> $120/mo for service and $599 for hardware
Noope. no thank you.
Noope. no thank you.
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.
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.
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?
Virtually every other aspect of the tech world, including networking, has managed to update multiple times in the intervening years.
We don't (mostly) use dialup; we switched from 2G to 3G to 4G and now to 5G mobile telephony since then; HTTP has been mostly deprecated for HTTPS and the cryptography standards for the latter have changed; etc.
> What are you supposed to tell them? That they should complain to their ISP?
Yes.
I mean, what, is their ISP also using Windows 98 on a 486 chip running at 75 MHz with 8 meg of RAM and a 500 meg hard drive, and software patches being passed around on floppy disks? Because that's what the tech world looked like when we should've started refusing to buy products and services that were IPv4-only.
Today?
Today, this kind of nonsense has gone on far too long. It was obvious even during my degree ~20 years ago that IPv4-to-6 transition should have already been finished by the time I even learned about it. As there are now far more devices on the internet than IPv4 addresses, I would go further and say that normal ISPs should be banned by law from using IPv4 — if we're going to do that for which type of USB connector personal electronics use, why not this?
Not fully though. There is typically some amount of people who still haven't updated and at name point you just end up ending support for them.
>we switched from 2G to 3G to 4G and now to 5G mobile telephony since then; HTTP has been mostly deprecated for HTTPS
These solves real problems for consumers. IPv6 doesn't. CGNAT has turned out to be good enough for most people.
Apart from the problem of "we literally can't have all of you online at the same time in v4, y'all have too many devices".
Not that normal people should have to care about CNAT vs IPv6, but you act like the correct solution is an unacceptable horror story and the sticky plaster is panacea.
CGNAT solves that problem. The issue is more that all of your devices can't act as servers on the internet. Most people on the internet don't have a desire to run a server. So really the 4 billion cap of IPv4 is more about 4 billion different servers than 4 billion client devices.
>but you act like the correct solution is an unacceptable horror story
No, I am acting like the correct solution doesn't have any incentives to be implemented.
>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.
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.
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.