Starlink to charge users in “limited-capacity” areas $30 more than others

New prices: $90 in "excess-capacity" areas, $120 in "limited-capacity" places.

See full article...

 

[lurknomore]

Still cheap when you have no fiber/cable nearby

 

[Andrewcw]

So the more demand in your area you pay more and get less?

 

[peachpuff]

Someone has to pay for twitter, soon teslas will get a twitter app built in with a price hike

 

[TehRoot]

So the more demand in your area you pay more and get less?

Starlink has a finite capacity, so yes.

 

[bsplosion]

We've all talked a lot about last mile unbundling, but with this big wave of LEO satellite providers that are supposed to come online (or already are), is there a possibility of mandating the same for that service? A ton of public funds go into getting the systems and infrastructure online and it'd be great to stop granting monopolies like this.

(I don't hold out any real hope of that given our lack of success on existing wire infrastructure, but a guy can dream...)

 

[FreeRangeOrganicSoyLatteCappuccino]

So the more demand in your area you pay more and get less?

My gym does the same thing. The busier/more desirable locations have higher membership costs ... it reduces congestion while maintaining profits.

 

[safety3rd]

I got the email yesterday. I don't think $120/mo is excessive considering there are no alternatives but it is a bitter pill while the quality of service has gone into the toilet.

 

[unequivocal]

I think it's kind of awesome that internet service provided by a constellation of LEO satellites and space lasers exists at all. The fact that people complain about price increases seems reasonable, but some of the folks interviewed had it right: there isn't an alternative. If they had started out pricing this at $200/month, and then dropped to $180/month, I wonder what the reactions would be. Price hikes suck for consumers - my point is that this technology is incredible, and it offers connectivity that is otherwise out of reach.

So when other LEO satellite ISPs turn up, how will pricing be affected? Dunno, but seems like a good thing for the consumer. But until then, if I needed Starlink, I'd be pretty stoked to have access to it at all (having lived in a remote area where there was no voice cell service, let alone data of any kind).

 

[Sarty]

Free-space RF-band is a commodity whose supply is limited by fundamental physics. We can tease around those limits with narrower and narrower beams, but the limits still exist. I can't fault Starlink for the physics; maybe I can fault their marketing department (don't know; didn't read).

If you can run a wire, run a wire. I suspect this will be forever true.

 

[mmiller7]

Saw this when I got up this morning in my inbox...not too thrilled.

More annoying given I'm on the best-effort fixed-location service and the end of last month their updates aimed my dish towards the East and now I have many periods of "No signal" or "Network issue", which their docs suggest is likely an issue with the comms between the satellite and the rest of the network/ground-station. I'm wondering if I am pointing at sats now that are out of coverage from the ground stations as they go out to sea.

And because its "best effort" apparently that means they have no interest in troubleshooting the "no signal" and "network issue" messages. I was aware best-effort would run at lower speed deprioritized during busy times but I wasn't aware when I signed up that it may have frequent outages that were not related to obstructions.

It was quite good service until they changed the aim of the dish...but now feels like a major step backwards.

Verizon is in the process of building a cell tower which should cover where I live...drove by there and it looks like the mast is up and the antennas installed but they don't yet appear to have the ground stuff in place yet (electrical cables and gas lines not yet connected for the generator and probably not connected for the equipment cabinets, unsure if they have fiber run yet). I sure hope Verizon hurries up and finishes getting the tower online so there will be more options.

Where's that meme "you were supposed to beat them not join them"?

 

[nehinks]

I wonder if "limited capacity" actually means "limited capacity for the customer to change ISPs". As a opposed to "limited capacity to support users", which is how most people seem to be interpreting it.

Also would be very curious what percentage of customers actually received the price decrease (instead of increase).

 

[rhavenn]

So the more demand in your area you pay more and get less?

Yes, but don't blame Starlink. in an actual functioning country with decent laws that either allow for or force municipal broadband or regulation that forces private companies to service less than desirable or less profitable areas this is what we end up with. Starlink should really be for those less than 10% / 5% / 1% (don't know the actual number compared to even small towns or "country roads with a few acre lots" for miles) of people who truely live in the middle of nowhere.

"We" should be mandating fiber-to-the-curb be installed everywhere USPS delivers with some very narrow exceptions. ie: if the average distance between addresses / mailboxes is > 10 miles or something and then if a home owner wants it they pay a reasonable hook-up fee.

