Low-Earth Orbit Satellite Internet (up to 370Mbps/51.6Mbps) $139/Month + $809 Hardware Delivered @ Starlink (Excludes NT)

3780

Low-Earth Orbit Satellite Internet (up to 370Mbps/51.6Mbps) $139/Month + $809 Hardware Delivered @ Starlink (Excludes NT)

[Deactivated] on 27/11/2021 - 21:45 starlink.com (8988 clicks)
Last edited 05/12/2021 - 19:16 by 3 other users

I have checked address
[NSW][VIC][SA][WA][TAS][QLD][ACT] I've tried all these addresses and only [NT] Northern Territory was not covered so this is basically Australia Wide.
QLD and WA only seems to cover some areas right now.

Elon Musk’s space venture - Starlink is now available for orders now!

Starlink is a satellite internet service providing high-speed, low latency broadband internet with speeds from 50Mb/s to 400Mb/s and latency from 20ms to 40ms. Early users are reporting speeds of 300Mbps+.

I've been checking every month and its now out of preorder for 99% of Australian addresses

You will need to pay $809 for hardware ($709 satellite dish +$100 shipping) and a $139/month service fee.

This looks like an attractive option for those on NBN satellite. Also can be worthwhile to replace a slower NBN connection due to the exorbitant prices for a NBN FTTP upgrade.

Starlink is now out of beta, and max speeds have doubled from 150mbps to 250mbps+ for most reviewers I saw on Youtube
"As we launch more satellites, install more ground stations and improve our networking software, data speed, latency and uptime will improve dramatically."

As a point of reference, the best speeds I have seen on Youtube achieved on Starlink in Australia are
Download: 370 Mbps
Upload: 51.6 Mbps
Ping: 20 ms

Referral Links

Referral: random (37)

1 Month of free service for referrer and referee.

Internet Broadband Satellite Internet

15 Jul 2022 3:07pm

Related Stores

Starlink

closed Comments

- - - - 1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 10:33
        
        @MasterScythe:
        
        You've tried to compare national infrastructure to personal consumables.
        
        Nope I've compare a common good to a commodity. A lot of people make that mistake…
        
        If you dont think access to efficient communication is a 'right' in these modern times; that is why/where we wont convince each other, so, thats fine.
        
        Well any 'rights' that you want to argue should be enforced by the government have to be defined in law. I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist, but I'm happy for you to send me a reference that says otherwise.
        
        MasterScythe on 29/11/2021 - 12:41
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Nope I've compare a common good to a commodity. A lot of people make that mistake…
        
        ATM's, Security services, Emergency Services, Resource monitoring, Telephone, Internet, Medical Alert systems, Tax reporting, banking…. all run over NBN infrastructure. You forget it's literally the ONLY backbone that exists in the country anymore. The only 'competitors' are intranet systems.
        
        Even loss-leaders hemorrhaging money like Starlink eventually relies on Australias NBN backbone to access local Australian internet content.
        
        I agree, a lot of people make thje mistake of what a commodity is in this modern world.
        If you want to go off grid, and pay no taxes and such, you're welcome to; but most people aren't going to follow.
        
        You seem set on indoctrinating people into your way of thinking. You never seem OK with people having different ideals, you just shoot them down, rather than learning from them. It's not healthy.
        
        Well any 'rights' that you want to argue should be enforced by the government have to be defined in law.
        
        Why? I don't need a law to tell me what I consider a right. It's all opinion based anyway.
        It's not like I'm a wimp, I don't need a lawmaker to hold my hand to feel safe.
    - Korban Dallas on 27/11/2021 - 22:42
      
      +27
      
      LNP stuff up everything. Yet more than half of you keep voting them I so here we are.
      - Hairy Nosed Wombat on 27/11/2021 - 23:59 Comment score below threshold.
        
        Korban Dallas on 28/11/2021 - 01:20
        
        +17
        
        @Hairy Nosed Wombat: Oh gee boomer. Got a brainwashed victim here.
        
        Mate when was labor last elected?
        
        1st-Amendment on 28/11/2021 - 09:31
        
        -4
        
        @Korban Dallas:
        
        Oh gee boomer. Got a brainwashed victim here.
        
        So you're proving him right with a moronic response like that?
        The lack of self awareness on the left never ceases to amaze…
        
        Hairy Nosed Wombat on 28/11/2021 - 19:15
        
        -1
        
        @Korban Dallas: Federal Labor was 2013. Not smart enough to use Google?
        
        Korban Dallas on 29/11/2021 - 02:52
        
        @Hairy Nosed Wombat: Actually I am a researcher and employ critical literacy.
        
        I don't treat people's opinion as facts.
        
        I use a lot more than just Google.
        
        I thought you didn't know cause you keep blaming those who are not in power.
    - Rob-4x4 on 28/11/2021 - 07:57
      
      +19
      
      Having to redo the copper based FTTN technology is "Only" costing the tax payer around 4 billion or so (At least) ..
      
      But don't forget the Murdoch medial empire ran a big anti NBN campaign to try and protect their Foxtel investment … so a fair degree of the blame for the FTTN fiasco can be laid at the feet of Murdoch.. and some of the Shock Jocks like Alan Jones with his "Not Bloody Needed" campaign
      
      A big reason for rolling out fiber was that most of the copper CAN was stuffed.. thanks to years of maintenance neglect after Telstra was privatized ..So the logic at the time was that since you were going to have to replace the CAN anyway which was going to be hugely expensive you should just use fiber… Still hugely expensive but will have lower ongoing maintenance costs and more options for increasing capacity , like the 1GB to home services we are now seeing..
      
      Also most of the equipment that the copper CAN connected in exchanges to was not longer manufactured and it was getting difficult and expensive to maintain that as well
      
      Malcom himself certainly understood this and was pro FTTP but politics from the right of the LNP ( Think Morrison etc) forced him to push the FTTN rubbish (From a cousin who is a friend of Malcom)
      
      Oh.. I am currently one of the lucky ones with FTTP and a 1GB home service .. it is been terrific with work from home thanks to Covid …I have better access to client networks etc from home than I did from the office thanks to the FTTP service…
      - 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2021 - 09:54
        
        -6
        
        @Rob-4x4:
        
        So the logic at the time was that since you were going to have to replace the CAN anyway which was going to be hugely expensive you should just use fiber…
        
        Not true. If you proceed on a false assumption, you will only end up with a false conclusion.
        
