Starlink: Here’s a free satellite dish—if you pay $120 a month instead of $90

Accepting free dish blocks $90 monthly price available in excess-capacity areas.

See full article...

 

[Snark218]

And in the end, the result would largely be the same, just more expensive and less capable, delivered years later. The government doesn't have the capability on its own to build and launch a constellation of satellites, so they'd have to contract it out. If the results were anything like Commercial Crew Program, SpaceX would still be the big winner, with a nice layer of government contract grift.

Yes, so the libertarians among us would like to believe. But let's not pretend Commercial Crew is a uniquely government failure, rather than the product of regulatory capture, an uncompetitive contract structure and corporate malfeasance; NASA was not permitted to run that as a truly competitive contracting process.

 

[eukiwi]

Yes, that's a pretty normal cost in the US. Though what you get for that varies. That's about what I pay but I get symmetric gigabit fiber, not whatever the weather allows satellite.

For gigabit fiber I can understand it a bit more (costs about 70 Euro for that here in Germany) - but yeah, for "might work if you stand in a crane pose and the moon isn't full" satellite internet......

 

[Dr Gitlin]

That's different when I compared this to my parents address in the UK. It's £300 upfront for no commitment or £75 for month 1 of the 12 month fixed term but both are charged at the £75 per month rate, the only difference is the upfront cost.

(That and whether you own the hardware or not, that's not clear from the support page).

Clearly Starlink are doing what they can to take full advantage on a market by market basis.

And for anyone wondering, while I'd prefer not to recommend a product that puts money into a certain persons pocket, my parents are limited by a FTTC (fibre to the cabinet) connection and are 3+ miles from the phone exchange where the fibre cable ends... so at best they get 10Mbps down, 3Mbps up and considering that around 1000 homes are being built where the exchange is, that may well drop. I have a computer there that I can remote into, which at 8pm local they're getting 6.8Mbps down and 1.5Mbps up.

And they're paying £54pm for that. I may have no choice but to suggest that they switch.

Yes, because you live in a country with functioning consumer protection laws and consumer watchdogs that aren't being fired en masse by the same person who wants to sell you his satellite dish.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Here's the thing, man: 13 years ago, I'd have agreed with you. 13 years of discussing tech, space, policy, and science with y'all, very nearly daily, has done nothing but make me ever-growingly convinced that the tech industry has become a malignant mass that is gestating and massively enriching the worst fucking people on the planet at the expense of literally everyone and everything else, including the climate, our social fabric, our political stability, and consensus reality. I no longer trust these people to create a market or exploit it without something I value becoming collateral damage, and I no longer view what they're offering as worth what may as well be a deal with the devil.

<insert orson welles clapping.gif>

 

[Dr Gitlin]

You might remember that Musk some time ago wasn't the steaming cockwomble that he is now - at least not openly.

He absolutely was if you were paying attention. But a hell of a lot of people were too entranced by the rockets to give a shit. And now here we are.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

For gigabit fiber I can understand it a bit more (costs about 70 Euro for that here in Germany) - but yeah, for "might work if you stand in a crane pose and the moon isn't full" satellite internet......

DOCSIS costs about the same and in some places is about as reliable because the cable company is the cable company and you have no other choice. My parents dealt with unreliable internet for years and years because the cable company sucked shit. Every time they got decent rain, it would go to shit. Water getting in somewhere but what do they care, they're your only option. At least until 5G rolled out and was somewhat usable. They have to deal with congestion sometimes now, but at least it basically always works. Slow internet is better than no internet.

Of course it's also impossible to tell how much your internet will actually cost you. I get mailers all the time from the cable company for "$30/month internet" but the catch is you have to bundle cable (ha) and home phone (double ha). They don't list the price of those, and even if you go look it up, that's not the actual price because those services, especially cable, come with a ton of hidden fees.

 

[HovelOfPaine]

If you sign up for Starlink, you're signing on to be a tiny cog in a massive, meat-grinding wheel put in motion by the world's wealthiest man. The same wealthiest man who has happily ended the lives of the world's poorest children. Maybe signing up for Starlink under any circumstances is a bad idea?

