a musk company over promising and under delivering. Surprise surprise
SpaceX projected 20 million Starlink users by 2022—it ended up with 1 million
Submitted 1 year ago by tst123@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 year ago
db2@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
At least he’s consistently underwhelming across the board though.
Vlixz@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I guess that’s the only thing consistent of his behavior… kinda sucks that companies like SpaceX are all related to him. I’d love to root for Starship to achieve it’s set goals but also I’d hate to see him get even more rich… if that makes sense
SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I just checked the price and its $599 for the hardware + $99 deposit + $50 shipping. After that the service costs $120/month. I pay $65/month for fiber at the moment.
marsokod@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If you have fiber, it’s unlikely you will benefit from something like Starling. Transfer data wirelessly through a constellation of satellites will have running costs much higher than just having a fibre. That is unless you have to dog a trench or run a fibre on mast for km for just one customer, which is where Starling starts making more sense.
Starling is for rural customers, mobile customers, and possibly an option to counter monopoly abuse by some Telco companies. But if you are in a city with fibre, then do use the fibre, that’s your better option.
astral_avocado@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Is starling like an interstellar zergling or something?
Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 1 year ago
[deleted]redcalcium@lemmy.institute 1 year ago
You know, you can make your perfectly valid argument without the insult. No need to add more toxicity to Lemmy and fediverse at large.
karlthemailman@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Rude tone apart, this is absolutely true. Nobody thinks satellite Internet is meant to compete with fiber to the door.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I was in a similar spot. No fiber but I could get dsl.
The reason I wanted it is I have two houses in Oregon and I could take it with me.
It’s too expensive for that.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I paid the deposit over 3 years ago and they still haven’t done shit.
negativeyoda@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Given how stable Elon is with his other companies, why would anyone be skeptical of letting him supply them with a utility service?
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
No way in hell I’d entrust my internet service to someone who unblocks Nazis and blocks the people who complain about Nazis.
agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 1 year ago
As long as you post a Nazi tweet a day, your connection should be fine, though. It’s called Tweet Heil.
ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Meanwhile, in Australia, the pricing structure and availability of Starlink is so competitive that it is demolishing the national/ state-owned infrastructure (NBN co), who are haemorrhaging users to Starlink.
In part because the previous conservative government ruined the network for pricing and in part because of the superior performance of the lower satellites. Either way, Starlink is faster and cheaper than infrastructure the citizens already own.
v81@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I just checked and it’s almost double what I’m paying currently for 100/40 fibre.
I don’t know where you got your figures but u suspect they’re faulty.
At best it might be an alternative to Skymuster.
ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Apples and oranges you nong.
The NBN is vdsl,.fibre, fixed wireless and satellite.
Obviously I’m comparing NBN satellite with musk satellite. 🤦
bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Starlink won’t beat FTTP or FTTN, but it sure as shit beats fixed wireless and sky muster.
Shit, just not having to deal indirectly with NBNCo every time there’s a problem (multiple times per month) has got to be worth $100 per month to me.
No regrets. FUCK NBNCO sideways, with an axe.
lightnegative@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s a shame what happened with NBN in Australia. Fantastic idea, shit execution because they cheaped out.
The poor man pays twice
ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They didn’t cheap out. Liberals spent 3 times as much money for a shitter product, and now Australia has to spend it all over again to redo it.
mranachi@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Nothing to do with cost, overlord Mudcock didn’t want foxtel to lose customers to internet streaming.
i2ndshenanigans@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I was waitlisted a while back but because of all the Elon bullshit when I got my email saying it was available I opted to just stick with Viasat.
dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Thats the thing.
Outside of the Ukrainian war, I’m not seeing much good use of this Starlink constellation.
-
Urban areas are already built to 5G, meaning high-speed wireless internet at far cheaper prices than satellite could ever hope to deliver.
-
Suburban areas have high 5G coverage, though it isn’t perfect yet. As well as aging 4G (okay), but also a plentitude of fiber options from Verizon and Comcast. No, it isn’t perfect, but the crappiest Comcast connection is still better than the best Starlink could ever offer in terms of price and reliability.
-
Rural areas are already covered by Viasat. Which is going to be more efficient due to the simple nature of only needing like 5 to 10 satellites in the 100-year orbit height… rather than 60,000+ Starlink satellites in the 5-year orbit height.
Ukraine gets a benefit because Russians are actively trying to jam the communications, so ~5 to 10 satellites could get disrupted, but its a lot harder to jam 60,000 satellites floating around. So yes, Starlink did manage to find a niche… only to have the lord of the communications openly claim that Crimea belongs to Russia and shutdown a Ukrainian operation.
So suddenly, Ukraine can’t trust Starlink anymore. So who the hell wants to use this constellation?
PlexSheep@feddit.de 1 year ago
I find your comment to be a bit North America focused. Surely there are many places in the world where that stuff is handy.
i2ndshenanigans@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I support a few business that have locations in Texas that can’t get fiber or cable internet. We use Viasat for them. I wanted starlink since we were seeing people with the service that had way better speeds and latency compared to Viasat.
sznio@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Rural areas are already covered by Viasat. Which is going to be more efficient due to the simple nature of only needing like 5 to 10 satellites in the 100-year orbit height… rather than 60,000+ Starlink satellites in the 5-year orbit height.