        The argument was that if the Internet has value, that gap will be solved by the market (eg Starlink), and if that is the case why does the government need to get involved?
        Technological innovation would render whatever NBN infrastructure obsolete before it's paid off, and that is turning out to be true. More than half of internet services is now via mobile, so the NBN is already a white elephant. The numbers are something like 85% of NBN users have plans under 100Mbps, and how many of those already had fast internet before NBN? I've had 100Mb HFC for years, I'm sure I'm not the only one.
        
        it is been terrific with work from home thanks to Covid
        
        Same, but I didn't need a taxpayer funded white elephant to do it
        
        joshau on 28/11/2021 - 10:34
        
        +15
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        More than half of internet services is now via mobile, so the NBN is already a white elephant. The numbers are something like 85% of NBN users have plans under 100Mbps, and how many of those already had fast internet before NBN? I've had 100Mb HFC for years, I'm sure I'm not the only one.
        
        I feel like you're arguing against yourself here. The reason why "half of internet services is now via mobile" (no idea where you got that number from, but I digress), "85% of NBN users have plans under 100Mbps", "already had fast internet before NBN" etc, is because the current alternative access network that's been built has been such a giant failure. The FTTN network is so useless it forces "half of Australia" onto mobile internet services. It's so useless that 85% of NBN users can't get anywhere near 100Mbps connections. It's so useless that some Australian's actually had faster internet before the NBN was made available to them. The Government has even indirectly admitted so, by announcing plans to upgrade the vast majority of the alternative access network (FTTN, HFC etc) to FTTP over the coming years.
        
        You only have to look at places like Europe who almost exclusively operate FTTP networks, and offer unmetered 1Gbps symmetric internet connections for less than $40 per month. If we actually had a viable access technology on the NBN, people wouldn't be forced onto mobile network services, satellite internet, fixed wireless etc.
        
        As for HFC, it's a great intermediate technology, however it has the same congestion problems as other wireless technologies. Fiber has a clear upgrade path forward. It can do 1Gbps today, 10Gbps tomorrow, 100Gbps in 20 years. HFC is stuck with awfully low asymmetric speeds, and while it has been proven to be able to hit 1Gbps downstream speeds, it's stuck with sub 100Mbps upstream speeds (a limitation of the technology).
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 08:02
        
        @joshau:
        
        I feel like you're arguing against yourself here.
        
        Well you said that but never really explained why.
        
        no idea where you got that number from
        
        3 seconds of googling: https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/mobile-internet-traffic
        Mobile market share was 6% in 2011 when the NBN was touted as the future of the internet, and it's currently at 56% and climbing. ie fixed line services are already mostly obsolete for most people.
        
        I work in this space, and pretty much every new website/service is developed for mobile-first now because it how most people use it.
        Sure not everybody does, but $50B is a lot of taxpayer money for something that most people increasingly don't choose to use.
        
        The FTTN network is so useless it forces "half of Australia" onto mobile internet services
        
        You've made a false assumption here. People globally are moving to mobile even when they have high quality, high speed fixed line services available.This is a market trend that was predicted by some smart people when they opposed NBN, but those people were shouted down because 'think of the children'.
        
        You only have to look at places like Europe who almost exclusively operate FTTP networks, and offer unmetered 1Gbps symmetric internet connections for less than $40 per month
        
        And yet they also choose to mostly use mobile, and their mobile services are rather average compared to Australia.
        The point here is that an objective cost/benefit of NBN is questionable. Of course some people benefited, and those people love it. But that is not the role of government to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on vanity projects.
        
        BinaryPirate on 30/11/2021 - 05:02
        
        +2
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        3 seconds of googling: https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/mobile-internet-traffic
        Mobile market share was 6% in 2011 when the NBN was touted as the future of the internet, and it's currently at 56% and climbing. ie fixed line services are already mostly obsolete for most people.
        
        You should have spent longer than 3 seconds googling. That stat is for mobile impressions of web pages, not web pages accessed by mobile networks.
        
        …every new website/service is developed for mobile-first now because it how most people use it
        
        Aye. How they use it. Not the network service they use to access it. They're two very different things.
        
        As for why the govt needed to get involved; while Europe & Asia were getting Gbps services, Australia was stuck on ADSL & 10mbps HFC, with mobiles only just switching from GPRS to HSDPA. The then-CDMA network did have an upper limit at the time of 2Gbps but Telstra throttled it at 256kbps for the simple reason that - as with HFC - no competitor had a competing service. Telstra could charge outrageous amounts for marginal speed increases & customers would be forced to pay through the nose.
        
        Further, many people were still stuck on dial-up, the result of Telstra's Cheapest Possible Half-Price Used Band-Aid approach to maintaining the national network. Another result of this approach was people living 1-2kms from their exchange suffered degraded ADSL service b/c their connection did a lap of surrounding suburbs instead of a being as direct as possible.
        To cap the debacle off, Telstra was refusing to build more DSLAMs b/c they didn't want to let wholesale customers such as ISPs have access to their monopoly's capacity.
        
        Without Labor stepping in with the NBN, Telstra would still be imposing artificial speed limits on internet services, only ever increasing speeds when a competitor(s) had closed the gap & threatened Telstra's monopoly position.
        
        Instead we've got the NBNCo selling tiered access to speeds they can't meet b/c of the absolute abortion of a national network the Coalition gave us, primarily so LNP politicians could one day say, "See? We told you the NBN wouldn't be very good & it wouldn't work properly. In the interests of customer satisfaction we sold it to Telstra's shareholders [& our donors] for two cents on the dollar"
        
        1st-Amendment on 30/11/2021 - 08:38
        
        -4
        
        @BinaryPirate:
        
        You should have spent longer than 3 seconds googling.
        
        Why?
        
        That stat is for mobile impressions of web pages, not web pages accessed by mobile networks.
        
        You never explained why that is different or how that is relevant?
        Maybe you could spend more than 3 seconds googling and tell us why you think mobile is not a major channel for internet consumption, and how the NBN fits into that strategy?
        
        Without Labor stepping in with the NBN, Telstra would still be imposing artificial speed limits on internet services
        
        The solution to a monopoly is not another monopoly.
        
        Mod: Removed inflammatory statement
        
        BinaryPirate on 30/11/2021 - 11:45
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Why?
        
        If you can't understand the difference between using a mobile to access websites & using mobile networks to access websites, perhaps commenting on the usefulness of networks is not for you.
        