Edit: grammar

 

[Snark218]

If you sign up for Starlink, you're signing on to be a tiny cog in a massive, meat-grinding wheel put in motion by the world's wealthiest man. The same wealthiest man who has happily ended the lives of the world's poorest children. Maybe signing up for Starlink under any circumstances is a bad idea?

Edit: grammar

But you have to understand, internet where they are just isn't that fast.

 

[KingStudMuffin]

Yes, so the libertarians among us would like to believe. But let's not pretend Commercial Crew is a uniquely government failure, rather than the product of regulatory capture, an uncompetitive contract structure and corporate malfeasance; NASA was not permitted to run that as a truly competitive contracting process.

No, I just look at other situations that are largely within the purview of the federal government itself. Like, for the love of God, why did it take until the 2020s for the State Department to accept something as simple as a passport renewal online?! Why does the federal retirement system still use a paper-based process that takes 2 months for the average application?

And based on an article on this site a year ago the capex for Starlink is ~$3 billion/year. You don't think there would be regulatory capture around that kind of cash???

 

[rocket_llama]

Do they have electricity?

Then we can run fiber.

LOL, were it that easy. I am 52.1 miles from the White House in the 23rd highest median income county in the US (next door to #1) and my only viable broadband option is Starlink.

We have a a BEAD project (VATI) to give FTTH to "everyone" but they have managed to spend $64,698,479 of $303,116,817 allocated for alleged 2% completion and 0 connected users.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

LOL, were it that easy. I am 52.1 miles from the White House in the 23rd highest median income county in the US (next door to #1) and my only viable broadband option is Starlink.

We have a a BEAD project (VATI) to give FTTH to "everyone" but they have managed to spend $64,698,479 of $303,116,817 allocated for alleged 2% completion and 0 connected users.

It is that easy, but too many people in this country think the job of the government is to throw people they don't like into jails (sometimes in other countries) and not to provide services to its people.

I have a friend that lives in bumfuck Virgina. His house is in the woods, there's fucking nothing around. He has fiber. How? The electric co-op. They already have all the required right of way for running infrastructure to every single house. They run fiber for managing their own infrastructure. It's no big deal to run an ISP on top of that fiber.

Not that long ago we decided every house that was connected to the grid should also have POTS. We can do it with fiber.

Fuck the ISPs. I couldn't give less of a shit about them. Nationalize it, run fiber everywhere, and if an ISP wants to compete with the government and offer services over that fiber, great, let them. Stop letting them eat up government money to carve out little monopolies then tell customers to go fuck themselves.

 

[tucu]

LOL, were it that easy. I am 52.1 miles from the White House in the 23rd highest median income county in the US (next door to #1) and my only viable broadband option is Starlink.

We have a a BEAD project (VATI) to give FTTH to "everyone" but they have managed to spend $64,698,479 of $303,116,817 allocated for alleged 2% completion and 0 connected users.

In Spain we had rounds of auctions for subsidies to build wholesale rural FTTH networks. The latest round (2022) ended as €244.6 million to cover 728500 homes and small business premises. The last round needed is still ongoing so we don´t have the results yet and the government added 5G as a possible technology.

 

[rocket_llama]

I have a friend that lives in bumfuck Virgina. His house is in the woods, there's fucking nothing around. He has fiber. How? The electric co-op. They already have all the required right of way for running infrastructure to every single house. They run fiber for managing their own infrastructure. It's no big deal to run an ISP on top of that fiber.

I am also in VA, but a different county. Our county's contractor (All Points Broadband) is actually using pole leasing "difficulties" as the primary reason they haven't made any progress.

In Spain we had rounds of auctions for subsidies to build wholesale rural FTTH networks. The latest round (2022) ended as €244.6 million to cover 728500 homes and small business premises. The last round needed is still ongoing so we don´t have the results yet and the government added 5G as a possible technology.

I believe our $303MM is for ~47K users and their implementation of "everyone" is acknowledged to still leave up to 10% of unserved county residents still unserved at the end (assuming ANY actually get served before the money runs out).

