This seems to be good for Starlink at the expense of the fiber providers?
Starlink got my business after VZW forced their 5G boxes to use 5G and not allow forced LTE usage. 5G is unusable there with 60-100/0.03. I force my phone to use LTE and all is well but 5G just does not work.
I hate giving Elon money but it’s the only affordable month-to-month option now.
I am not seeing a plan on Starlink’s website that is lower than $120 a month for unlimited data.
I live in rural Ohio.
My lake home is in Central MN.
You're competing for the amount of bandwidth in your cell. If there's more people in your area wanting service, it makes sense it's more expensive. There's a fixed supply and highly variable demand per square mile.
… is it? Why wouldn't a corporation use any and all data available to them to price discriminate as hard and as much as they possibly can?
> my corner of Ohio either. We have 3 fiber providers in the area
I … am not sure I believe that. Everywhere I think I have ever lived, broadband is a local monopoly.
(They seem to work well, from what I've read of them.)
Brendan Carr's has critiqued federal broadband spending: too much spent on rebuilding existing networks to be faster, not enough going towards new build out. This is because upgrading wealthy customers' internet leads to increased profit, and there is less money in serving the underserved. Several states have tried fighting the telecom companies on what they've delivered and I think the worst case was a slap on the wrist.
Starlink and 5G are likely increasing broadband coverage far faster than fiber, which is a big goal of federal broadband spending.
given the new shiny one (that hasn't launched) is topping out at 1Tb of downlink (with half of it going to backhaul) and the current units are 80 Gb/s
- Elon is still stoking the Epstein stuff on Twitter as we speak
It’s not good for Starlink for that reason. We are inside the belly of fascism, so your question reads like someone oblivious, with all due respect.