        The solution to a monopoly is not another monopoly
        
        A govt-run public utility & resource which all commercial providers have access to at the same rates is not the same as a monopoly.
        
        Free-marketeers who extol the virtues of private industry while the govt pays their way are one of life's little joys.
        
        1st-Amendment on 30/11/2021 - 17:31
        
        -1
        
        @BinaryPirate:
        
        If you can't understand the difference
        
        That wasn't the question, I asked you to explain why you think that matters. Do you honestly think mobile internet is not a major chunk of the market?
        
        A govt-run public utility & resource which all commercial providers have access to at the same rates is not the same as a monopoly.
        
        Lol too funny…
        
        Free-marketeers who extol the virtues of private industry while the govt pays their way are one of life's little joys.
        
        Oh man you really are a cartoon character….
        
        BinaryPirate on 30/11/2021 - 18:32
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        That wasn't the question, I asked you to explain why you think that matters. Do you honestly think mobile internet is not a major chunk of the market?
        
        It's irrelevant. You misrepresented a statistic you didn't understand b/c you thought it helped you. Your hypothesis about mobile internet use & the NBN is equally as facile as Greg Hunt believing the public wanted the NBN just for streaming movies.
        
        Oh man you really are a cartoon character….
        
        This is why you're one of life's little joys. There isn't much in a person's life which isn't underpinned by govt intervention, so I could not have asked for a better demonstration of your lack of knowledge than for you to go straight to personal attacks.
        
        I would suggest you go back to jerking off over private toll roads but even those invariably fail into bankruptcy without govt funds to bail them out.
        
        1st-Amendment on 01/12/2021 - 07:49
        
        @BinaryPirate:
        
        It's irrelevant. You misrepresented a statistic
        
        Lol, what is your actual statistic so we can compare? If you close your eyes and wish hard enough, maybe mobile Internet doesn't exist at all!
        Telstra and Optus are investing billions in mobile networks for no reason at all!
        Maybe no-one will ever use Starlink and Elon got it wrong. He's got nothing on our man Stephen Conroy….
        
        so I could not have asked for a better demonstration of your lack of knowledge than for you to go straight to personal attacks.
        
        Yet your attack on me was fine? Cartoon character indeed….
        
        If you have an argument other than 'mobile internet isn't a thing' then present it. Try to focus on the argument if you can…
        
        BinaryPirate on 05/12/2021 - 00:08
        
        @1st-Amendment: rofl
        
        1st-Amendment on 05/12/2021 - 13:26
        
        @BinaryPirate: No actual argument then? Good to know….
        
        BinaryPirate on 05/12/2021 - 23:02
        
        @1st-Amendment: What I'm waiting for [not really] is for you to figure out all I've said is your statistic doesn't show what you said it showed.
        
        Anything else is entirely your problem.
        
        1st-Amendment on 06/12/2021 - 09:50
        
        @BinaryPirate:
        
        all I've said is your statistic doesn't show what you said it showed.
        
        Well you said a bit more than that, it's all there in black and white. But I'll concede that my first 3 second google didn't fully support my claim. Upon a further 3 seconds of research, my original point still stands, that mobile is an increasingly larger share of the market which the NBN has no answer for: https://www.vodafone.com.au/media/wp-content/uploads/sites/2…
        
        I wonder if you accept the executive summary of this report?
        
        Anything else is entirely your problem.
        
        Well now tell us with a straight face how the NBN is not a monopoly lol, or maybe how your lame attempt to belittle the power of free markets on a website specifically to built to embrace the power of the free market?
        
        BinaryPirate on 08/12/2021 - 19:28
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        your lame attempt to belittle the power of free markets
        
        Au contraire, I belittled free-market zealots who are perfectly happy to collect every govt handout they're 'entitled' to without ever once saying, "No thanks. I'd like to pay the free-market price without the Marxist govt subsidy".
        
        If I'd wanted to belittle the free market, I'd say something like "The free market had at the very least a decade-long headstart & categorically failed to build anything. It's now circling the half-assed, cocked-up, sub-standard-even-when-it-works, rusty-cans-on-an-even-rustier-string NBN; waiting to buy it for pennies on the dollar because why build your own in a free market when you can rip off the taxpayer."
        
        I wonder if you accept the executive summary of this report?
        
        Why wouldn't I? The LNP so comprehensively screwed Australia out of a first rate service it's little wonder the NBN is taking the passenger seat alongside mobile networks that are - but shouldn't be - faster & more reliable than the white elephant Tony Abbott & his cabinet of fragile egos inflicted upon us.
        Instead of the broader European experience of high-speed reliable fixed internet complemented by slightly slower mobile broadband, the free market failed and the pro-corporate, free-marketeer goons of the LNP compounded the error, snatching an eminently predictable lacklustre defeat from the jaws of victory.
        
        now tell us with a straight face how the NBN is not a monopoly
        
        Read my lips: "The NBN is not a monopoly. It's govt utility to which all commercial providers have equal access. Commercial providers are free to deploy their own fibre-optic network in competition to the NBN. They're even allowed to do so and still hook it back into the NBN's data centres, a la Aussie Broadband".
        
        Continue reading my lips: "Even if the NBN is a monopoly idgaf. I care about fast reliable broadband. I don't care who provides it or how. In private sector, 'free market' hands we'd be fighting against artificial throttling & a mish-mash of services not unlike the days of ADSL vs HFC vs the dreaded RIM & pair gain, not to mention customer service being run out of supermax prisons in lower Djibouti in the interests of [lol] 'putting the customer first'.
        
        While there are many things the private sector does far better than the public sector, there are things the private sector just can't do due to the dearth of profitability in distance. Healthcare, education, electricity & broadband in Australia are only profitable when corners get cut, services are limited & claims are denied to protect the poor, vulnerable shareholders.
        
        As far as continuing this conversation is concerned, you can establish your free market credibility by showing me a receipt from a chemist where you paid the full commercial >$200 price of a common medication, not the PBS fixed price of ~$22.
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/12/2021 - 09:41
        
        @BinaryPirate:
        
        belittled free-market zealots who are perfectly happy to collect every govt handout
        
        Oh right you assumed all that? How cute…
        
        "The NBN is not a monopoly.
        Even if the NBN is a monopoly idgaf. I care about fast reliable broadband.
        
        Lol you don't sound so sure now, Which is it?
        
