[Klaster_1]

Wow, I knew Starlink had an enormous constellation, but visualizing it like that really empathizes the scope. Would be cool if one day you could get your connectivity needs handled by a single company cheaply, almost anywhere in the world, without bothering about new contracts, moving cities or country borders.

[squarefoot]

A single company and cheaply are usually mutually exclusive as competition is what keeps prices down.

[hnbad]

They're not mutually exclusive as far as cost goes - quite the opposite (hence all the talk about "synergy" and "vertical integration" in enterprise spaces) - but you're right about consumer prices. I think what's keeping the consumer prices for Starlink down is that for the vast majority of its coverage it does have competition.

Much like how it's in Tesla's best interests for the US not to invest in high-speed rail (hence Musk's "Hyperloop" stunt to prevent an infrastructure investment), it's in Starlink's best interests for countries not to invest in broadband technologies (whether it's mobile networks or fiber). I'm not aware of any plans to dissuade governments from those investments yet but I wouldn't be surprised to see it. Presumably Musk is too busy with Twitter at the moment.

[sandworm101]

Im already seeing an impact. Rural wifi networks are being replaced by starlink, at least for those able to afford it. Starlink is certainly faster to setup and maintain, but remains far more expensive day to day than a rural wifi net.

I have family on a rural network with solar-powered relays setup on islands. New retirees to the area are just buying starlink without even asking about the local net. So it is no longer being expanded to new locations/islands. The new people also dont want relays on thier land. They dont support the local/cheap option it because they have been sold starlink by whatever off-grid company is setting up thier new cabin.

[ponector]

But is local option really cheap?

From my experience it is quite the opposite: they know you have nowhere else to go so you will buy their connection anyway.

[sandworm101]

That depends on the service. Many rural wifi nets serve less than a few hundred customers and rely on the good will of landowners to allow stations on their land.

Much depends on geography. In the flat areas of the midwest there are tall towers serving expansive areas. Those are the ones with licenses and local monopolies. But in rough or mountainous terrain the net requires lots of little relay stations and is done using non-licensed 2.4ghz spectrum. Those small companies remain friendly because they know anyone can jump in and compete. The one my family is on relies on a chain of relays on islands to connect a couple villages to a local cell tower location where there is fiber. Everyone knows the cell service is bad and there is no wired internet. So when the relay stations need fixing, boats and skilled labor show up to help get the town back online.

[skrbjc]

It seems like starlink is a perfect option for this type of situation.

>So when the relay stations need fixing, boats and skilled labor show up to help get the town back online.

I'm sure if you factor in the costs of this plus the nontangible costs of downtime, Starlink is far superior, even if it is more expensive.

[JumpCrisscross]

> dont support the local/cheap option it because they have been sold starlink

Has your family tried talking to any of them about it?

[koenigdavidmj]

The San Juans?

[sandworm101]

Close. BC coastal area.

[hnbad]

To be clear: I'm arguing monopolies can increase efficiency so they can cause costs to go down but they also eliminate the motive to pass those cost savings on to customers so they usually cause prices to go up. This is well-known enough to be a key part of the strategy of "disruptive" companies that grow by pricing out the competition at a loss and then ramp up prices later (e.g. Amazon, Uber, etc).

The US is notorious for its lack of competition in local broadband providers but this is less true for other countries. So while Starlink may disrupt local monopolies of higher prices and worse quality in some places, especially in the US, in the long term it's rational to expect them to aim to replace the monopoly, not to continue having to compete.

[hnbad]

Given the site guidelines discourage voting based on agreement, I wonder what part of what I say is so fundamentally wrong and counter-productive it's not even worth responding to and actively detrimental to the conversation.

Is it that I say that monopolies can increase efficiency (e.g. Apple making their own chips and having their own stores)? Is it that companies often disrupt industries by pricing out competition at a loss before hiking prices? Is it that US broadband providers often operate in effective monopoly positions? Is it that Starlink can be disruptive to those monopolies? Is it that it's rational to expect SpaceX to want to be the new monopoly rather than being stuck in permanent competition?

Heck, I literally use Starlink because cable wasn't available and I didn't want to pay for copper until we'll be connected to fiber hopefully later this year. I'm not arguing Starlink isn't useful to consumers in the short term or that there aren't legitimate use cases that can't be equally served by other existing technologies. That doesn't mean there aren't obvious problems with it.

[hoseja]

Nobody was investing in rural fiber beforehand either. Try managing your EDS.

[kube-system]

> if one day you could get your connectivity needs handled by a single company

is referring to the service area, not the number of competitors.

[throwaway11460]

Global service doesn't mean no competition...

[ryukoposting]

> Would be cool if one day you could get your connectivity needs handled by a single company cheaply, almost anywhere in the world, without bothering about new contracts, moving cities or country borders.

