Starlink hikes prices to $599 up-front and $110 per month, blames inflation
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I'm guessing the "inflation" Musk is referring to is the inflation in difficulty of procuring parts/materials?
Upvote
68
(88
/
-20)
"The sole purpose of these adjustments is to keep pace with rising inflation."
Translation. We have the ability to raise prices without taking to much of a public relations backlash or with customers looking for alternatives. If it was about rising costs they would have said that.
Translation. We have the ability to raise prices without taking to much of a public relations backlash or with customers looking for alternatives. If it was about rising costs they would have said that.
Upvote
19
(130
/
-111)
Space Comcast, Space Comcasting
It's depressing to see weird nerds acting like Starlink isn't just another ISP.
It's depressing to see weird nerds acting like Starlink isn't just another ISP.
Upvote
99
(138
/
-39)
Different sectors of the global market are affected differently.
Upvote
52
(80
/
-28)
AT&T U-Verse charges me $92/month for the fastest available, 45 mbps down and 6 up. I live on the edge of a major city, Dallas/Fort Worth Texas. There are zero other wired options where I live. I frequently hit my cap of 1TB/month because my family is always streaming content, Steam downloads and software updates. 
Upvote
53
(58
/
-5)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
Yeah exactly. I think "inflation" is going to be the excuse to justify every price increase on everything for the next couple years.
I mean I am not going to cry. SpaceX is a business they need to show a profit. As it stands right now they have a backlog which means people believe the service is worth the asking price.
Upvote
58
(78
/
-20)
Raising prices causes inflation.
The wheels on the bus go round and round.........
The wheels on the bus go round and round.........
Upvote
105
(115
/
-10)
Upvote
188
(193
/
-5)
I can accept the cost on the terminal going up, though that seems significantly more than inflation; but why would inflation raise the cost of service?
Upvote
39
(61
/
-22)
Because they have to pay for interconnects to actually get to the internet, they're not a Tier 1 ISP, they're effectively a mom and pop ISP. Those likely are getting more expensive. Transit isn't cheap.
Upvote
15
(34
/
-19)
This is how Starkink defines that audience:
"populations with little or no connectivity, including those in rural communities and places where existing services are too expensive or unreliable."
Such people tend not to be rolling in money.
Upvote
66
(79
/
-13)
Well you also have to pay staff more. Wages have risen about 2% below inflation. So goods and staff payment.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/10/inflati ... -year.html
Upvote
6
(19
/
-13)
This sounds like an excuse/cover to me. My bet is that regardless of inflation they couldn't cost engineer the hardware to the promised price point, that the development costs far exceeded expectations, that the ground and flight operations costs are higher than projected (ex perhaps sat management is far less automated than planned), or some combination of all 3
Upvote
40
(60
/
-20)
AT&T U-Verse charges me $92/month for the fastest available, 45 mbps down and 6 up. I live on the edge of a major city, Dallas/Fort Worth Texas. There are zero other wired options where I live. I frequently hit my cap of 1TB/month because my family is always streaming content, Steam downloads and software updates.
And that crap is just infuriating. There is zero justifiable reason why broadband should have data caps. Mobile, ok, I guess you can argue network congestion and what not. But thats just not a thing with broadband. Its a money grab. Plain and simple. The FCC should stop providers charging for that. We are already paying for speed. Data should not be a thing with home broadband internet
Upvote
97
(102
/
-5)
ColdWetDog
Ars Legatus Legionis
Lots of hardware, software development, various and sundry bits (material for construction of ground stations and whatnot) are involved in the 'service'. It's not just data.
Still cheap for what you get *if* you need it. Again, at least at present, Starlink isn't for people who hate Comcast. It's for people that wished they had Comcast to hate.
EDIT: And you ain't seen 'nothin yet. The slow downstream effects of inflation and supply chain issues will cascade into price increases for pretty much everything for the next couple of years at least. Once this ponderous ship starts to move, it's hard to change course.
Upvote
60
(64
/
-4)
Different material markets are inflated differently. Steel for example has doubled in cost over the last year and a half. Given that the equipment costs them >$1k per unit and they're only charging $500 (now $600) for the equipment they're clearly subsidizing some of the up front cost and intend to make it up via the service, hence the increase in the cost of the service. They have a particular ROI window in mind and raise the cost of that service to maintain it.
Upvote
66
(67
/
-1)
Ok that’s fair if salaries are commensurately going up.