        As far as continuing this conversation is concerned, you can establish your free market credibility
        
        Oh I see you attempted another strawman lol… Next time try reading the argument and offering a counter argument to what I said rather than what you made up in your head. It will make you seem less unhinged…
        
        BinaryPirate on 09/12/2021 - 23:02
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Straw man
        Lol you don't sound so sure now
        
        roflmao
        
        Put away your copy of The Big Book of Internet Arguing Words then go learn some reading comprehension a bit more advanced than 'See Spot Run'. Whilst it's amusing watching someone use terms they don't understand, which you quite obviously don't, conversing with clowns who can't read just isn't my thing.
        
        2024 on 28/11/2021 - 15:04
        
        +3
        
        @1st-Amendment: I’m perfectly happy using my push bike to go everywhere and I do not believe tax payers should fund roads. Especially highways. Those things are a colossal waste of money. If there was a need for them then the market will respond and fund interstate highways and charge for their use.
        I don’t understand why the government has to get involved.
        Infact, Looking at my own usage and applying it to everyone else, I don’t really see a need to travel faster then 5-10 kph. Im perfectly happy with it how it is.
        Technological innovation will render roads useless. Drones are making leaps and bounds. We need to stop this useless spending on an already dead technology.
        /s
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 07:47
        
        -1
        
        @2024:
        
        I’m perfectly happy using my push bike to go everywhere and I do not believe tax payers should fund roads
        
        I'm sure you thought you were being clever here, but this is pretty the default counter-argument from anyone who have not even the most fundamental understanding of economics.
        If you are genuinely interested in why an Internet service is not the same as a road, look up common good vs commodity.
        
        TL;DR: A road is a common good therefore is a thing that governments have a place in managing, that is one of the legitimate roles of government. The Internet isn't and therefore they shouldn't. Just like the government shouldn't be in the business of selling TV's or Ice Cream, why are they competing with private companies selling commodity items?
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 12:46
        
        @1st-Amendment: The government sells the spectrum that TV uses.
        
        I do view the internet as a common good. Infact it’s a global good. The ability to express ones opinion and hear others is a basic human right. And this is exactly what the internet is.
        
        And let’s not forget that the internet was created by public institutions and the US government.
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 13:04
        
        @2024:
        
        I do view the internet as a common good
        
        So you simply ignored what I said then. What you think doesn't count. Words have meanings and it doesn't fit the definition.
        
        The government sells the spectrum that TV uses.
        
        True, and do you know why that is? Because a radio wave is a non-rivalrous service. You cannot have two competing services run on the same wavelength, so it qualifies as a 'common good'. There nothing to stop rival companies providing internet services, therefore it is not a common good.
        
        What you 'feel' doesn't matter, the fact that internet service is a rivalrous product or service (ie multiple parties can provide) means that it does not fit the definition.
        
        Infact it’s a global good.
        
        Well you're using your own definitions here which is what you seem to be stuck on.
        
        The ability to express ones opinion and hear others is a basic human right
        
        Cool, and you have that ability right now, and you had before the NBN, and you'll have it after the NBN.
        
        And this is exactly what the internet is.
        
        No it isn't. And the NBN isn't the internet. It is merely one provider of that service.
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 13:27
        
        @1st-Amendment: And that’s why it became an election issue I guess. Many understand that it is a common good, and many see it is a commodity.
        
        It’s very similar to the net neutrality debate.
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 14:30
        
        -1
        
        @2024:
        
        Many understand that it is a common good,
        
        Sure, and they'd be wrong.
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 14:57
        
        @1st-Amendment: They’re actually correct.
        Mr Obama alluded to this in 2008 when he said this during the state of the union
        
        “I intend to protect a free and open Internet, extend its reach to every classroom, and every community, and help folks build the fastest network”
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 15:07
        
        @2024:
        
        They’re actually correct.
        
        No amount of repeating yourself makes it true.
        
        Mr Obama alluded to this
        
        Oh Jesus, that is your argument? Because Barry said so?
        
        Read this so you won't sound so clueless next time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics)
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 15:21
        
        @1st-Amendment: “are rivalrous and non-excludable” from that article
        
        I’ll let you figure out how the internet fits that lol
        
        Sure I’d take his word over yours any day lmao
        
        PS spectrum is rivalrous - you said it was non rivalrous.
        
        But I do welcome more links supporting my position
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 15:43
        
        @2024:
        
        PS spectrum is rivalrous - you said it was non rivalrous.
        
        Yep a typo, the point still stands. When you use the NBN it doesn't stop me from using Starlink right? Therefore ISP's are not a common good.
        
        I’ll let you figure out how the internet fits that lol
        
        Well answer the question above, do you think your use of NBN prevents me from using any other ISP?
        
        But I do welcome more links supporting my position
        
        Well your position was that it is a common good because you think it's good. I'm glad I helped you learn something today.
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 15:47
        
        @1st-Amendment: Let’s share an IP address
        Wait
        It’s rivalrous
        Get a clue lmao
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 15:59
        
        @2024:
        
        Let’s share an IP address
        
        Lol, thanks for the comedy hour…
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 16:08
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: A road network connects various points to each other, does it not? (Unlike your posts)
        See if you can finish the next sentence using the above as a hint
        A computer network connects…..
        Various points together
        The internet is a giant computer net…..
        Network
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 16:17
        
        -1
        
        @2024: I have one road to my house, and that road physically prevents any other road from being built
        I have multiple internet connections at my house, neither of which interfere with each other.
        
        I thought you learned something, but it appears not.
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 16:30
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: I happen to understand roads and computer networks. It’s my job. It’s all good you won’t convince me like this.
        
        How about that one road coming in? Dig it up, put 2 in its place. Wow you’ve got more roads
        
        That’s what’s happening with your internet.
        
        But remember. Each point those 2 roads connect to is slightly different. Rivalrous. Just like your internet connections. Slightly different. Rivalrous.
        
        Anything on the internet basically needs an IP address. These aren’t unlimited. When I’m using an IP address, it means no one else can use that address. Just like your multiple internet connections. They have different addresses.
        
        I am lucky to have FTTP NBN. I have multiple connections too. All at over 250mbit. It’s great
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 16:45
        
        @2024:
        
        I happen to understand roads and computer networks. It’s my job.
        
        Oh my you must be so smart lol.
        
        How about that one road coming in? Dig it up, put 2 in its place. Wow you’ve got more roads
        
        Lol so smart! What is physics?
        
        Anything on the internet basically needs an IP address.
        
