Comment on Starlink loses out on $886 million in rural broadband subsidies
CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 9 months agoIt’s not expensive compared to the alternatives. It costs exactly what I’m paying Comcast for my cable internet here in suburbia at $120. Companies like Hughesnet will charge you $200/mo for 20GB of data at 2Mbps if it isn’t cloudy out.
My coworkers mother in rural SW Washington signed up after I recommended it for her to him. Previously, she couldn’t even watch Netflix or YouTube with traditional satellite, and now she’s getting 300Mbps for less money than she was paying before.
kattenluik@feddit.nl 9 months ago
I meant comparable to wired up internet or proper wireless towers in infrastructure cost, the end user cost is absurd anywhere in the US and it’s not worth talking about.
CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 9 months ago
That’s observably false, though. If infrastructure costs were really that much cheaper, ISPs would already be serving these people at a lower price point.
kattenluik@feddit.nl 9 months ago
Which is why I didn’t say it was factual, but rather that I didn’t see it being comparable.
And no, my point has nothing to do with ISP companies and for a business it would be illogical to dig to more rural areas.
This is something Starlink avoids by being in space obviously, other existing ISPs wouldn’t make much money off of it anywhere near as fast for example. This is why the government should handle all of it, like I said.