[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.