AFAICT that's exactly what Starlink is trying to do. Their satellites are in a low enough orbit to provide sufficient bandwidth for light web browsing, and they certainly have enough satellites to provide reliable coverage (by satellite standards).

Thing is, satcom is still much more expensive, much slower, and much more power-hungry than what folks have gotten used to with broadband home internet, LTE, and 5G. I have the feeling that it will always be that way - it takes a lot more power to blast a signal into space than it does to send it to a tower down the street, or to the router in your living room. The section of the general population that is willing to make such huge tradeoffs in exchange for truly global coverage is quite small. Militaries and certain types of businesses love it, though.

[LorenDB]

Elon has already stated that Starlink is not a replacement for a quality wired/fiber connection. His goal with Starlink is to cover areas that aren't covered by ISPs for whatever reason.

[wmf]

I once read about a gas station chain that used VSAT for credit card processing because it's faster than POTS and they didn't have to deal with different local telcos/ISPs. I'm not sure how true that is, but for some low-bandwidth uses I can see the appeal of having a single national/worldwide ISP.

[Closi]

I work in manufacturing/logistics and lots of facilities have starlink.

With all software in the cloud now (e.g. WMS) losing connectivity can cause a facility to stop, so having an entirely segregated line on an entirely separate technology platform is worth a lot. Lots of production/warehouse facilities struggle to get truly redundant lines to them, and often are sitting outside of 4G range.

[LorenDB]

Yeah, that completely makes sense. The comment I was thinking of was made in the context of Starlink for home users.

By the way, I think that comment was from the 2023 SpaceX all-hands talk that was posted online if you wish to find it yourself.

[londons_explore]

I suspect the country borders problem will never get resolved. Even now, starlink is only available in US-allied countries.

[lupusreal]

Apparently it's active in Iran (because the US government wants it to be.)

[mlindner]

SpaceX worked with the state department to enable it. It happened during the Iran protests. So it's more like the state department allowed any US connectivity provider to provide service in Iran.

[dzhiurgis]

But you CAN reduce amount of borders ;)

[hnbad]

Ask Russia how that's been going ;)

[grecy]

> Would be cool if one day you could get your connectivity needs handled by a single company cheaply, almost anywhere in the world

You already can.

Tons of people driving the Pan-American Highway from Alaska to Argentina are using Starlink now - it works flawlessly no matter what country you're in.

Same for people driving around Africa, across Central Asia, etc.

Pro Tip - order it in a country like Mexico and the monthly fee is way lower.

[pzo]

I'm wondering it this is even technically possible because of bandwidth? There is many more mobile cell towers worldwide - all they are big, connected to power grid, connected internet with fiberoptic, much closer to users but such one tower can still struggle to handle traffic during peak times when many users are connected.

[averageRoyalty]

Density, I'd imagine. Some cell towers are serving hundreds of thousands of people individually. It seems on average the satelites are serving 400-500 on average.

[elif]

Google Fi is uncapped, global, free roaming. Probably some countries don't work but so far ~30/30 for me.

[Liquid_Fire]

Sounds interesting, but it appears to be available only in the US, and the international roaming only works for 90 days, so I don't think it really qualifies for "without bothering about new contracts, moving cities or country borders"

[elif]

I dunno where you found the 90 day thing or how real/recent it is, but I was in New Zealand for about 5 months in 2019-2020 with no interruptions.

[Liquid_Fire]

I found it here: https://fi.google.com/about/international-rates

> Important: The Google Fi Terms of Service require you to activate and use Google Fi service mainly in the United States (not including territories) for at least one day before using Google Fi abroad. If the majority of your usage occurs outside of the United States over a consecutive 90-day period, we will suspend your international data. Learn more at our Help Center.

[consumer451]

I live abroad for long periods of time, and went from T-Mobile to Mint for my US number. It's $75 per 3 months once you pass the discounted intro period. I also get a local SIM card, and I just use Mint via WiFi calling. It has been working well for me.

[gambiting]

>>Would be cool if one day you could get your connectivity needs handled by a single company cheaply, almost anywhere in the world

That sounds like an absolute distopian nightmare and the last person on earth that I want to be running this service is Elon Musk. In general I find it horrendous how a single american company can pollute the night sky for every human being in the world, whether they can use their services or not. Technologically I'm in awe of what Starlink achieves, it's an incredible feat - and yet I still think it's a travesty that it's allowed to exist at all.

[panick21_]

> the last person on earth

Being overly dramatic just makes you sound silly.

> I find it horrendous how a single american company can pollute the night sky for every human being in the world

Except of course that with the visible eye you never even see Starlink and 99.99% of humanity has never seen a single sat, and don't notice it. And of those who have most have seen a short bus of sats for a few seconds. And somehow those people are still alive.

