Starlink Premium
starlink.com
starlink.com
Looks like it's targeting the enterprise market.
The dish cost is probably closer to the actual value of the dish. The original dish we bought for $500 I think I read actually cost closer to $3k for them to manufacture (I'm not an expert on this)?
Regular service is $500 for a dish and $99 a month which is a great deal for 50-200mbps at pretty low latency. Particularly if you're in an area where your only other option is geostationary (which sucks and costs a lot).
The question in my head is whether Starlink is going to slow down their $100-tier signups if they start seeing enough $500-tier signups. People have been waiting for years to get Starlink. If they start getting lots of $500-tier interest, it seems like they'd prioritize those users for new signups.
> Unlimited Service Locations: Starlink is ideal for rural and remote locations. Order as many Starlinks as needed and manage all of your service locations, no matter how remote, from a single account.
This screams corp fleet management of the equipment, similar to SSO price segmentation.
It’s 5x the price of standard Starlink (both for the hardware and the monthly cost). Won’t be worth it for most regular users imo when standard Starlink is quite good.
I’d pay $150/mo easily and maybe $200/mo for premium, but not $500/mo.
There’s also currently no way to order one from your current account if you have regular Starlink, you have to use a different email (also suggests targeting different market).
It's designed for people who are currently suffering on geostationary satellite internet, or some other low-bandwidth/high-latency setup.
- 4g hotspot, 150ms latency, ~15gb/month, speeds of ~10-20mbps, costs $50 + $15/gb overage per month
- WISP network, 400ms latency, unlimited data at 500kbps-6mbps, ~95% uptime, costs $80/month
- HughesNet satellite, 600ms latency, 50gb/month, less than 10mb/s down, 90% uptime, $150/month
Or I could get Starlink with ~50ms of latency, unlimited data, ~100-150mbps down, 99% uptime at the fair price of $100 per month. Once you've lived away from broadband for long enough, you can bet everyone is fed up with the other 3 options.
I live in Australia, a 30 minutes drive from the centre of a state capital and I've had a near 10x increase in my download speed and a 4x increase in my upload speed by moving to Starlink. I'm paying $40 AUD extra per month ($130 for Starlink, $90 for pleb tier wired) for the privilege. My wired link will not go any faster, 5G still isn't available at my house, and even if it was it's metered so borderline useless for a primary home link with a family watching Netflix, YouTube for kids, etc.
It’s not competitive in (most) areas with options from cable providers, but that’s also not its purpose.
Starlink will give us high speed low latency internet anywhere on earth, it moves the lower bound up to 150mbps with pretty low latency which is great.
$3k? Were they mining the metal by hand and then using only the most hipster blacksmiths shipped in from Portland to hand press the steel for the dish?
> UNLIMITED SERVICE LOCATIONS
Almost seems designed to get people's hopes up only to squash them again. What people have been asking for is an RV/camping/sailing Starlink they can use moving, and that product has yet to materialize.
Announcing that:
> Order as many Starlinks as needed and manage all of your service locations, no matter how remote, from a single account.
Is niche, and is only going to confuse people waiting for true travel-Starlink.
What people? You? Most people want usable Internet at home.
Also, you can use a Starlink on the move just fine, just like I did. Keep changing your service location before you arrive. Takes a second, there are no limits (that I have found).
https://blog.oxplot.com/powering-starlink-on-the-go-with-tes...
(don't try to pick on all the mods I've done - you can use a regular inverter)
What an odd comment. Seems like a narrow way to blame the marketing. And, a narrow way to cherry pick what doesn't fit your description of what Starlink should be and shouldn't be. In truth, Starlink is an absolute game changer for the entire world. Mobile or not. I think you need to think about rural people that have to deal with shitty DSL. 20-40 ms (You can go on YT and find people benchmarking it - average I've seen is around 40-50 ms [1]) ping is amazing and 350 mbps is exceptional compared to the status quo.
Also others complaining about delays is strange. It's a fricking satellite constellation in the sky. Give them some time and slack.