        What is Nat, or IP v6 lol Maybe ask your boss about how that works…
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 16:51
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: Ip6 isn’t infinite
        NAT exists because it’s rivalrous - if it wasn’t, NAT wouldn’t even be necessary ahahahahah
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 17:01
        
        -1
        
        @2024:
        
        NAT is because it’s rivalrous - if it wasn’t Nat wouldn’t be necessary
        
        The 80's called they want your problems back…
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 17:04
        
        @1st-Amendment: Ahh yes that was shortly after the internet was created by universities and the military.
        
        And to think government shouldn’t be involved. What were they thinking….
        
        1st-Amendment on 29/11/2021 - 17:24
        
        @2024:
        
        And to think government shouldn’t be involved.
        
        ARPANET was a defence project, defence being one of the legitimate functions of government. Nothing whatsoever to do with the NBN.
        You really are learning a lot today!
        
        What other strawmen would you like to throw around?
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 17:37
        
        @1st-Amendment: Legitimate according to whom? The founding fathers?
        
        NBN has nothing to do with the predecessor of the internet? That’s news to me aha. I mean c’mon they both have “network” in their names rofl
        
        So dare I ask how do you feel about universal health care? Free education? Is that a role that is acceptable to you for our government?
        
        2024 on 29/11/2021 - 22:18
        
        @1st-Amendment: Ok so we are both wrong about how to define the internet.
        Turns out the internet is a public good. Just like flood control, street lights, and national security. Who looks after those for us plebs, eh? G men ;)
        
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)
        
        1st-Amendment on 30/11/2021 - 08:44
        
        @2024:
        
        Ok so we are both wrong about how to define the internet.
        
        You are still confused. We are not defining the Internet, or IP address ranges, or ARPANET any other thing you want to try use to deflect the actual argument. The NBN is merely a service provider.
        
        But you can only flog a dead horse for so long… you keep believing in the dream….
        
        2024 on 30/11/2021 - 09:08
        
        @1st-Amendment: Ahahaha no worries mate I guess Wikipedia, the US president and the very one else is WRONG and your are RIGHT
        
        Lmao what a mess
        
        Let’s face it. Telstra had a monopoly in Australia for the last mile. They were owned by the people then got sold to become a private company. When that happened, the network turned to garbage. There was no innovation or progress. Our Government intervened and started to build a world class network. But then shills created all this FUD and we got what? A system where the last mile is based on the same tech a telegraph! Yeah that’s progression. That’s high tech. SMH
        
        1st-Amendment on 01/12/2021 - 08:11
        
        @2024:
        
        Ahahaha no worries mate I guess Wikipedia, the US president and the very one else is WRONG and your are RIGHT
        
        No I'm not right because I say so (there's a lesson in there for you), I demonstrated that the NBN is nonrivalrous using the definition of the words. Because a consumer can use the internet without being on the NBN, it is nonrivalrous, therefore is not an economic common good.
        
        That's the logic in nutshell.
        
        The road analogy we've covered, is the opposite. When you are on the road, I cannot use that same space that you are using. When a road goes past my house, no-one else can build another road in the same place. It is rivalrous therefore qualifies as a common good.
        
        We didn't even go into the non-excludable part of the definition for Common good, but that also supports my position, since an ISP can refuse a customer, or block them but a public road is public.
        
        So roads are not the same as the internet from an economic standpoint, even if they share similar characteristics in other ways.
        
        Let’s face it. Telstra had a monopoly in Australia for the last mile…
        
        Whether the Internet was is of an expected standard or not does not change definition of an economic common good. If Telstra rolled out the gold plated FTTP to every home in Australia it would still not be a common good, since Optus or TPG or Vocus etc could in theory also do the same thing if they choose to, making it nonrivalrous, therefore not a common good.
        
        This is fundamental economics. I get that not everyone understands that, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
        
        The ironic part is that you identify that Telstra's monopoly gave poor outcomes (I think we agree here), yet you're don't see that simply creating another monopoly in the NBN won't have a similar result at some point in the future?
        
        If monopolies are generally bad for the consumer, why create more of them?
        
        2024 on 01/12/2021 - 09:05
        
        @1st-Amendment: Did you have a moment yesterday and forget that the internet is classified as a public good? Time for a nap.
        
        Here maybe try zoom text or something because here, I’ve copied and pasted what I said:
        
        “They were owned by the people then got sold to become a private company. When that happened, the network turned to garbage. There was no innovation or progress.”
        
        Monopolies can work out. Isn’t government a monopoly?
        
        1st-Amendment on 02/12/2021 - 07:51
        
        @2024:
        
        Did you have a moment yesterday and forget that the internet is classified as a public good?
        
        Sorry I forgot that you simply saying stuff doesn't automatically make it true. What a wonderful world in must be in your head.
        
        From your own link: "In economics, a public good (also referred to as a social good or collective good)[1] is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. For such goods, users cannot be barred from accessing or using them for failing to pay for them."
        
        Did you even read that?
        The internet fails your_own_definition because you have to pay for it. Standby for cognitive dissonance in 3, 2, 1…
        
        I’ve copied and pasted what I said
        
        Yeah but repeating junk doesn't make it any more valuable.
        I let that stupid comment slide because it was so stupid, but since you repeated it allow me to show how stupid it really was:
        
        They were owned by the people then got sold to become a private company. When that happened, the network turned to garbage. There was no innovation or progress
        
        So Telstra's fibre and mobile network is worse in 2021 than in the 1990's? If you seriously believe that then you are beyond help.
        
        Monopolies can work out
        
        OMG enough stupid for one day…
        
        2024 on 02/12/2021 - 08:16
        
        @1st-Amendment: Look on the page where internet is listed as a public good
        
        Go edit the page on Wikipedia and argue about it there
        
        1st-Amendment on 02/12/2021 - 08:24
        
        @2024:
        
        Look on the page where internet is listed as a public good lmao
        
        The NBN is not 'The internet", it is an ISP. If the NBN evaporated tomorrow, 'the Internet' would still exist.
        
        I ignored the rest of your post
        
        I predicted you would. Cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing.
        
        2024 on 02/12/2021 - 08:27
        
        @1st-Amendment: If every service provider disappeared. Would the internet still exist? Ahahah
        
        Think like this
        
        Oh a road near my house
        
        I’ll remove it
        
        It isn’t part of the road network because when I remove it the network is still there
        
        Fail
        
        I ignored the rest because I’m not that into fiction
        
        Seriously go edit the page under “further examples of public goods”
        
        Argue about it over there
        Bandwidth and hosting isn’t free and it is not fair on the ppl that run OzB to have to essentially host your rants
        
        It’s 1st amendment vs the world. Lmao. What do they call it when 1st amendment calls me stupid for not supporting their position, but I have links and written evidence supporting my assertions?
        