The sky is fine and not polluted.

There are some concerns about earth based astronomy but they are often overblown. And sats are just one of many things humans do that make astronomy harder.

More regulation to take into account astronomy make some sense, but SpaceX has been a model citizen in that regard.

[averageRoyalty]

Have you seen them in orbit?

I look at the sky regularly in a low light area and I've not seen any "pollution", but maybe I don't know how to look?

[elif]

Yes. They are only visible after launch, like a string of slow shooting stars or pac man food that lasts 3-4 minutes.

After they reach their target orbit they go into dark mode and you will never see them unless you operate like a top 10 in the world telescope.

[pnut]

I was walking my dog a few months ago right after dusk and randomly saw the starlink train, it was a linear constellation marching across the entire sky, from horizon to horizon, and lasted at least 2 minutes.

It was both amazing and disturbing.

[modeless]

The "train" is only visible for a week or two after launch. Once the satellites get to their operational orbits they are not visible. So you'll never see the thousands of satellites that are up there; they can't possibly ruin your view of the night sky.

[vik0]

I can spot the satellites (sometimes) if I look up at night, but it's not like I see anything more than a bunch of dim lights beaming across the sky. So I don't think that counts as light pollution

[LeonM]

There are plenty of satellites visible to the naked eye, not just Starlink ones.

I remember as a kid (far before Starlink existed) that we'd always go stargazing when we were camping (far from any city light pollution). And the longer you'd watch, the more you would see 'stars move'.

The ISS is also very clearly visible. It's pretty wild to see it re-appear every 90 minutes or so. Insane to think how fast that thing is moving.

[gambiting]

I have actually! At night you can see the "train" of satellites when the light reflects off them just at the right angle - it's like a long line of dots across the horizon. Of course that is nothing compared to what problems this is causing for astronomy.

[andsoitis]

> pollute the night sky

That pollution is much much less than the light pollution from cities and aircraft (both visual and noise).

If we’re going to care about pollution of the night sky it seems more effective to take on those cases that are already very intrusive.

[sib]

The problem is that these satellites pollute the night sky in exactly those areas that are currently not polluted by other sources. So if you go to an International Dark Sky Place to do astrophotography, you end up with a whole bunch (technical term) of little Starlink dots / lines all through your images.

Agree that fixing broader light pollution is a separate and important issue.

[gambiting]

You missed the point I was making - it's not about absolute amount of pollution, it's about the fact that Musk's company is polluting the sky for every single human on earth, despite the fact it does not provide their service for everyone on earth. People in many countries around the world now have to deal with his swarm of sattelites to look at the sky, because of an American billionaire's fantasy. That doesn't seem fair to me.

[panick21_]

The international space treaty allows all countries to launch sats. People in the US and Musk have to look at Sats that Russia, India and Iran launched as well. Its a shared resource.

99.9999% of human who live have never seen a Starlink sat so this pollution is really not all that crazy. In fact most people find it interesting when they accidentally see one.

Also sats have been visible since literally 70 years, and many are more visible then Starlink.

[TMWNN]

>That sounds like an absolute distopian nightmare and the last person on earth that I want to be running this service is Elon Musk.

Given that Musk was the only person with the ambition, capital, and ability to deliver such a project, you're basically saying that you'd rather have Starlink not exist at all than to have Musk in charge.

>it's an incredible feat - and yet I still think it's a travesty that it's allowed to exist at all.

Confirmed: You'd rather have every Starlink customer go dark than have someone you've been told to dislike provide those customers with a service they willingly sign up for.

Dystopia, indeed.

[gambiting]

>> you're basically saying that you'd rather have Starlink not exist at all than to have Musk in charge

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying having Musk in charge makes it distopian, but even without him at the helm I'd rather it didn't exist.

>>Confirmed: You'd rather have every Starlink customer go dark than have someone you've been told to dislike provide those customers with a service they willingly sign up for.

No, I'd rather not have my sky polluted to satisfy an American billionaire's fancy, even if he has willing and paying customers. The night sky is a common good of every single person on earth, and he's playing with it to make money. I'd have the exact same complaint about any competing constallation, and in fact I am going to have it because Amazon is building a competing service themselves.

[panick21_]

> night sky is a common good

But that good shouldn't to serve millions of people with something they need.

You rather have it totally unused instead at all.

> I'd have the exact same complaint about any competing constallation, and in fact I am going to have it because Amazon is building a competing service themselves.

I have bad news for you because there are about 10 other major constellation in development and those are only the ones that are a public.

Not a single country has put major effort into stopping it.

Pretty much every country agrees that this space should be used to serve the needs of its people.