Really, the fiber-to-the curb should be no different that your power / sewer lines and should be municipal or regulated / better regulated than private utilitites. The fiber-to-the-home and the colo / POP location is where the various vendors should have to fight it out and anyone should be able to enter the market.

just going to add: I live in a town with 8k people or so, no roads leading into it (ocean or plane only) and we have municipal broadband (symmetrical 1Gb fiber and it's amazeballs) and just slightly more expensive than the cable operator who only does 1Gb down / 50Mb up and the latency (70ms usually) is good to pretty much anything I need to get to routinely.

I had the cable operator when I was living elsewhere and they were "fine", but symmetrical 1Gb kicks ass.

 

[Cloudgazer]

I wonder if "limited capacity" actually means "limited capacity for the customer to change ISPs". As a opposed to "limited capacity to support users", which is how most people seem to be interpreting it.

Also would be very curious what percentage of customers actually received the price decrease (instead of increase).

Anybody using Starlink has a limited capacity to change ISPs pretty much by definition.

 

[S2pidiT]

I have Starlink and have been happy, considering the alternative is literally nothing. But I won't be surprised if it goes up yet again in a couple months.

However, if price hikes are going to continue, then I guess they're no different than any other ISP and I will be back to figuring out the least expensive path to getting a wired Internet connection to my house.

 

[gregorerlich]

Starlink pricing strategy will likely be the same approach as when Tesla only had the model S. Start out with the expensive stuff to eventually offer a much more inclusive pricing model. Early adopters pay a lot more for new technology.

That doesn't follow. Starlink is already offering service that can barely be called high speed in many areas, so they don't have any room to offer a lower-quality service at a better price. They're dealing with limited bandwidth - service is getting worse and prices are going up, and indications are that will continue.

 

[Jedakiah]

I think it's kind of awesome that internet service provided by a constellation of LEO satellites and space lasers exists at all. The fact that people complain about price increases seems reasonable, but some of the folks interviewed had it right: there isn't an alternative. If they had started out pricing this at $200/month, and then dropped to $180/month, I wonder what the reactions would be. Price hikes suck for consumers - my point is that this technology is incredible, and it offers connectivity that is otherwise out of reach.

So when other LEO satellite ISPs turn up, how will pricing be affected? Dunno, but seems like a good thing for the consumer. But until then, if I needed Starlink, I'd be pretty stoked to have access to it at all (having lived in a remote area where there was no voice cell service, let alone data of any kind).

In sales we call those "anchoring points". The first price a consumer hears is what they anchor subsequent observations to. The first price you hear often feels "high" no matter what. The second price they hear is now anchored to that. A higher price feels high, lower prices feel low. Business have long used this trick of psychology to get people to pay higher prices. Hit them with a high price up front, and then a slightly lower "discounted price" that makes them feel comfortable.

Starlink hit us with a higher than average price up front. Many ISPs charge ~$70 for service. But Starlink promised the moon to the rurals. Gigabit speeds coming soon. 5-10ms latency. They delivered a ~80mbps average, 30-150ms latency, and then hiked the price. People are understandably upset. But the sales team has to be face palming. This is not how manipulate customers into feeling like they have a good deal.

 

[SunnyD]

Got the same email this morning. My only complaint is as of this moment as far as I can tell there is zero transparency in being able to determine which capacity bucket you live in and what these currently arbitrary capacity factors actually are.

The fact that my price can change without notice every month is disconcerting. And why are people being forced to pay more for less service. A lot of things just don't add up with this.

 

[jezra]

When the customer has no other option for low-latency broadband, the ISPs are free to gouge all they want.

So now my service fee is going up and I will pay because I need low-latency internet for work.

 

[S2pidiT]

Aren't these numbers backwards?
100 + 10 != 120 and 100 - 20 != 90

The price was $110/month, having been raised just less than a year ago.

 

[LesDawg]

Very pleased to have just cancelled my Starlink subscription. Their imperious decision to re-point my dish due East (and into a brick wall I can't avoid), after originally selling me the service with the admonition that I needed to provide a clear view of the sky due North (which I did, at considerable expense) was the last straw. I just can't allow myself to rely on internet service from a company whose CEO behaves like a hyperactive twelve-year-old boy. I've discovered that Verizon's cell-based home internet service, while a lot slower than Starlink's during off-peak hours of 11 PM to 7 AM (at our location 50 Mbps vs. 150) actually beats Starlink during the latter's self-declared 'peak hours' of 7 AM to 11 PM - 50 Mbps for Verizon versus 40 Mbps for Starlink. Plus Verizon's price is half that of Starlink's, and its service works in a heavy rainstorm.