        1st-Amendment on 03/12/2021 - 07:31
        
        @2024: Your first claim was that common good is whatever you think is good, rather an actual definition used in the field of economics which drives public policy.
        Then you said it's whatever Barack Obama says it is.
        Then you repeatedly (and still can't) work out the difference between a free and public road network and a pay-to-use ISP despite this apparently being your job. Apparently all that is required is having the word 'net' in the title makes them completely identical. Like Fishnet stockings. lol.
        Then you confused the NBN which is an ISP with the entire Internet
        Then you confused the NBN with IP address spacing
        Then you confused the NBN with NAT
        Then you confused the NBN with ARPANET
        Then you told us monopolies can be good for us
        Now you're out of room and the cognitive dissonance has kicked in, it's down to the insults.
        
        Here's the logical argument once again since you seem to have missed it the first 10 times:
        The NBN (not the entire internet, or IPv4, or ARPANET, not a series of tubes or what Barack or Al Gore thinks, or any other thing you want to deflect with), is non-rivalrous since you can use other ISP's to access the Internet.
        The NBN (not the entire internet, or IPv4, or ARPANET, not a series of tubes or what Barack or Al Gore thinks, or any other thing you want to deflect with), is also excludable since you have to pay someone to use it (in your road analogy, this is a toll road vs a public road - both part of the network, but classified differently).
        If something is non-rivlous and excludable it does not fit the definition of a common good. Therefore it isn't. This is not my opinion, or what I want to believe, it is a logical conclusion based on the definitions you provided. Your very own link which you posted as a defence says exactly this.
        
        Argue about it over there
        
        You are free to not participate, that is the beauty of freedom. Imagine rather than having freedom to choose, you were forced by law to use something you didn't want… Ironic huh?
        
        Bandwidth and hosting isn’t free and it is not fair on the ppl that…
        
        Too funny. It's almost like you think that people should pay for resources they consume under some sort of user-pays model, maybe in some sort of free and competitive market? Completely the opposite of what the NBN is? I'm sure the irony of these comments are lost on you.
        
        It’s 1st amendment vs the world…
        
        That's a rather grandiose assessment of yourself. This is just me and you and your misinterpretation of what the NBN is, despite you claiming to know it all because it's your job.
        
        but I have links and written evidence supporting my assertions?
        
        Only if you don't truly understand what the NBN is.
        
        2024 on 03/12/2021 - 08:36
        
        @1st-Amendment: Ok boomer
        
        It’s 1st amendment vs wikipedia
        
        Like I said go edit the Wikipedia page and argue about it there
        
        Not sure if you’ve mis understood a lot of what I said or mis construed it but I haven’t the time to correct all your mistakes. Take it to Wikipedia pls
        
        1st-Amendment on 04/12/2021 - 13:21
        
        @2024:
        
        Ok boomer
        
        And there we have it. When you run out of excuses revert to the lamest most cliched insult you can think of. BTW, I'm not a boomer, so that probably didn't really work out the way you hoped…
        
        but I haven’t the time to correct all your mistakes.
        
        Yet here you are putting in time to avoid addressing any of the presented facts
        
        I read the article tonight…
        
        Well you clearly didn't. That's the second link you've posted that you clearly didn't read before posting.
        Your link is about 'fixed wireless', not mobile. Since you clearly don't know what the difference is I will help you out again.
        'Fixed' wireless as the name suggests, is when you have a 4G/5G to a fixed location eg using a Telstra Smart Modem at your house. As opposed to a mobile phone which is not fixed, it's mobile (obvious I would've thought, but here you are).
        You said this was your job didn't you?
        
        The other interesting part about YOUR link that YOU provided but didn't read, is that TPG, a privately owned ISP say in there that they can do what the NBN is doing for less cost, which exactly supports the idea that government should not try to compete with the private sector on commodity products.
        
        you’ve tried to make this statistic up lmao and then have the idiocy to argue about it.
        
        Oh man I couldn't have scripted that any better. Thank you so much for the laugh, the cognitive dissonance is off the charts…
        
        Heck if I had more time I’d destroy all your comments with facts.
        
        Sure you would. If only huh? Evidence would suggest the you would actually attempt to post your ill-informed opinion off as fact, then post links which you don't read, and then through some magic thinking claim you are right. Standard Dunning Kruger in effect.
        
        Your only fact you've provided so far is that wikipedia says that 'the internet' is a public good, which you then spent extraordinary amounts of time confusing with the NBN.
        
        Your words here will not change that Wikipedia article
        
        If only that Wikipedia page was talking about the same thing we are lol…
        
        2024 on 04/12/2021 - 13:47
        
        @1st-Amendment: https://www.vodafone.com.au/media/wp-content/uploads/sites/2…
        
        Page 19 has a pretty graph that shows I’m right once again
        It’s from 2018 but it closely resembles all the other data out there
        
        Got anything else?
        
        Like I’ve said, and Wikipedia reinforces, the internet is not a commodity product it is a public good.
        
        The NBN is our governments attempt at bringing that public good into everyone’s home, a bit like a water network, electricity or roads.
        
        Go edit the page so that there is supporting evidence beyond your rambling train of thoughts.
        
        Simply find some evidence, copy the link from the address bar, and paste it in here. It’s simple as mate. You have no credibility why would I take your word for it?
        
        And about monopolies. I said sometimes they’re a good thing. Police have a monopoly on law enforcement.
        
        However unfortunate it would be if your house and all it’s possessions would burn down, surely you’d have no regrets utilising the monopoly that is the fire brigade?
        
        1st-Amendment on 05/12/2021 - 13:24
        
        @2024:
        
        I’m right once again
        
        Lol too funny. The best way to know you are right is to tell yourself that repeatedly, that is what all geniuses do lol.
        
        So let's debunk yet another one of your claims, because this is like shooting fish in a barrel and it's fun:
        
        You said "Mobile data usage is equal to about 5% of fixed usage in Australia, according to Telstra."
        
        And you were 100% wrong about that, because YOUR link to Telstra's report was about fixed wireless. You are Dunning Kruger personified..
        
