SpaceX President Says Starlink Doesn't Plan To Offer Tiered Pricing (gizmodo.com) 122
Starlink opened up pre-orders for its service in February for a $99 deposit, but it doesn't appear that the company plans to offer any kind of tiered plan to folks who were hoping for some options. Gizmodo reports: SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, speaking during a Satellite 2021 LEO Digital Forum panel on Tuesday, said that she doesn't "think we're going to do tiered pricing to consumers" for Starlink's satellite internet service. Shotwell added that the company was "going to try to keep it as simple as possible and transparent as possible, so right now there are no plans to tier for consumers."
That could be a make-or-break for potential subscribers who were hoping for a discounted -- or for that matter, even more premium -- version of the service than the one it's currently offering. The $99 refundable security deposit offering that rolled in February does not cover the total cost for the service. The Starlink installation kit costs $499 and includes a power supply, a wifi router, and a mountable dish antenna. Shipping and handling will add at least another $50 to that price. And then there's the service itself, which costs $99 per month.
That could be a make-or-break for potential subscribers who were hoping for a discounted -- or for that matter, even more premium -- version of the service than the one it's currently offering. The $99 refundable security deposit offering that rolled in February does not cover the total cost for the service. The Starlink installation kit costs $499 and includes a power supply, a wifi router, and a mountable dish antenna. Shipping and handling will add at least another $50 to that price. And then there's the service itself, which costs $99 per month.
dish antenna (Score:4, Informative)
"dish antenna"? Gizmodo should know better. With those satellites zipping around in low orbit, a dish antenna is completely useless.
Rather, they use a phased array antenna, which can be aimed electronically at a moving target, but no moving parts.
Is there no per-GB data charge then? So if you want to save money, I guess you install a pringle-can relay up on the ridge, and share a service with your neighbour. Split 2 ways, you'll be paying about the same as urban broadband. Not bad!
Re: (Score:1)
"Gizmodo should know better."
I assume this is sarcasm. I gave up reading Gizmodo because of the nonsense they put in their stories.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a dish.
https://www.spaceitbridge.com/... [spaceitbridge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It may be circular but it's not a dish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plates are dishes. Just ask my kitchen.
First definition of dish I can find:
"a shallow, flat-bottomed container for cooking or serving food."
They are not required to be concave to be a dish.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, SpaceX calls it "Dishy McFlatface" so it obviously has at least some characteristics of a dish.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be circular but it's not a dish.
https://hackaday.com/2020/11/2... [hackaday.com]
You're going to love this. They call it a dish so many times it isn't funny.
And you know what? It looks like a dish. Everyone is going to call it that. You may be technically correct, but it's kind of like everyone talking about AI when there is no such thing.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people think Arcane Incantations are real.
Re:dish antenna (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WOuldnt it just be easier to stay home and be on the internet there ?
But then how will people know you drive a Tesla?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they're not. Haven't been for 20-plus years. Some of your TLAs might lie to you that they are, but who would believe a spook?
Re: (Score:2)
Really so your telling me with a straight face, that over half the cars on the road today, know over half the other cars that pass by them ?
Im talking about ordinary people here, not police with a computer etc to lookup number plates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How sensitive is the not-very-dishy antenna to what Penzias and Wilson described as "white dielectric substance"?
Actually, someone should check that. Depending on the waveband they use, it could be an issue. Could probably fix it with a hemispherical kitchen bowl of the right diameter, But someone (like Gizmodo, or even a tech news site) should check it.
Re: (Score:2)
> WOuldnt it just be easier to stay home and be on the internet there ?
The point would be to get your screentime in while your car brings you somewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The point would be to get your screentime in while your car brings you somewhere.
Given the descriptions of Tesla "self driving" that somewhere would be the ER or the county lockup.
Re: (Score:3)
I posit: not soon, and most likely not ever.
1) The cell provider deal is probably still way cheaper than the profits to make from other paying customers
2) It is probably technically very difficult to put such an antenna to the car roof and still maintain e.g. minimal air resistance
3) At present SpaceX prefers to keep units stationary; in fact, they don't support moving the units outside the installation zone at all. This allows them to plan coverage.
