[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.