[ianhanschen]

Guess I'm done reading the verge. I've watched many, many Starlink reviews out of curiosity and this is the only one so tinged by the author's mood.

It's clearly written as a kind of hit-piece. While other reviewers mention that the software specifically does not allow a device to be used outside of the area it is registered at (for FCC reasons), this piece mentions "The dish is small and light enough that you can easily move it to different locations, but you’re not guaranteed service anywhere but the address where you signed up." As if it's a coverage issue, and not the software blocking it from being used - which Starlink is very clear about.

This was bad.

[gamblor956]

How is this a hit piece? The quote is an objective statement of fact, and most of the review has objectively positive things to say about Starlink, especially considering that the author lives in rural America.

Starlink made bold claims. And in its present state, does not live up to them. Starlink doesn't get to excuse the bold claims it is making right now on the basis that it might one day live up to them. If they want to be judged on their performance today they need to stop basing their marketing around the version of Starlink 5 years from now.

[skybrian]

They sort of made bold claims but they also called it their “better than nothing beta” to lower expectations. From starlink.com:

> During beta, users can expect to see data speeds vary from 50Mb/s to 150Mb/s and latency from 20ms to 40ms in most locations over the next several months as we enhance the Starlink system. There will also be brief periods of no connectivity at all.

(The trick is getting other people to do the marketing for you.)

[ncmncm]

I found Nilay's to be the most useful review I have encountered. It pulled-no-punches, as any good review must. I know from this review that Starlink, as it is now, would not be usable at my house in New York, nor at my house in California.

The California house depends on local microwave, which works pretty well in dry weather, but is not broadband by any modern standard. Years ago, ATT laid fiber to within, literally, yards of the house–just across the street–and collected a half $billion federal subsidy (paid by taxing old-fashioned, wired phone subscribers) for that, but never lit it. I was stuck on ATT 3Mb DSL for years, and dropped it the moment there was a viable alternative at twice the price. (I could have switched to Comcast, lately. But that would be Comcast.)

Starlink might be usable, in time. When it is, Verge most likely will publish another review. I expect it will also pull no punches, and I await it as eagerly as I await Starlink to leave Beta status. But my seething hatred for ATT will not fade in this lifetime. (Doubtless I would feel the same about Comcast, given any contact.)

[mlindner]

You seem to have poor service that Starlink would greatly improve. I think you took the wrong message from the verge article that is exactly what everyone is complaining about.

[ncmncm]

Starlink, as it is now, would leave me wholly disconnected for at least half of any hour. The service I have is not fast, but it moves all the packets I send in any minute I send them (except during rainstorms) ...and gives me two static public IP addresses.

So, no, Starlink would not improve my service.

[mlindner]

> Starlink, as it is now, would leave me wholly disconnected for at least half of any hour.

I don't know what you're talking about here. Starlink doesn't act that way at all. The uptime is very high in many cases. A lot of people have zero downtime on most days.

[ncmncm]

I believe you: you don't.

Starlink's own user manual says that even a single tree can block service, when the satellite needed is on the other side of it. The review usefully relays this essential information. Any review that does not reveal this has failed.

Only people who are not surrounded by 100 ft trees may be getting tolerable service. That would not include me.

[dragonwriter]

> The uptime is very high in many cases

Many is not all.

> A lot of people have zero downtime on most days

Zero downtime on > 50% of days is a pretty low bar, and a lot of people have unobstructed line of sight to virtually all of the sky.

A lot of other people, however, don’t.