Skynet already raising prices

We got Starlink 8 or so months ago. Im a fan. Valuable service for our out in the boonies needs. For comparison, the closest competitor is satellite internet which is less than a quarter of the speed and 10x the latency. All at plus a third of the price.

Now having said that, i just got a notice that they will be raising the price and rates due to inflation. Approx 10%

Having been a customer this long, its clear to see that Skynet will adhere to some practices that I abhor, namely putting the weight of costs onto existing customers while not improving hardware, QoL or service in general.

Conversely, congress gave itself a full spectrum 21% raise due to inflation.

To put a final bow on my rant, its safe to say that inflation is definitely between 10 and 21 percent compared to the 8% being spouted.

a reply to: JinMI

Luckily it was 'just' congressional staffers and not the members themselves who got a 21% raise, trying to look it up now

Found it:

The MRA increase would allow those at the lower end of the pay scale, such as staff assistants, to be paid more. Members would not receive a pay increase under the bill, a point of contention for years.

yournews.com...

a reply to: FamCore

A great example of dupliciousness and doublespeak.

But the MRA has no bearing on Congress members’ salaries. Regulations state that the funds can only be used for “ordinary or necessary expenses” as part of the members’ duties or those of their employees, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Ethics Committee explains. Those official expenses can include staff, travel, mail, office equipment and supplies, and district office rental, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a nonpartisan public policy research institute for Congress. 

Salary raise? Naa. Perks, per diem etc, oh yea.
House members make approx 175k/year.

I suppose we can choose to believe that they arent motivated and getting obscenely wealthy while also representing their constituents....

You can always go back to Comcast.

originally posted by: schuyler
You can always go back to Comcast.

No, i couldnt even if i wanted.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: schuyler
You can always go back to Comcast.

No, i couldnt even if i wanted.

I'm so sorry. I should have said "a competitor" to avoid a pedantry attack. So Starlink is your ONLY choice?

a reply to: schuyler

By your own posting, the pedantry lies with you there friend.

I gave context of the competitors in the OP.

a reply to: JinMI

I have a feeling starlink is going to fail.
It sounds great for the boonies but when the areas become more populated the satellites won't be able to handle the bandwidth.
There will be a break over point of subscribers to make it profitable but it won't be sustainable IMO.

These satellites will need replaced every five years too.... 40,000 of them....wow..
And that's if starship ever gets off the ground.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Depends on how you measure the sucess.

In urban areas? Not likely to suceed. Cable, fiber etc are far superior obviously

However to everywhere outside of those service areas? Very sucessful considering the state of the closest competition.

a reply to: JinMI

A company is not successful unless it can make a profit.
If I remember correctly your satellite dish costs starlink $1,500 and they sell them for $500. Ouch..

They are making a huge capital investment and will have to keep replacing those thousands of satellites.

This is a huge risk especially since they don't even have a rocket that can launch all their equipment yet.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Obvious question is how many users are needed to generate profit.

Currently its 70k and climbing.

Didn’t they build this city on rock and/or roll?

a reply to: Bluntone22

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Bluntone22

Obvious question is how many users are needed to generate profit.

Currently its 70k and climbing.

I read about starlink months ago so I'm really stretching the old memory muscle....
I want to say 4 million subscribers to break even.
That's with at least 10k satellites in orbit.
With more satellites up it will obviously take more subscribers.

It's a double edged sword.
The more users they have the more it costs for bandwidth since these satellites are basically just routers.

originally posted by: Dalamax
Didn’t they build this city on rock and/or roll?

a reply to: Bluntone22

That's the old starship......🤣

a reply to: JinMI

Here’s a good video explaining the investment required and how the satellites will function.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: schuyler

By your own posting, the pedantry lies with you there friend.

I gave context of the competitors in the OP.

No, you didn't. You did not mention any alternative at all. You just complained about an increase in price. The point being: Dump Starlink for whatever else is available to you. Speculating whether Starlink will be profitable or not is rather beyond your remit. People predicting the demise of Musk don't have much of a track record so far. Remember all those experts who gleefully announced it was impossible to reuse a booster? Or how about Gordon Johnson's Tesla stock predictions?

a reply to: schuyler

Ahem

For comparison, the closest competitor is satellite internet which is less than a quarter of the speed and 10x the latency. All at plus a third of the price.

a reply to: JinMI

Don’t worry, after starlink crashes you can sign up for amazons version of satellite internet.
They recently asked the fcc for approval to launch several thousand satellites.

We have around six thousand objects orbiting the planet today, about half are active, and these companies are going to put 50,000 more up there… what could possibly go wrong?

www.reuters.com...

a reply to: Bluntone22

In that case, by the time it happens, we may have fiber ran out our way possibly.

Id stay far from amazon if i can help it.