You seem to be unaware of the economics behind Starlink so allow me to briefly explain. The cost of internet infrastructure in low density areas makes it difficult to bring reliable high speed to those areas. If you're in a rural area and want cable/fiber brought over to your house from a nearby town it'll run you 5 figures per mile to do so. If you wanted to go with ViaSat or HughesNet, it would cost several hundred a month for speeds that would've been considered fast 20-25 years ago, with a monthly data cap that you can deplete in several days.
Starlink bypasses all of that, costing $600 for the dish and ~$120/month for the service, regardless of location and infrastructure. That is completely unprecedented compared to anything else out there. The service is already beyond capacity from demand. SpaceX isn't launching satellites or building dishes fast enough to keep up. Look at the data, not opinions disconnected from reality.
The cost of internet infrastructure in low density areas makes it difficult to bring reliable high speed to those areas.
It is complete bullshit. I'm living in low density rural area, literally in the forest and 1G fiber to my house cost me something like ~$500 at the time for 6km of fiber to closest muff. Starlink terminal costs nearly the same.
My monthly fee is ~$15.
Fiber is dirt cheap, if you have electricity in your house, you have poles to hang that fiber. That's all. If some monopoly tells you that it is very complex and expensive to lay a fiber to your rural house - they are lying.
Starlink could have single advantage - if they rise their intersatellite connections, then delay between distant part of the world could be lower than over the ground, because path will be shorter and there will be less hops between distant points. Hi frequency traders will pay a lot for such opportunity.
Starlink also highly weather dependent. Snow or rain lower the rate.
May be it is useable for ships and planes or for really very distant points, thousands miles from any civilization, but I'm in doubt that this will be profitable.
You seem to be unaware of the economics behind Starlink so allow me to briefly explain. The cost of internet infrastructure in low density areas makes it difficult to bring reliable high speed to those areas. If you're in a rural area and want cable/fiber brought over to your house from a nearby town it'll run you 5 figures per mile to do so. If you wanted to go with ViaSat or HughesNet, it would cost several hundred a month for speeds that would've been considered fast 20-25 years ago, with a monthly data cap that you can deplete in several days.
Starlink bypasses all of that, costing $600 for the dish and ~$120/month for the service, regardless of location and infrastructure. That is completely unprecedented compared to anything else out there. The service is already beyond capacity from demand. SpaceX isn't launching satellites or building dishes fast enough to keep up. Look at the data, not opinions disconnected from reality.
It is complete bullshit. I'm living in low density rural area, literally in the forest and 1G fiber to my house cost me something like ~$500 at the time for 6km of fiber to closest muff. Starlink terminal costs nearly the same.
My monthly fee is ~$15.
Fiber is dirt cheap, if you have electricity in your house, you have poles to hang that fiber. That's all. If some monopoly tells you that it is very complex and expensive to lay a fiber to your rural house - they are lying.
Starlink could have single advantage - if they rise their intersatellite connections, then delay between distant part of the world could be lower than over the ground, because path will be shorter and there will be less hops between distant points. Hi frequency traders will pay a lot for such opportunity.
Starlink also highly weather dependent. Snow or rain lower the rate.
May be it is useable for ships and planes or for really very distant points, thousands miles from any civilization, but I'm in doubt that this will be profitable.