 

[ERIFNOMI]

I am also in VA, but a different county. Our county's contractor (All Points Broadband) is actually using pole leasing "difficulties" as the primary reason they haven't made any progress.


I believe our $303MM is for ~47K users and their implementation of "everyone" is acknowledged to still leave up to 10% of unserved county residents still unserved at the end (assuming ANY actually get served before the money runs out).

The government would have no such difficulties if they wanted to get something done. They can take your fucking house and tell you tough shit. They can certainly eminent domain the poles and tell the utilities (that they control anyway) to go fuck themselves.

But the poles are usually (probably always) owned by the electric utility. That same utility can be used for the fiber. They can run the ISP on top and/or open it up to other ISPs. The hard part is the red tape of running the fiber, which is easily solved when it's the government running the show.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

You might remember that Musk some time ago wasn't the steaming cockwomble that he is now - at least not openly. The reason why other services were chosen for subsidies at the time was because Starlink's coverage was deemed to not be sufficient for rural connectivity (which was the whole point of the subsidies.)

This just isn't true. The euro subsidies existed before Starlink launched a single sat. And if they are giving subsidies specifically for FTTH, that definitely doesn't apply to SATCOM providers.

It's very easy to say that it's just an anti-Starlink posture, but it really isn't - or at least wasn't. If they're now motivated with IRIS2 to compete with Musk because of his batshittery, then I can't blame them.

The point I was making about cost is that quite a lot of rural areas DO have 4G or even 5G connectivity, which is generally fine, and must be a lot cheaper, surely? 90 bucks per month for internet is insane.

It doesn't cover everyone. The people signing up for Starlink in Germany aren't looking for new shiny tech. It's connectivity they don't have today in May 2025. Starlink isn't 90 bucks in Germany. It isn't 90 in the USA either (it's higher) 90 is the price in areas of the US with lower uptake.

And yes, I have paid for my cost of connectivity by the way - with my fucking taxes

That is what is funding the fiber rollout in Germany, and it's why Telekom is forced to work in partnership with other providers - because they don't own it as a result. It's not ONLY taxes funding it, but taxes cover about 70% of it.

It's when the cost per user after funding 70% is less than the 20 year recovery period. That's definitely not a business I want to invest in. (That's for investors that don't want their money in 18 months, the norm in the US)

And 100% is paying. 70% is called a PPP.

The whole thing reminds me of the UK where BT has preferential treatment in pole, manhole access and ROW. No one can really compete and lots of alternative Fiber providers are failing thanks to that. Imagine having to pay for ROW while your bigger competitor doesn't have to and gets subsidies you can't access.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

My beef is with the entire approach of privatized rent-seeking being an acceptable substitute for services that should be public, because that approach enriches both that particular person and a bunch of other virulently shitty people just like him at the expense of broad public benefit.

Even in Europe where wired connectivity is cheaper. It's not owned by the government.

Most countries even if restricting ownership of Telco's to locals don't own them anymore. The control is via regulations.

Don't forget you still end up buying fiber from Corning, Transit/Transport from Lumen, Cogent, Verio, Zayo, HE, Crown Castle and Arelion, Fiber termination equipment from Ciena, Switches from Broadcom, Juniper/HP, Arista, Routers from Cisco, Nokia, Extreme, Aruba. Firewalls from Palo Alto, Checkpoint, Sandvine. Software from Oracle, VMware, IBM, Preseem, Comcast. Servers from Dell of course.

Not exactly all cuddly companies.

In the end, as far as tech is able to meet government targets at a cheaper price. I don't see why they should spend the value of ones home connecting users. Or limit opportunities.

I've noted in particular that government programs push out small local providers, usually WISP's for well connected national providers.

Don't see why your local WISP shouldn't get the money. Better them than even Municipal operators.

If you think those fiber operators don't have political connections you should wonder why the DOD has ASN's single homed behind CenturyLink aka Lumen.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

Yes, so the libertarians among us would like to believe.