EDIT: To clarify as to why the roof doesn't work, the trees are at least 4 times the height of my roof.
You could blast out a 100Hz-BW CW signal at 1MW, but you will not be able to send much on it, even if you can receive it from the Moon.
There are other limits too, like channel concurrency, which you can see in action in places like busy stations or stadia where your phone can't connect and your Bluetooth headphones become unreliable. I don't know how many simultaneous connections a single Starlink transceiver can handle, though.
your capacity math is so far off it's just crazy. if they had a million times the capacity of current satellites they would have around 250 petabits per second.
Are they, though? (Seriously, I once looked at them, and promptly concluded that unless I wanted to give up streaming video and pulling docker images, there was no point since I'd blow through the data cap in a week or two.)
Or they may live out of a motor home, but it only moves to travel between their regular winter destination and their regular summer destination. They stay in the same two parks all year except for the 4 days of travel in between.
Millions of USians fall into these two demographics. I'm sure plenty outside the US do, too.
https://eyeonhousing.org/2020/10/nations-stock-of-second-hom...
> The United States had an official resident population of 331,449,281 on April 1, 2020, according to the U.S. Census Bureau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State... https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data...
I'm not saying 7.5M isn't a market that might be worth chasing, but at the same time, I would hardly call 2% of the population "extremely high".
https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/ushmc/spring2004/article...
You can do that today with the cheaper dish! See my sibling comment.
If people stopped using cellphone service for mobile internet they would loose their immense location and surveillance capabilities (gov).
What makes more sense is probably Starlink trying to prevent uneven network load.
one account, multiple dishes.
Otherwise he'd have something about it.
I'm not shelling out another $400 for nothing. In fact, this reminded me to cancel my pre-order. Thank you! $99 back in my pocket.
Deliver scalable GA and I'll subscribe.
It's life changing if you're in an area without other options (though it does suck it's taking a long time for people to get access).
Probably good enough, biggest pain is finding a view without obstructions from trees.
I think a lot of dates that got pushed back are simply because they couldn't launch enough satellites to provide enough bandwidth in certain popular cells without degradation of quality. 'But tons of people who ordered way after me are getting them' you might say, but that's because they are being served by the same satellites in different cells that are likely less crowded along their trajectories. The were monetizing the capability that already exists, they are not prioritizing someone else.
A back of the envelope calculation tells me that when they have all their satellites deployed any given service location will have several hundred satellites visible at any one time.
Question: does a given customer's connection just use one satellite at a time, tracking it with the phased array until it moves too far and then switching to another? Or does it use more than one at a time in parallel?
And here's an interview with the guy who made it:
So you may be onto something.
Perhaps your cell was full, but that doesn't excuse the customer service.
Frustrating, since this is the only opportunity on the horizon for more than my current 10 MiB DSL, and I live online. Please Starlink, stop making new promises and shoving them in the queue in front of your old promises!
Based on what you've just written, I think I'll just wait and sign up after they launch here.
Unless the physical layer is using more FEC and using longer "timeslots" to get to transmit the payload. But even that seems unlikely to cause major latency increases?
Starlink originally promised as ~100Mbps for $100/mo.
This is up to 500Mbps for $500/mo.
regardless of the increased bandwidth, if a business truly needs starlink they're going to be able to pay $500/mo for it.
- Montreal late 2022 (4.2M people)
- Vancouver late 2022 (2.6M people)
- Toronto 2022-2023 (6.2M people)
- Calgary 2022-2023 (1.6M people)
- Edmonton late 2023 (1.4M people)If those are indeed the planned locations for expansion then it’s even worse for Starlink because nobody over there needs it.
Does this mean I could have 3 on a property to triple bandwidth? If 1 per property, could I have my neighbours hang together? (High density, 10M between 3 dishes).
Plus, I want to start getting into gaming again and none of my friends will play with me with that internet speed LOL
That part doesn’t seem to come anywhere from the previous conversation?
But when it matters, it matters — there's a huge productivity difference between waiting 5 minutes and 30 minutes when making staging deploys to iterate on bugs (and sometimes I'll do this 5-10 times in a day).