 

[crickets]

I'm in a super rural area in PNW and got that price increase (from $110 to $120) email. Seems counter-intuitive, given rural folks are often low income too. No other connectivity options in the hills besides old Exede and Hughes sats (new sats for the both companies are not in sight).

 

[pehash]

My gym does the same thing. The busier/more desirable locations have higher membership costs ... it reduces congestion while maintaining profits.

My basic math skills say they increase their profits. Besides, you could easily drop your gym membership, unlike an internet provider. Think of your local utility company saying there's not enough electricity for everyone so they force the poorest people to go back to lamp oil.. Disgusting business practice.

 

[markgo]

"I've seen a lot more buffering lately when watching shows on HBO Max in the evening," he said.

Now that’s troubling as it implies that bandwidth is likely dropping into the single digit Mbps at times. It’s one thing to fall from 150Mbps to 20 or 30. Beyond that is going to be quite noticeable.

 

[msawzall]

"I'm filing a complaint with the FCC," one person wrote on Reddit.

I sympathize, but this individual would be better off yelling at the clouds. Starlink is perfectly in the right to do this (even though it's pretty shitty), and the FCC is gonna file your complaint in the bin on the office floor.

 

[ArsScene]

purely from a marketing perspective, this has some risks. one of the very strong branding elements they've been working with is (was) a very simple and understandable pricing model. perhaps the captive audience aspect will smooth that over?

 

[co-lee]

Huh ... a musk company over-promising, under-delivering, and raising prices.

As Vizzini would say, Inconceivable!

 

[BrianZ]

Every week, another reason to not do business with any Musk company.

 

[rhavenn]

I sympathize, but this individual would be better off yelling at the clouds. Starlink is perfectly in the right to do this (even though it's pretty shitty), and the FCC is gonna file your complaint in the bin on the office floor.

Yeah...they're not breaking any laws and another poster's gym analogy is spot on.

 

[LesDawg]

It was quite good service until they changed the aim of the dish...but now feels like a major step backwards.

Verizon is in the process of building a cell tower which should cover where I live

My experience exactly parallels your own (see my post above). It felt really weird to dump a really sexy 21st century service like Starlink for a turn of the century tech like 4G cellular, but man the relief factor of no longer being subject to the whims of Emerald Boy is alone worth it...not to mention the faster and more dependable service and lower cost. I think you'll be very pleased w/ Verizon once that tower is finished. Best of luck!

 

[barich]

Every dime spent on this should've been spent on running fiber to unserved households. This is ultimately a giant boondoggle that requires massive, regular cash infusions just to remain functional. 5G or fixed wireless is a much better last-mile solution for those to whom running fiber isn't practical. I think that's a tiny number of households, though. Somehow we pulled off rural electrification.

I was initially excited about Starlink, too. But like every other Musk endeavor, it wildly overpromises and underdelivers.

 

[pehash]

I sympathize, but this individual would be better off yelling at the clouds. Starlink is perfectly in the right to do this (even though it's pretty shitty), and the FCC is gonna file your complaint in the bin on the office floor.

Didn't they bid the FCC for rural broadband subsidies?

 

[nbax]

Reminds me of Gogo Inflight internet, the original ground based version… it was so popular, they had to raise the price to discourage people from buying it, even then it was often minimally functional.

 

[Sarty]

However, if price hikes are going to continue, then I guess they're no different than any other ISP and I will be back to figuring out the least expensive path to getting a wired Internet connection to my house.

For real, though, why would it have ever been different? Starlink is an ISP to you. The One Big Boy shouldn't have changed your mind or viewpoint about any of this. He likes money as much as the next smaller boy.

 

[erp_consultant]

I might be in the minority here but I'm not that upset with the price increase. Comparing what I have now with Starlink to my prior ISP is literally night and day. I used to experience outages on a weekly basis, sometimes on a daily basis. Rarely if ever did I get speeds above 40 mb/sec and often it was much lower than that.

I just ran a speed test and I'm getting 200 mb/sec. More importantly it almost never goes down. In the six months I have had the service there have been a grand total of two outages, neither of which lasted more than a few minutes. When you work from home and stream Netflix and do a lot of chat and video calls to friends and family that up time is crucial.

While I'm never really happy to get a price increase at least I am getting great service.