We have SDA as an example of the government doing satellite connectivity for itself. Do you really think government staff would be putting together routers for this government system? (At least we'd get the reliability of Intel WiFi chips).

It's going to be bid out, just like Apollo and Shuttle.

But let's not pretend Commercial Crew is a uniquely government failure, rather than the product of regulatory capture, an uncompetitive contract structure and corporate malfeasance;

Who do you think should have won? Northrop? Boeing? Kistler? Sierra? Think anyone bid less than SpaceX?

NASA was not permitted to run that as a truly competitive contracting process.

Commercial Crew and Cargo, even with the Starliner failures are one of the biggest wins the US has ever got from policy changes.

It restored America's lead in commercial launch & paved the way for the same in satellite connectivity.

Most launches are American. It wasn't so in the past. Not even a plurality.

Commercial Crew fixed failures in US policy that led to losing access to human spaceflight and American satellite providers going elsewhere for launch.

America is a leader in space communications. Unlike 5G where Europe and China lead. Can the US even field an all American 5G network?

 

[@inemesitaffia]

He absolutely was if you were paying attention. But a hell of a lot of people were too entranced by the rockets to give a shit. And now here we are.

Musk somehow stopped HSR and now he's responsible for the high average costs of wired connectivity? The debt on the books of Telcos and the ridiculous costs they pay for sports to stay competitive is totally imagined?

What can't he do?

Some people here would be opposed to Fiber if he owned Corning.

 

[dfortney]

Didn’t they originally say the service would never be behind a contract?

 

[Korios]

FTTH finally reached my neighborhood, though not yet my street. The closest fiber currently terminates just a short block from my home. The fibers were deployed in my area of Athens (Greece, not Georgia) by UnitedFiber, which is a sister company of my (landline) ISP Nova.

You can order FTTH service from both Nova and any other ISP offering FTTH. UnitedFiber, and all other FTTH companies, are obliged to provide service to competitors by law, which I believe applies EU wide, to ensure healthy competition.

But it's simpler, and cheaper, if I upgrade my pathetic ADSL internet connection (nominal 24 / 1 Mbps, actual 16 - 18 / 0.9 Mbps) to FTTH via Nova. The subscription is 35€ / month, but it's subsidized during the first 2 years, so I'd need to pay just 27€ / month, with unlimited calls included, both landline and mobile.

No data caps either, and no extra cost for fiber wiring and equipment; those costs are partly included in the 24-month plan, and partly subsidized by the EU. I currently pay 17€ / month for landline internet, but phone calls are not included - I'm charged extra from the first second, with the exception of calls to other Nova landlines.

27€ / month (35€ from year 3, or cancellation to fall back to ADSL/VDSL speeds, though you keep your fibers) is for the base FTTH plan, which is 300 / 150 Mbps (guaranteed). Currently, until UnitedFiber carve their tiny ditches for a few more meters, and deploy fibers to my street too, my only upgrade option is 100 / 10 Mbps (nominal/max, actual quite lower) VDSL2 from Nova for 29€ / month.

VDSL is more expensive, despite being much slower and volatile like ADSL, because the EU do not subsidize it. Nova's top-end FTTH plan was 1 Gbps / 500 Mbps until recently, for just 37€ / month duing the first 2 years (45€ from year 3). But I just rechecked their plans and was amazed to discover they just started offering a 3 Gbps / 1.5 Gbps plan for 54 € / month (first 2 years).

So twice as much as their base plan but at ten times the speed. I never thought we'd ever see such internet speeds in Greece. So, with the exception of remote villages and towns that will only ever see fibers via large binoculars, Starlink makes no sense for residential internet in Greece - well, at least for Athens and the other major cities, where FTTH is already widely available and is rapidly expanding.

It's ridiculously expensive and much slower than fiber; and of course the EU would never subsidize it, not even with a single Euro.

 

[jbattan]

I would not be surprised at all if soon you will have to pledge allegiance to MAGA or have your service terminated.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

Didn’t they originally say the service would never be behind a contract?

There's still the no contract option. And if you cancel this early you pay pro rata for the equipment.