Color me skeptical, but that’s at least a surface valid reason.
Upvote
5
(11
/
-6)
My parents have had Starlink for about a year now, and are not super satisfied with it. Reliability has greatly improved compared to the first few months they had it (when it was almost unusable), but there are still relatively frequent random service interruptions and slowdowns, which disrupt my mom's work since she needs to do video conferencing for hours a day when she's working at home. Speed is actually worse over the past few months, seeing frequent longer term dips to 20 mbps download, though it spends most of its time at around 100 mbps.
Maybe it's not realistic to expect wired-level reliability from Starlink, but it's been a bit disappointing. Their only other alternative is 6 mbps DSL, which is horribly slow but much more reliable. Though I think people who don't rely on real time applications like video conferencing wouldn't notice the tiny service interruptions and would be a lot happier with it.
Maybe it's not realistic to expect wired-level reliability from Starlink, but it's been a bit disappointing. Their only other alternative is 6 mbps DSL, which is horribly slow but much more reliable. Though I think people who don't rely on real time applications like video conferencing wouldn't notice the tiny service interruptions and would be a lot happier with it.
Upvote
61
(66
/
-5)
I'm aware of a ton of farmers that want better connectivity than they can currently get, and these costs are pocket change in comparison to what they've been quoted for services elsewhere.
Plenty of customers can afford these rates.
Upvote
67
(71
/
-4)
I'm pretty sure that rising costs is exactly what they said...That is what inflation is.
Upvote
39
(48
/
-9)
No, I read much.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... ption.html
The problem, to be clear, is that you can't claim the goal is to connect the unconnected, and overlook the fact that the affluent are already online. This kind of price increase is newsworthy.
Also, RockDaMan, what do the words "too expensive" suggest to you? People "rolling in money"? Musk is da Man, I've told you this before.
Upvote
6
(32
/
-26)
AT&T U-Verse charges me $92/month for the fastest available, 45 mbps down and 6 up. I live on the edge of a major city, Dallas/Fort Worth Texas. There are zero other wired options where I live. I frequently hit my cap of 1TB/month because my family is always streaming content, Steam downloads and software updates.
And while that's bad enough, it's virtually paradise compared to people whose only other option was HughesNet. My parents would sometimes rack up hundreds of dollars a month in overage charges for that barely-usable "service". Starlink is a life-saver and has been very reliable for them, I don't think they'll be too upset over an $11 price hike.
Upvote
77
(77
/
0)
A lot of companies are blaming inflation for price increases, but then they're reporting record profits. This isn't a big price hike, so I do find it a bit more believable than some others. But I still have my doubts.
Upvote
18
(31
/
-13)
Yeah, the fine-print of the terms lets them, but that really is a depressing thing to see.
Back when I signed up they said "late 2021" and now its "second half 2022". So for my address, its still vaporware but the prices are going up anyway.
I can be more forgiving on the monthly rate than the already high equipment cost given a down payment was already made.
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
I agree that the caps are way to low with ATT and Comcast, and they are a money grab, but to say that congestion is "just not a thing with broadband" is not exactly true. Fiber and the related equipment does still have a finite capacity. Its not unlimited, and it is overprovisioned.
Upvote
18
(23
/
-5)
ColdWetDog
Ars Legatus Legionis
Yes, there are millions, likely billions of people who live in rural communities, who would benefit from Starlink and who can't afford it.
SpaceX can't help all of those people. Especially in the beginning. There are also millions of people who can benefit from Starlink and who can pay for it. Those are the people that Starlink is hoping to sign up.
Sucks to be poor but that's what happens.
Now, let's move the clock up 10 years and in our fantasy world, SH/SS works just fine, the constellation is making money hand over fist and either Starlink and / or some government can justify sending terminals out to the rural poor on a much lighter budget. Maybe that will happen, that sort of economic Overton window often happens in technology.
No guarantees.
Upvote
36
(43
/
-7)
I would turn this on its head and say that in 2022, high reliability connectivity at $100+/month is realistic to expect, and confidence in being able to achieve it should have been a major factor in SpaceX's decision to move forward with the project.
Upvote
7
(13
/
-6)
That census article says that broadband access lags in two areas - rural counties, and low-income counties. It does *not* say that rural residents aren't buying broadband because they're too poor, that's just you.
Upvote
27
(35
/
-8)