        Now, in a vein attempt to ignore your appalling misunderstanding of basic facts, you post a link from 2018 which once again you clearly didn't read. Let's look at the executive summary of YOUR link:
        
        "These transformations have the potential to increase substitutability between fixed and mobile broadband. This has implications not only for the future business models of telecommunications service providers, but also policymakers and regulators, who will need to adopt a more technology neutral approach."
        So pretty much what I said when I said: "tell us why you think mobile is not a major channel for internet consumption, and how the NBN fits into that strategy?"
        
        Once again you shot yet another own goal, because YOUR link that YOU posted supports my argument.
        
        If you had have spent 3 more seconds googling you would've found the later report from the same people in 2020 that also shows the growth of mobile and reduction of fixed line here: https://www.tpgtelecom.com.au/sites/default/files/report-spe…
        
        And about monopolies. I said sometimes they’re a good thing. Police have a monopoly on law enforcement.
        
        Yawn…. This is like arguing with a child. I already made the distinction between common goods and commodities about 10 times, and YOU even used the wiki link which explains the difference yet you still don't understand the difference? Give up mate, you are out of your depth.
        Neither law enforcement nor the fire department are commodities, they are common goods, hence are something that the government should manage.
        
        It's quite obvious now that basic comprehension is not a skill that you excel at. When you're in a hole, it's best stop digging.
        
        2024 on 05/12/2021 - 13:55
        
        @1st-Amendment: Lmao my link lists the internet as a public good
        
        my link lists the internet as a public good
        
        my link lists the internet as a public good
        
        You keep missing it ahahahahaha
        
        Page 10 (or page 29 of the pdf) that you just linked
        311gb fixed
        7.7gb mobile
        
        It closely matches like I said
        But it’s gone down a bit since 2018
        It accounts for 2.5% of fixed
        Per month
        Thanks
        Got anything else?
        
        Brings me back to my point; roads are useless drones are the future.
        
        1st-Amendment on 06/12/2021 - 09:29
        
        @2024:
        
        Lmao my link lists the internet as a public good
        
        It sure does, and where you are confused is that the NBN is not 'the internet'.
        You link also explains this difference, but it's obvious that you didn't understand that part…
        
        2024 on 06/12/2021 - 09:59
        
        @1st-Amendment: lmao so a lighthouse is a public good
        The light bulb isn't. The stairs up aren't
        Its the sum of its parts
        
        2024 on 06/12/2021 - 11:43
        
        @1st-Amendment: The National Broadband Network (NBN) is an Australian national wholesale open-access data network.
        
        From Wikipedia.
        
        Might wanna edit that page too mate, so that it fits your narrative
        
        1st-Amendment on 07/12/2021 - 08:08
        
        @2024:
        
        The National Broadband Network (NBN) is an Australian national wholesale open-access data network.
        
        Sure, so not 'the Internet' then, and therefore not a common good.
        
        Once again your own links debunk your own crazy arguments lol.
        
        Pew, pew, fish in a barrel…
        
        2024 on 07/12/2021 - 09:46
        
        @1st-Amendment: What is the internet then?
        
        Ahahah
        
        If it isn’t a collection of data networks, then what else could it be? Pixie dust and unicorn hooves? Lmao
        
        You said yourself you’ve got internet at home.
        I have internet at home too
        The fibre runs straight into a cupboard, and then an NBN OTU
        And it’s glorious. I feel bad for those that are stuck with a wireless option or copper, but there isn’t much I can do about that.
        
        So in a way some of your tax dollars have funded my ultra reliable connection. Low latency, low contention. It’s marvellous! Thanks! I wouldn’t have been able to afford it myself. Myself and my whole community thank you for funding internet into our homes.
        
        1st-Amendment on 08/12/2021 - 08:39
        
        @2024:
        
        So in a way some of your tax dollars have funded my ultra reliable connection. Low latency, low contention. It’s marvellous! Thanks! I wouldn’t have been able to afford it myself.
        
        Well done! After a whole lot of denial you finally worked it out lol…
        
        2024 on 08/12/2021 - 15:13
        
        @1st-Amendment: What?
        
        I worked it out along time ago. The hard part is convincing you that “NBN” is the governments name for the infrastructure that they built to provide Internet, which is a public good, to everyone lol
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/12/2021 - 09:35
        
        @2024:
        
        I worked it out along time ago.
        
        Lol, too funny…
        
        2024 on 09/12/2021 - 13:24
        
        @1st-Amendment: Ikr
        Hence my sarcastic comment to begin with when I wanted you to see that perhaps it is the correct decision for the government to intervene.
        
        1st-Amendment on 09/12/2021 - 19:14
        
        @2024:
        
        perhaps it is the correct decision for the government to intervene.
        
        Yep you keep telling yourself that and one day even you'll believe it lol…
        
        2024 on 09/12/2021 - 21:45
        
        @1st-Amendment: Sometimes I use that technique to remember facts
        Repetition
        Like phone numbers
        And internet is a public good
        Just keep saying it you will have it memorised in no time
        
        2024 on 04/12/2021 - 01:40
        
        @1st-Amendment: Mobile data usage is equal to about 5% of fixed usage in Australia, according to Telstra.
        
        I read the article tonight. And unfortunately it made me think of you because you’ve tried to make this statistic up lmao and then have the idiocy to argue about it.
        
        https://www.itnews.com.au/news/telstra-distances-5g-fixed-wi…
        
        More proof you’re making factually incorrect statements left right and centre and mis representing quite possibly anything that you gaze upon.
        
        Sadly it’s not limited to you paraphrasing comments and dumping your own bizarre mis quotes and interpretations, despite what had been written, scroll up, up a few lines… ^^^^ this way is up btw.
        
        Did I ever, even once, mention the DARPA project? Duhhhh what came after that? But noooo you insist I did. Show me where I did mention ARPANET. I dare you. Do it. Showwww mmmeeeee!
        
        Show me where I whinged about Telstra’s wireless and fibre! Do it! All I can see is where I wrote about “last mile”…. Zoom in mate. Zoom zoom zoom. Print it out so you can see it if ya have to. But I’m happy for a screen shot. Show me where I did it. Please.
        
        Oh and about the user pays free market model comments from you!?!? HOSTING HOSTING HOSTING. And again. I was talking about HOSTING. Ya know, somewhere there is probably an array of nice 15k drives whose purpose in life is to host your comments. I feel bad for the platters in those things.
        
        Heck if I had more time I’d destroy all your comments with facts.
        
        I do not know if reading comprehension is a challenge for you or if you’re simply bored, going through a crisis and picking fights for fun, or something else.
        
