Starlink prices are going up across the board

Shawn Knight

Posts: 14,141   +154
Staff member
In brief: SpaceX is increasing the cost of its Starlink satellite-based Internet service across the board. The company outlined the changes in a recent email to existing customers, noting that the move was necessary in order to keep pace with rising inflation.

Moving forward, the upfront cost to purchase a starter kit will increase by $100, from $499 to $599. Existing deposit holders will be charged an extra $50.

The starter kit comes with everything needed to get up and running including a Starlink receiver dish, modem and router.

SpaceX is also hiking the monthly rate of its service by $11, from $99 to $110. Monthly rate changes will go into effect at different times for different customers. Standard tier customers can expect download speeds anywhere between 100 Mb/s and 200 Mb/s, with latency as low as 20ms in most locations.

SpaceX additionally touted its infrastructure improvements, noting how they have quadrupled the number of ground stations and tripled the number of satellites in orbit since launching the public beta in October 2020. The company would have had even more satellites in orbit had it not been for a geomagnetic storm in February that wiped out a batch of recently launched units.

Partial refunds of $200 are being offered to customers that have been with the service for less than a year. A full refund will be given to those who have been with Starlink for less than 30 days.

"Going forward, users can expect Starlink to maintain its cadence of continuous network improvements as well as new feature additions," the company added.

Do you have any experience with Starlink, or satellite Internet in general? I've fortunately always had access to a decent land-based connection, but have heard horror stories relating to other satellite providers.

Permalink to story.

 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,210   +4,248
Downward spiral already beginning, won't be long before the entire enterprise comes crashing back down to earth.

It's boring and arduous work but you just need to put up some more regular old cables for people on rural places and some 5G antennas, no space solutions are truly needed beyond the emergency/back up stuff we had on higher orbits.
 

dangh

Posts: 580   +921
Thankfully I don't need to rely on such solutions, with access to fiber, but it still good for those away from proper infrastructure. But sure people will pay this price as there is simply no competition.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,592   +2,808
TechSpot Elite
Do you have any experience with Starlink, or satellite Internet in general?

I have used Viasat at my property in the Ozarks (Eureka Springs) for years.
It is reasonably fast (100 Mb's service tests out to 90+), was as easy to install as satellite TV (duh!) and has been extremely reliable. They claim no effects from bad weather, and so far that has been true.
 

m4a4

Posts: 2,894   +3,704
TechSpot Elite
I have used Viasat at my property in the Ozarks (Eureka Springs) for years.
It is reasonably fast (100 Mb's service tests out to 90+), was as easy to install as satellite TV (duh!) and has been extremely reliable. They claim no effects from bad weather, and so far that has been true.
What's the ping though? If the 90+ is the ping, it doesn't sound like something you could competitively game on at all...
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 529   +677
Downward spiral already beginning, won't be long before the entire enterprise comes crashing back down to earth.

It's boring and arduous work but you just need to put up some more regular old cables for people on rural places and some 5G antennas, no space solutions are truly needed beyond the emergency/back up stuff we had on higher orbits.

Low Band 5G isn't ready, and when it is it will be primarily for mobile devices. AKA Devices that are always on the move. Cars, Phones, etc. Data Caps are not going away for Cellular connections either....

Homes are a perfect choice for Low Orbit Sat Comm, The dish never moves. The Speed and Latency is decent, and data caps are not as much as an issue.

In a big city you will have access to Cable or Fiber. But there just isn't any money in bringing those connections out into the farm lands and micro villages. That being said even in micro villages internet is normally delivered via PtP AP units, and sadly many of these are simply just running on old hardware. Internet is then beamed down to the homes around it. Normally on top of a tall grain elevator.

For the homes truly out in the middle of no where. 5G still isn't a better option than Starlink.
 

letsgoiowa

Posts: 68   +127
Downward spiral already beginning, won't be long before the entire enterprise comes crashing back down to earth.

It's boring and arduous work but you just need to put up some more regular old cables for people on rural places and some 5G antennas, no space solutions are truly needed beyond the emergency/back up stuff we had on higher orbits.
Pretty ignorant. Try laying cable in the mountains or in remote areas. Part of the reason people don't get service out there is because nobody is bringing cable out there at all anyway.
Entire swaths of the African continent are entirely in the dark but now have the potential for internet access now.
 

Toju Mikie

Posts: 278   +265
I got the notification that Starlink was available to order in my area 1 year ago but decided not to go with it, considering I move around a lot and there was cable internet where I live. At $119, it's still competitive for some areas.
Low Band 5G isn't ready, and when it is it will be primarily for mobile devices. AKA Devices that are always on the move. Cars, Phones, etc. Data Caps are not going away for Cellular connections either....

Homes are a perfect choice for Low Orbit Sat Comm, The dish never moves. The Speed and Latency is decent, and data caps are not as much as an issue.

In a big city you will have access to Cable or Fiber. But there just isn't any money in bringing those connections out into the farm lands and micro villages. That being said even in micro villages internet is normally delivered via PtP AP units, and sadly many of these are simply just running on old hardware. Internet is then beamed down to the homes around it. Normally on top of a tall grain elevator.

For the homes truly out in the middle of no where. 5G still isn't a better option than Starlink.
I think the target for most homes with 5G is going to be the mid-band, not low-band, which is OK with better range but is slower, and usually won't get past 200mbps on low-band.
I've gamed on mid-band with pretty good results:

I think what @Dimitriid was referring to with 5G antennas in rural areas, which can be done given time. A fiber line can be connected to smaller poles, which can act as mini-towers. These are relatively cheap to deploy (I think). We were able to connect every home to landlines in the past, so this should be easier.

Regarding data caps on cellular, they aren't on the more expensive mobile plans or for Fixed Wireless home access. You can freely use 200GB-1TB on a cell phone plan with no issues, no complaints from the cell phone providers. The previous T-Mobile CEO was complaining about people using 2TB+ on mobile plans, so as long as you are under this amount, you should be fine.
 
Last edited:

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,454   +2,419
Raising prices after release just like its cars and solar panels then. No thank you.
Tesla impressed me early on, but as time goes by that goes away.
 
Last edited:

Plutoisaplanet

Posts: 695   +1,091
Definitely no online VS. gaming. I never checked ping, though I did after I saw your post and got 94 Mb's down, 3 up and 592 latency.
That's not bad. My friend had Viasat and was paying like $150 a month for their best service and got much worse download speeds but everything else about the same as yours. For gaming it wasn't usable though and he switched to LTE mobile data service in the end. The LTE ping is manageable for gaming at around 90ms, but he can also connect to any region's servers in the US and his ping does not go up. That part's nice since we're on opposite sides of the country now. He was going to switch from Vianet to Starlink when I told him about it, but once he found out about the LTE data option it just wasn't as good a deal so he's saving a lot of money now.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,592   +2,808
TechSpot Elite
That's not bad. My friend had Viasat and was paying like $150 a month for their best service and got much worse download speeds but everything else about the same as yours.
I remember those times with Viasat. That might have been back in the 12-20 Mb's service. I have the 100 meg service, though the cost is now $200 a month. And I'm only here 10 or so days a month. But one thing I can say is the excellent reliability has been a constant for 11 or so years.
 

netman

Posts: 776   +336
Musk wants to be the world first Trillionaire...! Don't be surprise Tesla prices go up next...!