There’s a bit of a risk for adverse selection, as anybody willing to spend $500 per month on this is going to want to get their money's worth.
> At this time there are no data caps.
Too bad they don't commit to no data caps. Data caps suck ass.
No. There's a huge chunk of North America by area that does not have 100+mbit/sec broadband.
Most of those areas don't have huge population, but those who are there sometimes are there for good reasons.
Starlink is wonderful for those people.
There are a lot of people who have delusions that Starlink is going to have a significant impact on mainstream wireline broadband providers, which is absurd, but there's a lot of the world that still has nothing even close to what this service offers.
If (and this is a massive IF) they get the laser linking working it'll be huge for the aviation and marine worlds but even as is it's the best thing to happen to rural broadband service in years.
---
Personally I hope they get mobile service for RVs working soon, all I need to work is reliable low-latency internet access so if I can theoretically get it from anywhere in the country I am free.
For those who are in the cities (like me), we have access to "hyperfibre" which is like 2Gbps which costs about $150-$200 NZD a month (unlimited).
They've even been trialling 10Gbps! https://company.chorus.co.nz/chorus-supercharges-new-zealand...
Maybe you have an ISP and want a backup, or maybe you have limited bandwidth and want more, etc.
This thing is also mobile. Maybe you are touring show/band/tradeshows and sometimes venue provided internet is crap and want a backup.
Or maybe you are youtube/regular TV show inspired by mythbusters , that needs to go to desert/exotic locale to test/blow something up.
And even where there is an options its sometimes really bad and expensive.
This probably won't set world on fire, but I see it quite useful to number of companies.
For that matter, it's amazing to me what WiFi can do, and yet you can buy a WiFi device for a couple of dollars!
Ground astronomy is already "ruined", thanks to Starlink: IIRC from something I read recently, what used to be fraction of the percent of plates ruined by satellites right before Starlink, now has risen to astounding 20%.
The news came in that SpaceX rocket stage will accidentally hit the Moon and will become first billionaire made garbage/pollution there.
Are we sure we trust this company with not devastating low earth orbit due to some accidents?
And for what? For expensive mediocre internet for limited number of users in places where infrastructure is lacking? Infrastructure? You know, the thing we should build more of, that serves poor people? Those people that limited expensive mediocre toys don't serve?
> And for what? For expensive mediocre internet for limited number of users in places where infrastructure is lacking? Infrastructure? You know, the thing we should build more of, that serves poor people? Those people that limited expensive mediocre toys don't serve?
Huh? Internet service is infrastructure.
There are lots of people in rural areas that don't have proper service. The goal is to get them service, by whatever method is most effective. And in lots of areas, starlink is more effective than running wires.
So why shouldn't we use starlink for those people? It's nonsense to balk at the price if you're suggesting we do something even more expensive. If the price is too high then we can apply subsidies to it. Instead of applying those subsidies to offerings that are worse.
Not to mention it would be terrible for SpaceX business on a far shorter timescale.
If there's one thing you can count on, it's that billionaires will defend their bottom line.
The Apollo lunar ascent modules crashed back into the moon after returning astronauts back to the command module.
There is nothing living on the moon; what would "pollution" mean in this context?
Native speaker here.
It seems I'm not the target for Starlink
Since some of you decided to "punish" me: I am honestly surprised how pricey this service is in Poland and in comparison to what my ISP gives me for half of the price.
There's no doubt it's an amazing technical achievement, and a huge improvement for many people. But I am somewhat struggling to see the business case for maintaining many thousands of satellites, which only last for a few years before requiring replacement, in a market that basically gets smaller each year (because more people can get FTTH or cable as rollouts increase).
Even worse, starlink performance will degrade as more users and/or average bandwidth use ticks up.
I don't understand why people complain that I'm not supposed to use Starlink, when it's the only good internet option I have, and the same price as a much worse performing 10 Mbps option.
No schleep. It's aimed at rural users who, if they don't get laughed at for asking someone about fiber, get a quote of "Well, for half a million up front, we'll consider starting the design plans..."