        If it’s the former, perhaps look into some assistive screen reader technology to aid in understanding what is written. If it’s the latter, well let me just say, if you’re going to pick fights with a technical bunch, technically facts count. With sources to backup your argument. Don’t post links that support the opposite of your argument again though ok lmao
        
        The Internet is defined as a public good. Just like a lighthouse. It is what it is. Your words here will not change that Wikipedia article, so if it is wrong, edit the Wikipedia page and argue the edit with the guys over there
    - RichardZed on 28/11/2021 - 12:42
      
      +2
      
      The string has got saggy and the two tins have rusted
  - Twix on 27/11/2021 - 22:14
    
    +39
    
    Thanks Tony "25Mbps is more than enough" Abbott.
- factor on 27/11/2021 - 22:38
  
  +3
  
  Or you know - laws of physics. You can only get good 2-way data flow with satellite in low-earth-orbit. If you are launching low-earth-orbit birds you are providing a global service. Remote Australia is much better served by satellites provided by a global low-earth-orbit company than via Government funded geo-stationary satellites.
  - guidedlight on 28/11/2021 - 07:37
    
    Exactly. The same satellites service Africa, South America, and pacific islands and spend most of their serviceable life over uninhabited areas.
    
    This approach isn’t plausible for the Australian government.
  - spaceflight on 28/11/2021 - 11:03
    
    Or you know - laws of physics. You can only get good 2-way data flow with satellite in low-earth-orbit
    
    The laws of physics say nothing about needing low earth orbit to have good 2 way data flow.
    
    There are plenty of satellite internet services that use geostationary satellites and offer higher speeds than Starlink.
    
    The difference is latency and you need a bigger satellite dish.
  - BinaryPirate on 30/11/2021 - 06:03
    
    Govt-funded geo-stationary satellites would be a perfectly adequate solution if the govt took some of the money it hands out to billionaires & corporations and instead put it towards building enough capacity & redundancy.
    
    Besides which, once upon a time, Telstra managed to get telephone services to just about every household in the country. there's no reason the same couldn't be done with fibre. It's not like govts don't already waste tens of billions of dollars.
    
    To to get any govt on-board with supplying fibre to regional towns & residences is to come up with a series of photo ops. It's a well-known fact the average politician can't go two weeks without announcing something or appearing in a photo op.
    
    Maybe the army could drop off some tanks or the air force a couple of fighters.
- cfuse on 28/11/2021 - 09:36
  
  +3
  
  Capitalism wins again.
  - 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2021 - 09:55
    
    +1
    
    Haha careful, you get voted down for stating facts these days…
dylanando on 27/11/2021 - 21:51

+1

Mid 2022 for my area in bris
- [Deactivated] on 27/11/2021 - 21:52
  
  Yes, QLD seems to only cover the City area right now didn't work for one address I tried but did for the next
  - TheLurker on 27/11/2021 - 22:18
    
    Late 2022 for Burleigh Heads. Still good to have options. Thanks op
mskeggs on 27/11/2021 - 21:54

+4

I’ve been very sceptical of this, but it looks like it is actually pretty good.
It will be interesting to see how they handle increased volumes, I can’t imagine there will be many in rural areas who won’t see this as a hugely better deal than the Skymuster NBN service.
- SuttoL on 27/11/2021 - 22:17
  
  +7
  
  One big difference is latency - 50ms vs 500-600ms on Skymuster. It may not be a better / cheaper deal, but it's a more accessible technology, latency wise - opening a bunch of different tech for remote workers that are latency sensitive.
  - Hairy Nosed Wombat on 28/11/2021 - 00:13 Comment score below threshold.
    - spaceflight on 28/11/2021 - 11:05
      
      +4
      
      Except that to provide more people with more bandwidth you need more RF spectrum.
      
      RF spectrum is limited so your world of having everyone using mobile internet will be very slow for everyone.
  - AlienC on 28/11/2021 - 08:07
    
    -1
    
    So are you saying if you try to play online games on this you will get 500-600ms to the rest of the world?
    
    If so then yeah that leaves a huge demographic out of the question.
    
    Unless you only need it to download stuff and don't need the response time.
    - spaceflight on 28/11/2021 - 11:06
      
      +1
      
      Read it again
      
      500-600ms on Skymuster.
- aoeueoa on 27/11/2021 - 23:00
  
  +8
  
  This is going to bankrupt some ISPs when it hits volume efficiency.
  - 1st-Amendment on 28/11/2021 - 09:57
    
    -3
    
    It's the same pattern over and over. Innovation and a free market solves problems better and cheaper than any government can. Yet half the population want the government to control everything.
    - tp0 on 28/11/2021 - 10:22
      
      +3
      
      If even a single digit percentage of nbn fixed line customers moved to this, or any other wireless tech (eg 5G) they would immediately be crushed under the pressure.
nico8amy on 27/11/2021 - 21:57

+1

I wonder if it provides better ping latency to overseas server.
- joshx on 27/11/2021 - 22:01
  
  +3
  
  not yet, but theory is that once they have enough in space they could do inter-satellite communication which would be a gamechanger.
  - MisterEd on 27/11/2021 - 22:04
    
    +7
    
    Interplanetary
  - askvictor on 27/11/2021 - 22:11
    
    +9
    
    Gamechanger? Why? Light speed through fibre is about 2/3 of speed through air, so you might get lower latency to that effect, all else being equal, but it's not an order of magnitude. Unless I'm missing something?
    - SuttoL on 27/11/2021 - 22:15
      
      +4
      
      You still need to route around the country first, and potentially through other countries.
      
      Place a starlink pop in a country, and you have a connection via mesh of satellites. Not an order of magnitude (pretty impossible, since the distances aren't an order of magnitude and physics and all), but still potentially a big improvement when you can cut out inefficient parts of the trip.
      - askvictor on 27/11/2021 - 22:25
        
        +3
        
        @SuttoL: Yeah, I can see how it could be an improvement, but not sure in what circumstances it would be a game changer. And does latency take a hit when the weather is bad?
        
        AlienC on 28/11/2021 - 08:09
        
        +1
        
        @askvictor: lol imagine being on a high k/d ratio game then all of a sudden it starts getting cloudy and stormy and oh no you have been disconnected gg huge game changer alright lol

This was posted 2 years 4 months 23 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Low-Earth Orbit Satellite Internet (up to 370Mbps/51.6Mbps) $139/Month + $809 Hardware Delivered @ Starlink (Excludes NT)

Referral Links

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals