Brought to you by the US taxpayers.

The solution to the german internet wasteland?

ty_gerBrought to you by the US taxpayers.

Nope, rather its brought to you by narcissistic billionaire with serious God complex.

ChaitanyaNope, rather its brought to you by narcissistic billionaire with serious God complex.

Both

Starlink has received subsidies even though they whitewashed it real well by flooding it with information about the one big subsidy they didn't get. Secondly, they fly on SpaceX, which is heavily government subsidized.

Now if only they would minimize the monthly rate too…

That is actually pretty cool just for the basic portability and ease of setup.

hsewNow if only they would minimize the monthly rate too…

It was $90 a month in undeserved areas, they are installing fiber to the home and it's going to be $120.00 a month now.

I wonder if I can sell them unused bandwidth back up of the new fiber for $120 a month.

SteevoIt was $90 a month in undeserved areas, they are installing fiber to the home and it's going to be $120.00 a month now.

I wonder if I can sell them unused bandwidth back up of the new fiber for $120 a month.

So glad I live in a country with reasonably priced broadband. I actually pay more than many for symmetrical 1 Gbps at US$43 a month, due to the fibre being owned by the old state telco, so they rip off the service providers, which means I have to pay more. And Sweden isn't even cheap compared to some eastern European countries...

TheLostSwedeSo glad I live in a country with reasonably priced broadband. I actually pay more than many for symmetrical 1 Gbps at US$43 a month, due to the fibre being owned by the old state telco, so they rip off the service providers, which means I have to pay more. And Sweden isn't even cheap compared to some eastern European countries...

$120/month for 1000/40 cable here. Seven years ago you couldn't even get 5Mbps DSL because they were oversold and the entire town was served by a 200Mbps pipe.

TheLostSwedeSo glad I live in a country with reasonably priced broadband. I actually pay more than many for symmetrical 1 Gbps at US$43 a month, due to the fibre being owned by the old state telco, so they rip off the service providers, which means I have to pay more. And Sweden isn't even cheap compared to some eastern European countries...

Where I live in Dalarna 1000/1000 fiber costs from 54,5 Euro / 59 USD to the mid 70s. . . For my part my apartment is locked to Telia who want to charge the same price for 100/100 so I pay for mobile broadband instead. I pay 27 Euro / 29 USD for my mobile broadband from Comviq, and am getting this speed (behind VPN and via wifi) while writing this:



Wish my landlord could get their shit together. . .

JasBCWhere I live in Dalarna 1000/1000 fiber costs from 54,5 Euro / 59 USD to the mid 70s. . . For my part my apartment is locked to Telia who want to charge the same price for 100/100 so I pay for mobile broadband instead. I pay 27 Euro / 29 USD for my mobile broadband from Comviq, and am getting this speed (behind VPN and via wifi) while writing this:



Wish my landlord could get their shit together. . .

Yeah, had Telia in my previous flat, they suck in terms of pricing. "Open" fibre here, except it's owned by Telia...

I have 1000/1000 fiber in the USA and the price has fluctuated in the $70 to $80 USD range. I am ecstatic, especially since I have no other option where I am other than cellular or satelite crap. The cable company said they could hook us up for around $20,000 USD, but fiber hooked up for free. Go figure. You can tell what cable's priority is: easy money from existing infrastructure and existing customers just running that infrastructure to its limits.

I have always been curious as to the current radio to microwave background radiation now vs before humans.

ty_gerBoth

Starlink has received subsidies even though they whitewashed it real well by flooding it with information about the one big subsidy they didn't get. Secondly, they fly on SpaceX, which is heavily government subsidized.

Is it really a subsidy when SpaceX is bringing the cost of launching rockets into space by a very large margin? US Tax payers have been paying the exorbitant costs of launching rockets with ULA using Russian engines for quite some time. SpaceX comes along and just drops the price to near nothing. Not to mention re-using the same rockets over and over vs dumping them into the ocean or letting them burn up. Sure they got some government money but only because they are able to save the same government even more over the long run.

Everyone is quick to hate 'because man bad' but take the mouth piece with the accomplishments tied to him as well. Even if bad man didn't do it him self, he cleared the way for his teams to accomplish it which no one else has been able to do to date.

BobweadababyitsaboySpaceX comes along and just drops the price to near nothing.

You mean near the same. $70 million vs $80 million. When it's Starlink's payload, it's mysteriously cheaper. When it's the government's, a slight modification for the payload mysteriously makes the cost almost equal with the competitor's price. Hmm. I wonder if Starlink is benefiting from something that wouldn't exist without billions of dollars of government funding.

SpaceX is significantly cheaper when it is convenient to market that it is. And equally expensive when it is convenient to get money. It's all a play and all the numbers are purposely meaningless.

Reuse doesn't lower cost and isn't feasible for heavy missions. We'll see if they retire the idea or are too married to the marketing.

ty_gerYou mean near the same. $70 million vs $80 million. When it's Starlink's payload, it's mysteriously cheaper. When it's the government's, a slight modification for the payload mysteriously makes the cost almost equal with the competitor's price. Hmm. I wonder if Starlink is benefiting from something that wouldn't exist without billions of dollars of government funding.

SpaceX is significantly cheaper when it is convenient to market that it is. And equally expensive when it is convenient to get money. It's all a play and all the numbers are purposely meaningless.

Reuse doesn't lower cost and isn't feasible for heavy missions. We'll see if they retire the idea or are too married to the marketing.

Agree to disagree:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competition
Everyone else dumps their trash in the ocean. SpaceX lands their rockets on floating drones in the ocean to recover them.

Nonsense, lol. Using some numbers from 4 years ago. lol


I think a reliable, inexpensive, effective, one-time use booster is better than an overly complicated, less reliable, more expensive, less-effective booster. SpaceX already abandoned reuse of some stages, and there's no telling if they will abandon more.

If it wasn't for SpaceX introducing competition, we would not be seeing cheaper / more flights into space atm. Hate the person, not the accomplishments.

Help me understand this:
SpaceX is cheaper to launch than the competition but you claim its more expensive.
SpaceX uses the same rocket multiple times but you claim a single use rocket is more reliable. That single rocket is sitting in the bottom of the ocean and not used again....

[I]reliable[/I]

giving the same result on successive trials

BobweadababyitsaboyHelp me understand this:
SpaceX is cheaper to launch than the competition but you claim its more expensive.

Well, I'm not sure about that. It isn't significantly cheaper, at least. Recently, SpaceX was reportedly charging US $70 million per mission, which is only slightly cheaper than Russian competition. It's really hard to know their actual costs since they constantly claim different values. I would say that at least for us taxpayers, it isn't significantly cheaper.
Since they have different numbers on different days depending on what is most convenient to them at the time, I conclude that is an example of one of the ways Starlink is subsidized by US tax payers. Surely there is some monkey business going on.

SpaceX uses the same rocket multiple times but you claim a single use rocket is more reliable. That single rocket is sitting in the bottom of the ocean and not used again....

[I]reliable[/I]

giving the same result on successive trials

A solid rocket booster is inherently more reliable. It's just plain obvious. Many moving parts, spinning real fast, tight manufacturing tolerances, exotic metals and chemistry, versus a bottle rocket.
The simple booster is cheaper and more reliable. You use it, and then it is done.
You have to reuse the reusable rocket over and over just to try to achieve price parity, and in the process you are losing effective thrust each time. It's fractions and fractions over and over compounding to try to achieve price parity with a simple solid booster. And for what? No obvious benefit other than marketing. When it was Mars, it could have made sense regarding chemistry of making fuel for return. But that is all but abandoned and forgotten now; and even then it didn't make sense why the booster which returned to earth should be reusable. For testing purposes, I guess?
The cheap single-use booster wasn't what killed the US space program. Reusable rockets are a solution to a problem that didn't exist.

BobweadababyitsaboyEveryone is quick to hate 'because man bad' but take the mouth piece with the accomplishments tied to him as well.

I'll just credit his engineers and hope he never gets directly involved, thanks.

SpaceX keeps winning despite their 'tard in charge.
ULA/Arianespace/Soyuz all dead or limited to ultra-niche products. And they're all government subsidized too. Only PRC can compete (as a direct government operation).

GigaherzThe solution to the german internet wasteland?

So wait they don't got good speeds there? Thought they would since they have good engineers there.... they made bitwig, which is an amazing DAW so surely they'd have good internet there cuz a lot of other music tech is made there as well as architectural firms that design the best buildings and such...so you think that would drive more demand!

meanwhile in my small town in west virginia we have 3 ISPs that are 1Gbps+ serving most of the area and it's a very blue collar town.

remixedcatSo wait they don't got good speeds there?

Germany is kind of famous for its terrible infrastructure compared to post soviet states haha. But yes, very very few people have high speed internet here. Not available, and even if, way to expensive. In Europe only Ukraine and Greece have it worse. I run my internet over Cable TV
ftth-council-europe-slide-source-ftth-council-europe-18080.jpeg (2034×1144) (telecomtv.com)

JohHSpaceX keeps winning despite their 'tard in charge.

He's busy with something on twitter so makes sense.

R-T-BHe's busy with something on twitter so makes sense.

hope he gets spread so thinly actual engineers can do things they need to do cuz elon is distracted by the next thing lol