One thing that's missing are your transfer rights post termination. Starlink blocks that to 90-180 days for people buying the equipment at full price.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

FTTH finally reached my neighborhood, though not yet my street. The closest fiber currently terminates just a short block from my home. The fibers were deployed in my area of Athens (Greece, not Georgia) by UnitedFiber, which is a sister company of my (landline) ISP Nova.

You can order FTTH service from both Nova and any other ISP offering FTTH. UnitedFiber, and all other FTTH companies, are obliged to provide service to competitors by law, which I believe applies EU wide, to ensure healthy competition.

But it's simpler, and cheaper, if I upgrade my pathetic ADSL internet connection (nominal 24 / 1 Mbps, actual 16 - 18 / 0.9 Mbps) to FTTH via Nova. The subscription is 35€ / month, but it's subsidized during the first 2 years, so I'd need to pay just 27€ / month, with unlimited calls included, both landline and mobile.

No data caps either, and no extra cost for fiber wiring and equipment; those costs are partly included in the 24-month plan, and partly subsidized by the EU. I currently pay 17€ / month for landline internet, but phone calls are not included - I'm charged extra from the first second, with the exception of calls to other Nova landlines.

27€ / month (35€ from year 3, or cancellation to fall back to ADSL/VDSL speeds, though you keep your fibers) is for the base FTTH plan, which is 300 / 150 Mbps (guaranteed). Currently, until UnitedFiber carve their tiny ditches for a few more meters, and deploy fibers to my street too, my only upgrade option is 100 / 10 Mbps (nominal/max, actual quite lower) VDSL2 from Nova for 29€ / month.

VDSL is more expensive, despite being much slower and volatile like ADSL, because the EU do not subsidize it. Nova's top-end FTTH plan was 1 Gbps / 500 Mbps until recently, for just 37€ / month duing the first 2 years (45€ from year 3). But I just rechecked their plans and was amazed to discover they just started offering a 3 Gbps / 1.5 Gbps plan for 54 € / month (first 2 years).

So twice as much as their base plan but at ten times the speed. I never thought we'd ever see such internet speeds in Greece. So, with the exception of remote villages and towns that will only ever see fibers via large binoculars, Starlink makes no sense for residential internet in Greece - well, at least for Athens and the other major cities, where FTTH is already widely available and is rapidly expanding.

It's ridiculously expensive and much slower than fiber; and of course the EU would never subsidize it, not even with a single Euro.

EU states subsidise Eutelsat Konnect supplied satellite. It's home grown so that's where the subsidies come from. Ireland will pay for your Starlink dish if you live without alternatives. And Starlink service is generally cheaper outside of the Five Eyes. Don't be surprised about EU subsidies (for service and equipment for residential users) for any locally owned satellite providers for home service.

Italy is planning for Starlink now Fiber later for rural areas.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

I would not be surprised at all if soon you will have to pledge allegiance to MAGA or have your service terminated.

If there's any US election, moreso with D's winning, you can discount everything's D's have ever said about the election.

People who live outside the US somehow knew for several weeks that it would be a Trump win. (See Harald, previously at Twitter) but Arsians are this close to actual election denials..

I've already seen an Ars writer blame Musk for the price of broadband, a sector he entered in 2020. Wet streets don't cause rain and I don't expect better of the commenters anyway.

For those of you who don't know, the cost of broadband in the US is due to the regional monopolies, restrictions on infrastructure sharing and use, especially access to conduit, and lack of enforcement of One Touch Make Ready.

America is also a rich country where labor is expensive and companies don't want to invest without steep subsidies and exclusivity guarantees. Apart from those that want 18 month returns.

Imagine spending $20k upfront on a user that spends 1k per year and needs truck rolls occasionally and then getting hit with price controls ala New York or government subsidised competition like BEAD/RDOF.

Better to buy Apple/Nvidia Stock or Bitcoin

 

[Snark218]

America is a leader in space communications. Unlike 5G where Europe and China lead. Can the US even field an all American 5G network?

Let's try.

 

[Waluigi]

"Son, I'm going to teach you the meaning of the word 'free'"

 

[eukiwi]

This just isn't true. The euro subsidies existed before Starlink launched a single sat. And if they are giving subsidies specifically for FTTH, that definitely doesn't apply to SATCOM providers.

It doesn't cover everyone. The people signing up for Starlink in Germany aren't looking for new shiny tech. It's connectivity they don't have today in May 2025. Starlink isn't 90 bucks in Germany. It isn't 90 in the USA either (it's higher) 90 is the price in areas of the US with lower uptake.

It's when the cost per user after funding 70% is less than the 20 year recovery period. That's definitely not a business I want to invest in. (That's for investors that don't want their money in 18 months, the norm in the US)

And 100% is paying. 70% is called a PPP.

The whole thing reminds me of the UK where BT has preferential treatment in pole, manhole access and ROW. No one can really compete and lots of alternative Fiber providers are failing thanks to that. Imagine having to pay for ROW while your bigger competitor doesn't have to and gets subsidies you can't access.

So first you complain that Europe is subsidising Starlink out of the market by only giving money to Euro companies - then to try and claim that it's nothing to do with Starlink's coverage or performance, you yourself point out that the subsidies existed BEFORE Starlink did. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.... that's hilarious.

Germany was actually planning on providing subsidies for Starlink - but the service was found wanting - you just want to make it about something else.

https://www.reuters.com/business/re...ill subsidize the,cost it roughly $10 billion.

Then you talk about the 70% vs 100% funding - 70% is funded by income taxes, the other 30% is funded by various sources (private, state, federal), including the providers themselves - with the main takeaway being that no one provider then has a monopoly on the infrastructure. You then spew a hilariously stereotypical response "not something I'd invest in" - EXACTLY - it's not meant to be a for-profit infrastructure rollout. It's absolutely astounding how you cannot grasp this, and how you just assume it'll be like the USA where the taxpayer will foot the bill, AND then get absolutely raped by the providers for it.

Because of the nonsense you're throwing out on this topic, you shall be ignored - thanks for the laughs though.

 

[@inemesitaffia]

So first you complain that Europe is subsidising Starlink out of the market by only giving money to Euro companies - then to try and claim that it's nothing to do with Starlink's coverage or performance, you yourself point out that the subsidies existed BEFORE Starlink did. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.... that's hilarious.

No it isn't. I'm pointing out that subsidies are the reason why other satellite providers have similar/lower prices (for home users) compared to Starlink in the EU. There's an EU funded subsidy for this. I'd rather the money go to fixed wireless operators.

Germany was actually planning on providing subsidies for Starlink - but the service was found wanting - you just want to make it about something else.

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/germany-readies-subsidies-satellite-internet-providers-such-starlink-2021-05-31/#:~:text=The government will subsidize the,cost it roughly $10 billion.

Then you talk about the 70% vs 100% funding - 70% is funded by income taxes, the other 30% is funded by various sources (private, state, federal), including the providers themselves - with the main takeaway being that no one provider then has a monopoly on the infrastructure. You then spew a hilariously stereotypical response "not something I'd invest in" - EXACTLY - it's not meant to be a for-profit infrastructure rollout. It's absolutely astounding how you cannot grasp this, and how you just assume it'll be like the USA where the taxpayer will foot the bill, AND then get absolutely raped by the providers for it.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. For some homes, the provider can't make that 30% in 20 years. They usually want their money in 18 months(¾ of a two year contract).

I'm glad you pointed out it's not only the provider contributing. That makes more financial sense.

The infrastructure isn't meant to make profit, but the providers running on it are.

Because of the nonsense you're throwing out on this topic, you shall be ignored - thanks for the laughs though.

Have it your way.

Could you help with the report rejecting Starlink, where it was found wanting? Would be really helpful.

The Reuters article doesn't cover the subsidies I'm talking about (on the monthly bill) like the now cancelled ACP in the US. Or the one in Spain I'm very familiar with. It's similar to the one in Wales. (equipment only, no maximum service price or pricing subsidy).

There's no reality where Eutelsat/SES have better performance.