Latency sucks with Viasat. You won’t play multiplayer games on it, and even web browsing will be sluggish with how many round trips displaying just a single page requires nowadays.
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No wireless communication will beat physical connection ever. Period. There’s not argument in it to be had.
All of wireless bandwidth can be crammed in a single fiber optic cable. All of it, with room to spare. And then you realize you can run as many as you like in parallel while in wireless communication only one device can talk at the time.
Cables are here to stay.
-
kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I hate the fact that a billionaire moron from another continent is ruining sky over my country
HellAwaits@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Elmo Musk fanboy heads exploded.
calzone_gigante@lemmy.eco.br 1 year ago
I almost got it, but gave up because of the CEO being the way he is. It’s very likely that they will raise prices or add a lot of bullshit restrictions after initial adoption, and the dish is kind of expensive to buy and cancel once the bullshit starts.
CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
And 500k are from ukraine
sadreality@kbin.social 1 year ago
It works as long you ain't got to carry out a special military operation in Crimea!
metaStatic@kbin.social 1 year ago
oh, Crimea river
collegefurtrader@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
From a presentation in 2015 for fuck sake, seven years later.
Think about yourself, is everything you said 7 year ago still perfect accurate?
remotelove@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Not everything is accurate that I said or believed 7 years ago, no.
However, when a person builds a business on habitual over-promising, then it is an issue. Speculation is awesome! Telling people what they want to hear, because money, isn’t awesome.
iAmTheTot@kbin.social 1 year ago
I am not running a business, but even I try to not be off by a factor of 20.
jonne@infosec.pub 1 year ago
He’s not going to fuck you.
collegefurtrader@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Not even one in a million chance?
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Strong business acumen I see
Xianshi@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Their pricing is ridiculous.
wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I thought about it and I believe the pricing was 199 a month. I had other options they were much cheaper.
jonne@infosec.pub 1 year ago
Yeah, that’s expensive for something that is really only useful for people that live entirely off grid. And those people are usually broke too.
debounced@kbin.run 1 year ago
Yep, find a cheapo 5g modem with an ethernet port that's capable of being given an identity crisis from the usual sources and you'll be golden...ask me how I know. We ain't got shit out where I am other than garbage DSL, but decent 5g coverage from the big 3 surprisingly.
Starlink only serves a purpose in truly rural or remote areas where, unsurprisingly, they'll make no money. The number of people I see using it as a backup connection or aggregate it with terrestrial cable or fiber connections is obscene... and a waste of money imo.
DestroyerOfWorlds@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
They almost had me on the hook right up to when they decided tiered and throttled plans were the way to go. its essentially a hyped up cellphone plan. so glad I bailed. Also, fuck muskrat.
sadreality@kbin.social 1 year ago
Most of them in Ukraine?
autotldr@lemmings.world [bot] 1 year ago
This is the best summary I could come up with:
SpaceX’s Starlink division hasn’t come close to meeting customer and revenue projections that the company shared with investors before building the satellite network, according to a Wall Street Journal report published today.
SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell said in February that Starlink is expected to turn a profit this year.
“The majority of the world’s population that the business could serve and that can afford high-speed broadband lives in cities.
In those regions, Internet service is readily available, usually offers cheaper monthly costs than Starlink and doesn’t require specialized equipment.”
But in public he has stated more modest ambitions for Starlink, pointing out that low-Earth orbit satellite ventures have a history of going bankrupt.
One step forward on profitability is that SpaceX says it is no longer selling Starlink user terminals at a loss.
The original article contains 654 words, the summary contains 135 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
dinckelman@lemmy.world 1 year ago
No surprise there. It’s overpriced, the quality is poor, the connection is frequently unstable, and the owner of a company is a bigot, who’s also intervening in a war. To absolutely no one’s surprise, this never would have reached the numbers he promised
Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Talk for yourself. Some of us need starlink. Quality is great. Price is high but it’s space internet. Again connection is pretty fucking stable. Playing GeForce now on my TV thanks to starlink.
He’s a cunt but product is not
SHOW_ME_YOUR_ASSHOLE@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I agree. It’s the only option for internet in many places. I’m very happy with my Starlink service. I’d drop it in a heartbeat if there was a better option but for now it fits my needs.
Steeve@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
I’ve heard mixed reviews, the big problem seems to be stability, at least around my area. I’ve heard it goes down frequently in heavy rain and snow (I’m in Canada), and people have had problems with satellites being blocked by trees (lots of trees in Canada).
For people with no access to Internet as is that’s still a huge upgrade, but for people who were hoping it would open up the possibility of moving to and working remotely in more rural areas without good wired internet coverage it’s a total letdown.
skulblaka@kbin.social 1 year ago
The product is objectively the worst possible option in any place that has options, which is most places. It may be useful for some people in some remote parts of the world. Doesn't make it a good product though. It just makes it the only product on offer.