4) Even after all is planned and done, the reception won't
Re: (Score:2)
They'll definitely go after boats once the satellite backhaul is up and running: the fleet of ocean-going freighters is much bigger than passenger-carrying aircraft. And those freighters have crew on board that would love to make video calls with their families and watch Netflix.For ship owners/lessors, the expense of Starlink is minimal for the quality-of-life improvement for their crews. That's not to mention cruise ships that would probably use multiple terminals, or those cruising in small craft who cur
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't work in a city. No clear view of the sky and too many other vehicles overloading the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely to happen.
There are tons of places where you are unlikely to get a satellite uplink from street level. Tunnels, dense forests, downtown cities with skyscrapers, downtown cities with multi-level street layouts, etc.
Cell providers can put their antennas where they are needed. Most subways these days have mobile connectivity, in case you didn't notice.
Re: (Score:2)
How soon before those phased array antenna are preinstalled on the roof of every Tesla? Tesla currently relies on cell providers and consumes a not-insignificant amount of bandwidth. It would be interesting to know what sort of deal then get with the cell providers and if it would ever be worth switching to Starlink.
The terminal would need to be much smaller. [twitter.com] So not anytime soon.
Not connecting Tesla cars to Starlink, as our terminal is much too big.
no overage but after X GB you get/may slow down? (Score:1)
no overage but after X GB you get/may slow down?
Re: (Score:2)
Umm...the starlink antenna moves and has moving parts, mate.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm...the starlink antenna moves and has moving parts, mate.
Only for install, same as any antenna. In operation, it steers electronically.
And I'm not your mate, cobber.
Re: (Score:2)
> Rather, they use a phased array antenna, which can be aimed electronically at a moving target, but no moving parts.
Starlink's phased array is mounted on an Alt/Az gimbal driven by two DC motors. It is both electronically and mechanically steered. If you are going to criticize the thing on a technicality, you better damn well better be technically correct in your criticism.
It's also worth noting that you can steer a proper "dish" antenna rapidly enough for LEO tracking in a similar way by using a spheri
Re: (Score:2)
The don't need to directly compete with anyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real goal is to provide SpaceX with business. Volume pushes launch costs down.
They aren't doing it out of altruism, to help unserved or under-served areas. The price is set based on what the market can stand and what the maximum capacity of the system is.
Re: (Score:2)
> They aren't doing it out of altruism, to help unserved or under-served areas.
The folks I know there know exactly what the humanitarian benefits of their work are. Not 'altruistic' in the Aristotelian sense, but in the colloquial sense. They "want to help".
> The price is set based on what the market can stand and what the maximum capacity of the system is.
Correct. The real company mission is the preservation of consciousness - other projects are in service to the mission, but they can sure do some
Re: (Score:2)
The real goal is to provide SpaceX with business. Volume pushes launch costs down.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Almost every launch, if not every one, has been on heavily used rockets. Rockets which have already paid for themselves. That's a step beyond a volume discount. However, a lot of customers would not be willing to put their cargo on a rocket that's been to orbit and back several times, or if they are willing, they aren't willing to pay a lot to do it. (Universities, start-ups, tech demos, etc.)
They have old rockets and want to squeeze more profits out of them
Re: The don't need to directly compete with anyone (Score:2)
They also get to prove those "Old" rockets are still flight worthy and this allows them to sell services on such rockets easier to other parties.
Starlink launches are showing the world just what a fast paced reusable launch cadence can look like and what it could cost. With slow downs in the fall hurricane season I still expect 30+ launches of resuable rockets this year. The majority will be starlink. That by itself sets a tone that was laughed at 4 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, with tiered pricing, there are service guarantees, especially at the top tier. Right now the service is just this is what you get, be grateful. It is a solution to those who chose where service is e pensive to deliver
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to see how they could have much of a service guarantee with satellite. All kinds of stuff beyond their control can interfere with it. With a hard line they can at least send someone to go fix it and give you a guaranteed response time.
Re: (Score:2)
> get together with others and share the link
Violates ToS.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? It should be like "first sale" with physical objects. I buy bandwidth and it's my business what I do with it. I already payed for it.
Re:The don't need to directly compete with anyone (Score:4, Insightful)
> Who cares? It should be like "first sale" with physical objects. I buy bandwidth and it's my business what I do with it. I already payed for it.
It remains to be seen if SpaceX implements data caps or not.
If they don't then you're buying a connection, which seems to be what
Gwen is saying here.
Upstream bandwidth isn't free, so analogize with electricity and if you want to pay your neighbor's electric bill I don't have a problem with that. If the atomic-future scenario had played out where you pay $100 a month for unmetered power, then the economics would be different.
Overall the ISP market would work better with reasonable per-byte pricing, but for so many bad reasons that's very unlikely.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Overall the ISP market would work better with reasonable per-byte pricing, but for so many bad reasons that's very unlikely.
Who cares about the bad reasons? There's one very good reason: DDoS and the fundamental nature of the Internet Protocol. Anybody who has your IP address can send you traffic, if you have a publicly routable IP, and if you don't have a publicly routable IP, you are a second class citizen on the Internet, so in order to be a proper Internet peer, you will always have to deal with unsolicited traffic.
Given the reality of DDoS, which can use up every bit per second of your downstream throughput indefinitely,
Re: The don't need to directly compete with anyone (Score:2)
Right now theyâ(TM)ll actually be filling a market gap, because incubent ISPs didnâ(TM)t want to compete. In the future when SpaceX had woken up the incumbents, then maybe we will start seeing different offerings.
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing about satellites is that you can shift them around as needed. They'll be able to do whatever is going to be more profitable - adjust plans, or adjust service areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing about satellites is that you can shift them around as needed. They'll be able to do whatever is going to be more profitable - adjust plans, or adjust service areas.
Adjusting the orbit of a satellite is costly in terms of energy and would have to be with the approval of the FAA. On the other hand, since the lifetime of a single Starlink satellite is 3-4 years, before being de-orbited, they will be replaced far more often than your typical geo-stationary satellite. Being replaced more frequently means that they will benefit from new technology that will allow them to be more capable in terms of communication bandwidth.
there will be tiers... public and private (Score:2)
private companies and individuals vs Public government users
great PR though
Fair market price (Score:3)
I think for what you pay for in terms of equipment cost it is a fair price. If you buy a decent cable modem it is on average about $80 to $120. If you get one of those all-in-one cable modem with a router then the prices starts to go up. Of course you are always more than welcome to rent one from your cable company but Starlink isn't into all that. Yeah, shipping is going to cost some money and given that is a big ass box with a dish and all, $50 for shipping isn't terrible.
For the time being, while customers can't roam out of their zone/area, for $99 a month for the speeds that you get it is crazy cheap. There are places in Washington DC where Verizon consider "high speed FIOS" to be 10mbps down and 3mpbs up and you pay a $70/month and their equipment is $300 to buy outright. If you tell these people that you can get service that is 10x to 20x faster, for $300 more for equipment, and $30 more, heck, you and your neighbors can probably put up a single dish and just run yourself a small wifi mesh network and split the cost that way and you are good to go.
Keep it stupid simple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a DC suburb and have Verizon FiOS, so my experience is broadly like the one up-thread. Verizon doesn't charge me for a basic MoCA/Ethernet/WiFi modem/router, but they would happily rent a nicer one to me. They did charge me a monthly fee ($3/mo, I think) when I had a really ancient model that was no longer supported by the manufacturer; they let me trade that in for a new modem at no cost, and then stopped charging me that fee.
Some US ISPs might require you to rent a modem as part of an Internet
Re:Fair market price (Score:4, Insightful)
For the time being, while customers can't roam out of their zone/area, for $99 a month for the speeds that you get it is crazy cheap. There are places in Washington DC where Verizon consider "high speed FIOS" to be 10mbps down and 3mpbs up and you pay a $70/month and their equipment is $300 to buy outright.
And if you compare with other satellite internet providers it is at least an order of magnitude cheaper and you get more than an order of magnitude higher bandwidth. This is also the reason why Starlink is going to revolutionize internet access at sea.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely! Was working on cruise ships with those satellite systems and you're absolutely right. I would even say that equipment on those ships is several orders of magnitude more expensive as it ran into millions of dollars. That one Starlink dish is orders of magnitude smaller than those huge C-band and Ku-band dishes and bandwidth is higher. Install two or three of those on each ship and you have ten times better and at least hundred times cheaper internet. I'm sure that most of those satellite internet
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely! Was working on cruise ships with those satellite systems and you're absolutely right. I would even say that equipment on those ships is several orders of magnitude more expensive as it ran into millions of dollars. That one Starlink dish is orders of magnitude smaller than those huge C-band and Ku-band dishes and bandwidth is higher. Install two or three of those on each ship and you have ten times better and at least hundred times cheaper internet. I'm sure that most of those satellite internet providers are scared shitless. Also you can have those dishes on much smaller vessels and it is still much cheaper and simpler compared what they have now. It will revolutionize the maritime satellite internet access.
One remaining issue is that the satellites need lasers for inter-satellite communication to provide internet at sea since there will not be a ground station nearby in most cases. But SpaceX has just started launching those as well: https://www.satellitetoday.com... [satellitetoday.com]
I know from friends in the business that many of the companies producing high tech stuff for vessels are preparing for a future where ships enjoy reasonably cheap (Starlink may charge more at sea due to the lack om competition), reliable and plen
Re: (Score:2)
> If you buy a decent cable modem it is on average about $80 to $120. If you get one of those all-in-one cable modem with a router then the prices starts to go up.
The difference is a cable modem costs $20 to make and they sell it for $100.
Dishy costs ~$2400 to make and they sell it for $500. Phased array antennas were $40,000 a few years ago.
The $99 a month will take a couple years to hit breakeven. Until they get manufacturing going in Austin they aren't going to be making any money on this for a long
Re: (Score:2)
Businesses will pay sig
Re: (Score:2)
''I think for what you pay for in terms of equipment cost it is a fair price.''
Absolutely, currently they can't subvent the cost of the equipment with the service fee. They may never have to because over populating a locale with users currently is beyond the system ability.
''Verizon consider "high speed FIOS" to be 10mbps down and 3mpbs up and you pay a $70/month'''
Not quite correct. All Fios is symmetrical. And actually I think their slowest plan is 200/200. As soon as Xfinity up their ''promo'' rate, I d
Re: (Score:2)
>"for $99 a month for the speeds that you get it is crazy cheap."
Maybe in the USA it is, but not here in Europe. I get 200mbps down, 10mbps up for 35€ (~40$). At that price you get the equipment for free, but I spent 120$ for a better modem that gave me a more consistent performance.
Doubt it (Score:1)
That would translate into $6 billion of revenue per month and more than $72 billion per year! And that's just the U.S.!!
If they can really pull this off Starlink will be the biggest cash-cow in history, more profitable even than Google or Amazon.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Once SpaceX starts raking in the profits, we'll see a lot more constellations being sent up. Everyone will want a piece of the action.
It seems Elon is going to be able to fund his Mars colonization dream after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Minor? Once they have completely built-up they will still have to put up hundreds of satellites a year to maintain their constellation.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, I don't see a "lot" more constellations being sent up. I suspect we'll see three additio
Re: (Score:1)
60 million people aren't going to pay $99/month for internet access even if it's unlimited. If that would have worked, Speakeasy wouldn't have gone out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you say that? Surely more than 60 million people and companies pay > $100 a month right now for various cable companies, telecoms, WISPs, or cell-phone based internet plans. I pay $120 for 100mbit internet, and I have a work provided cell spot that costs well over $100 a month. So just one person but I count for two of those 60 million.
Convincing that many people to switch might be difficult, but the market is probably there.
Re: (Score:2)
''If they can really pull this off Starlink will be the biggest cash-cow in history,''
When I read the performance data, I was very skeptical, but there are reports from users verifying the data. It might even have been understated. The if part of the statement, that cats out of the bag. As far as the design and ability to increase the network, do want to bet against that guy [Elon] when even Alphabet has pull the plug on their project?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Iridium, despite being much lower than geostationary orbit: "Latency for data connections averages 1800 ms round-trip, with a mode of 1300 to 1400 ms and a minimum around 980 ms"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Datacenters in space (Score:2)
SUPER DUMB IDEA:
What if Starlink deployed so many nodes and satellites that it would start to make sense to put data centers in space? If all your customers were just these ground stations and Netflix had installed one of its OpenConnect appliance into orbit that sat (no pun intended) as part of its fleet? If you re-imagined the "last mile" network with Starlink and somehow they were able to have such a foothold that it's cheaper to deploy these units than to go through the dumb state/local bureaucracy of l
Re:Datacenters in space (Score:5, Insightful)
But if Microsoft can run a data center in the ocean, why can't Starlink run one in space?
Mostly because water is a good conductor of heat and space isn't.
Re: (Score:1)
And for the brief periods in darkness you can use battery power. They'll need durable Iron-Cobalt batteries since maintenance will be an issue.
Re:Datacenters in space (Score:5, Informative)
You may find that it's very difficult to exchange thermal energy with the so-called "cold" vacuum. You can only radiate it away, which is very inefficient compared to thermal conductivity.
Re: (Score:3)
Space may be cold, but not in a particularly usable way.
https://science.nasa.gov/scien... [nasa.gov]
"The Station's outstretched radiators are made of honeycomb aluminum panels. There are 14 panels, each measuring 6 by 10 feet (1.8 by 3 meters), for a total of 1680 square feet (156 square meters) of ammonia-tubing-filled heat exchange area. Compare that majestic radiator with the 3-square-foot grid of coils found in typical home air conditioners and you can begin to appreciate the scope and challenge of doing "routine"
Re: (Score:2)
https://science.nasa.gov/scien... [nasa.gov] Listen to this story Link to story audio (requires RealPlayer)
After 20 years we lost the soundtrack. The audio is packaged as .ram file which linked internally to another .rm file in nasa web server. And of course, that original genuine .rm file has disappeared, probably due to website maintainers couldn't notice that .rm file is required. A historic example of why "streaming" technology is bad most of the time (archival failure)
Re: (Score:2)
The vacuum in your thermos is the same 'temperature' as space vacuum (engineers, yeah I know not really, but you get the idea).
The same vacuum that keeps your coffee warm for hours will do the same thing for a server in orbit. And
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But general servers, explain the use-c
Oh I bet they do (Score:2)
To put it in context, if you want internet on a boat which is out at sea then you're looking at $3000 for a dish/terminal and the cheapest plans might cost $80 a month for 20Mb of data. Barely enough for email. If you were a gazillionaire on your
Re: (Score:3)
> there is no way they're going to let that captive audience get internet for the same price as someone in a populated area with multiple technologies and providers to choose from.
SpaceX's entire target market is people who have no consumer-market FCC-broadband options.
"Better than Nothing Beta"
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have it completely backwards. SpaceX can't provide service to a significant number of people in highly populated areas, so it has to have some way of picking the small fraction of those potential customers it will serve. Could be lottery, or first come first serve, or merit based (backup service for critical needs), or they could let the market decide and auction off service in areas of high demand. I think that is way more likely than trying to gouge their primary market of service in sparsely
Lets see how it evolves (Score:3)
Starlink have put out their first product, lets see how the business model evolves. The real advantage is the constellation at low earth orbit vs geostationary satellites that serve a continent or country only. The method is more costly overall simply due to how many satellites need to be put up, but increases possible throughput as there is effectively more base stations in the sky, and low latency simply because the satellites are closer to the ground. The real trick and risky part with this business model is getting full coverage to start with and selling it all to cover ongoing costs and expansion, adding in capacity is then less expensive than other models as you can keep adding in single cheap to launch low orbit satellites to match demand, which de-risks further investment in launches and system capacity.
I suspect this is actually priced about right for middle class, digital self-employed or remote workers looking to move to more rural and remote properties. Seen an increase in demand now I suspect because of covid-19. Low latency reasonably reliable internet anywhere combined with Tesla powerwalls and solar cells, looks like Elon Musk is aiming to enable off-grid log cabin in the woods digital workers... Interesting that if this is the only viable internet available with the bandwidth and latency required, it's a captive market in a few years time once enough people have changed their lives for it.
As another example, cost of putting this on a farm as a central service for the business is easily swallowed by all the other running costs of a farm that easily dwarf this cost. Add in mining operations who can take massive amounts of data if available, and may even run a cell network at the site with the data provided, but their demands would be much higher than available from a single subscription. Wealthy yacht and RV owners will also be all over this.
Re: (Score:2)
Cell companies got into trouble offering "xyz For Life."
Re: (Score:2)
To the point of allowing pricing to evolve, for how long are the terms fixed when you plonk down your $500?
Zero months. There's no contract, so no price guarantee. You pay month to month, cancel any time, and SpaceX can change the price at any time, subject to what little advanced notice regulations remain after the usual suspects asked for and got the regulations gutted.
It remains to be seen how ethical SpaceX is concerning their dealings with retail customers. So far at least, they've been very straightforward, even admitting in email this week that they had to fix a bug that would hang a process in their r
Re: (Score:2)
$99 too much? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
$99 a month for high-speed, low-latency internet almost ANYWHERE on the planet is an amazing deal, as far as I'm concerned.
anyone seen the prices of remote internet?? (Score:2)
my remote clients would love to get the kind of speeds starlink provides - which costs about 1/10th the price they are paying now for their site satellite internet.
It's because (Score:2)
They aren't trying to compete with other broadband suppliers (and people were hoping they would have a better option to than what they already had). They are trying to give internet access to those who don't have it and Starlink will be the only option.
Satellite internet will never be competitive with ground based internet, because of the infrastructure costs and because of the cost of bandwidth. The satellites are expensive but a greater expense is acquiring radio spectrum, and it's bandwidth limited. The
I think this is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
As the article notes, Spacex was never intended to be a cheap way to get internet access. It is intended as a way for under served rural customers to get fast reliable internet access. $500 just for the dish itself is a bit expensive to be honest but moving to true high speed internet is literally a game changer. It is by far the best options currently and is priced accordingly.
Maybe the price will come down eventually but they don't want to make that announcement yet, as potential customers will simply wait and they want to get as many signed up as possible. My hope is that if the price doesn't come down the government will step in and offer credits to rural customers that can't afford the high prices. Or competitors like Amazon will offer some options that might help drive down the price for everyone.
On a good day I get 40MB, which is pretty good for what I need. The problem is the outages, which occur weekly on average and sometimes more frequently. I know that Spacex is still in Beta but once it stabilizes it should be pretty solid. The higher speeds are just a bonus. The cost will be a bit higher for me but not by much so I'm willing to take the gamble. Worst case I can always go back to my current provider.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and I haven't seen anything in their TOS that prohibits that.
Re: (Score:2)
40 megabytes/sec
High cost ? (Score:2)
Cost (Score:2)
For once, the price is being driven by cost. Gwen Shotwell has publicly stated that it was costing SpaceX $3000 to build each dish for a while. They supposedly have the manufacturing cost down to $1300 now. For the moment at least, they're following the classic console model of selling the hardware at a loss and making it up on the back end with the monthly fee. They're pursuing automated assembly as fast as they can, but as Tesla has found out the hard way (among many others), automation isn't easy. I
No tiered pricing yet ... (Score:2)
They're waiting until they have satellites at notably different altitudes ...
Equipment limited bandwidth? (Score:2)