Didn't they just drop the startup equipment costs a lot?
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
First, Musk is a nazi-saluting asshole. Now that we have that established, this article is mostly rage-bait with selective truths on the Starlink service. I'm all for calling out bad behavior a company (and there is a little bit here, but not much regarding the customer billing concerns). This (mostly) rage-bait article is (mostly) distracting focus from the very important problem with Starlink regarding Musk's influence on the government entities that are supposed to protect us from oligarchs. Not only does this include the FCC, but the SEC that let musk bend and break rules to IPO the SpaceX stock enriching himself at the cost of the American people
The narrative of the article is "Starlink has massive hidden fees! Look $1500 charge! Look $500 charge! Look $1000 charge!"
There's three different reasonable explanations for the situations all three these.
-
$1500 charge - it was a billing software bug, not a policy change, and Starlink reversed the charges costing the subscriber nothing. Yes, I agree customer service could be better and faster.
-
$500 charge - Subscriber was trying to skirt the rules to save themselves money by subscribing to the [long term plan] for [short term] use. When a subscriber signs up for [long term plan] the extra charge is clearly shown before the service is subscribed to. Yes, the fee is there, but its not hidden. Yes the fee is high, but the prior version of how subscription works meant that the customer would simply be told "we're at capacity for your area, no service for you at all". Instead if service is that important for a user they can choose to pay the fee. Yes, there should be an extra warning when someone is changing their address for [long term plan] but this should be a minor edge case and the poster would not have even run into an issue if they had been subscribing to the appropriate [short term plan].
-
$1000 charge notice - See detail from the $500 charge explanation why this particular $1000 charge notice exists. The alternative is a possibly customer would just be told to go away with no recourse when they may desperately need the service even with the high priced fee. The fee was clearly labeled before purchase and the customer chose not to go forward, which is entirely their right if they don't see the value.
Don't be distracted by the rage-bait from the important concerns of Musk's government influence.
If a V1 satellite only has 24 Gbit/s in total capacity on its links to the base station, and a V2 mini satellite only 96 Gbit/s, then it's no wonder really.
The v3 dishes will be 20x bandwidth per launch than the v2 mini.
Even if starships 2nd stage isn't reusable, it'll still be able to launch those into orbit, albeit at a much higher cost.
And that was supposed to be the backbone of the space based data center
Pipe dream was supposed to be the backbone of another pipe dream. The Elon way of doing business.
Guy is being a little too trigger happy with this bait and switch but it should still surprise absolutely no one. Starlink with it‘s thousands of satellites, requiring hundreds of rocket launches is ridiculously expensive to operate and can‘t hope to compete with fiber price wise.
"high demand" usually equates to throttling
I think they'll rug pull hard line internet for residents.
It's all that escaped with a bit of net neutrality.
Cellular and satalitte both allow traffic shaping and that's the more profitable.
Hell, maybe they can nationalize it and get Elin paid.
I saw my first billboard advertising Starlink in Billings, MT today. They have avoided advertising in the past.
Generally they haven't needed to. For most of the situations where Starlink really shines like rural connections, the alternatives are objectively a lot worse. And the other common situation is to avoid a regional monopoly which is still like 90% of the US.
Starlink basically sells itself, even with Elon at the helm.
Starlink will enshittify like all other non-PUD ISPs. This article shows that, and it's already begun to struggle with throughput and scaling it is becoming more and more of a challenge.
There is one alternative that has been shown to be better than anything else: PUD projects which treat internet access as a utility and not something to make more and more money off of. The FCC has rural grants for ISPs that serve rural areas, but instead of exclusively funding PUD projects, they keep giving money to big for-profit ISPs (like Starlink).
Starlink should be considered a band-aid and only something that you'd need when you were in a super rural area without other utilities. The solution is giving everyone with grid connections public fiber via PUDs.
I know we don't live in a utopia where that will happen overnight, and we don't have an FCC that gives a shit. But the FCC should not be giving a trillionaire taxpayer dollars for a half-baked, polluting, wasteful service that will ultimately do the same rugpull that other private ISPs have done.
This is like those people who bought Meta glasses and then acted surprised when they got screwed. Did you really not expect something like this from Musk?
When do I get charged??
I've had Starlink for two years. My monthly bill is $55 a month, and no rental either...
Common dude, don't support elon
We don't all live in overcrowded cities.