications. > That's despite concerns over thousands or even millions of satellites cluttering our planet's already extremely busy orbit and the environmentally damaging rocket launches that send them up. The article seems to be arguing that the FCC, whose namesake is exactly what you described, should be doing the namesake of the EPA and the FAA in an attempt to stop Starlink from creating a constellation.
  - BoorishBears 3mo ago
    You're exactly right, you can know you're getting fucked in the ass by Elon before you get fucked in the ass by Elon. I don't go that way, but you do you.
    - wat10000 3mo ago
      I have good fiber, no need for Starlink. If I did, I might complain about the surcharge, but it would be hard to argue they tried to hide it.

naturalmovement 3mo ago

If you're privileged enough to work a six-figure tech job while engaging in a homesteader larp in a "cabin in the woods", you can probably afford the fee. So can "off-grid" YouTuber grifters. It's like everyone feels entitled to something they didn't know existed a few years ago.

Cyberdogs7 3mo ago
So we should let companies do what ever anti-consumer practices they want, because you don't like the group they are doing it to? Should a car company be allowed to charge you an extra fee every time you have a passenger?
- naturalmovement 3mo ago
  If you need a specialized amphibious vehicle to get to your shack in the woods, it's not anti-consumer if it costs you more than a Mitsubishi Mirage.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3mo ago
    The world is more than rich tech bros living in the woods. Normal income people also wanted to use this service without being bankrupted. Rural homes do have roads that can be reached on a rusty pickup.
  - ben_w 3mo ago
    A few days ago people were telling me the Starlink was brilliant because it gave small African villages with no mains electricity an internet connection to share. This kind of behaviour does rather dampen the value proposition for such people.
    - naturalmovement 3mo ago
      Do you think tech bros who voluntarily choose to live in the woods should pay the same subsidized price as a rural African schoolhouse? Equity and all that.