Update: Includes starlink for RV's, lower price is applied at checkout. $174 for the first month and you can pause the service at any time.
Availability map — Service for Darwin & Northern Australia expected Q1 2023.
Elon Musk’s space venture - Starlink price has dropped to $450.
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+.
1 Month of free service for referrer and referee.
Absolutely. Switched back to 4G as Skymuster was so laggy.
Is Starlink unlimited data as well? Found it hard to WFH with skymusters 90's data limits
Yep unlimited
Data caps are looking likely in USA.
This reminds me of the old Optusnet Cable days of the early 00s. My mate had it and it was unlimited (fair use policy), maxed out at 10Mbps while everyone else had 512kbps ADSL (1/20th the speed). But it was by virtue of hardly anyone being on it. After a couple of years everyone was on it leeching and the speed became a joke. Let’s see how Starlink goes.
Yep, it'll be no different to cable, 3g, 4g, etc. Fun until the unwashed masses join in and ruin it. But excellent for those on the move or who can't get a cable
Doubt this will be the case tbh. The SL sats are on orbital paths which also have to cover areas with much higher population densities than Australia. So from a satellite perspective (the expensive part), there is a chance Australia will be overprovisioned. I doubt they'd skimp on the ground stations being they would be comparatively cheap. The only place that could potentially be an issue would be Sydney/Melbourne due to their population density but even then each satellite has a throw of ~50k kmsq which would put areas like NY+Philly and several regions in Europe and a number of cities across Asia at a higher density level.
Perhaps I'm naive and overly hopeful but as long as the price remains higher than ~250Mbps NBN and 5G plans and the cost of the initial satellite stays high there shouldn't be that many people opting for this over NBN/5G.
Absolutely. I get 67mbps on a 100mbps plan(line limitation) and pay 89 per month for it. If I switch back to 50mbps plan, then I will be getting 45mbps average which I am not happy with.
Unless you need unlimited, perhaps consider 5G?
I need 700GB atleast
@John Doh: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/731460
Depends on your location, this might be a better value. I seldom have problem and getting good speed, usually around 200mbps.
@orangutan: I probably might try it or optus, both seem to have 250mbps but how are the dropouts? I might try them as optus I think gives a month free.
@kl2999: No, but if there are 2 TVs running most the time at 4K (Nope, not what you are thinking), then 600GB is nothing.
I had 5G with TPG and the dropouts were terrible, multiple times per day. Went back to NBN through Superloop and have not had a drama
@danzig440: I am on superloop too and WFH, dropouts are what I am worried about. Right now its almost 0 dropouts which i am happy with.
So you're just going to ignore the consequences of privatisation of water, power and gas?
@1st-Amendment: Government services without competition are corrupt and inefficient
Private business colluding with the government is the best way to become a slave
@1st-Amendment: I am sorry but Telstra is the perfect example of how privatisation is a failure, especially when an industry becomes a monopoly. Private industry has little to no reason to invest their prodigious profits back into their business when they have no one to compete against.
The NBN is far from perfect thanks to it becoming a political football but before the NBN came along, our telecommunications infrastructure was already on its last legs. The NBN rollout uncovered so much rot in both Telstra's copper network as well as Optus's coax network. What little fiber Telstra did roll out before the NBN, they made sure to price it so high that it made almost all 3rd party service providers leave. I would know, I lived in a Telstra Velocity Fibre area, thanks to the NBN, my bills are now 1/2 of what I was paying to Telstra, with unlimited data and a better experience overall. Simple fact is, Telstra and other private enterprises would never have rolled out a usable fibre network.
Telstra isnt the only one, plenty of other examples, Commbank was privatised, and we all know how that went, can someone say royal commission. Qantas another shining example of privatisation. Much of the current energy crisis is thanks in part to privatisation of our energy grid and failures by the AEMO to properly regulate it when global factors force energy prices up. Privatisation of Sydney's toll roads went really really well.
Show me an example where an industry actually improved for the better and delivered better outcomes for end customers when it was privatised. The crux of the problem is that private enterprise prioritises shareholders far above their customers. When the economy is going well, they will happily gobble up profits but when things go bad, the customer is the first person to lose out. Shareholders much prefer company profits go into dividends than back into the company to help grow and improve it. There is no need to maintain a standard level of service, we can simply lay off most of our staff, offer a terrible product until the market improves, but we definitely wont lower our prices.
When it comes to basic utilities and services like water, electricity, roads, communications, etc. These utilities should always remain in government hands. Sure there will be corruption, there will be waste, governments are rarely perfect, but basic services should always have the users as their highest priority, not shareholders.
Ah yes comrade, because centrally planned and controlled utilities are always the most efficient & reliable
/s
@prodrome: The evidence shows the NBN is efficient & reliable? Excuse me while I wipe the coffee off of my monitor.
@The Judge: Lol
Literally everything the goberment does is highly inefficient, costing 10x more than it should for 1/4 of the quality.
Mostly because nearly all goberment employees are either lazy morons, or corrupt
@The Judge: That's the Liberal Gov for you, everything they've touched / altered has ended up costing the taxpayer / end user more for less.
@adinico: Ahhhhh, the good old Australian liberal <> labor blame game!
A cherished tradition, keeping the masses at bay since the beginning of time.
And only few realise that these two are just two ends of the same rotten sausage ;-)
Blame and stall for four years, high five, change sides and start all over again for the next four years!!!
@Wardaddy: I doubt privatisation was the reason phone calls became a fraction of the cost. I’d be crediting competition, technological advances, economies of scale, along with the publicity funded initial outlay over the last forever.
@Kiwimalc: You doubt it? I was there. Competition can only occur when the monopoly is lifted. Economies of scale remained the same. Technological innovation certainly was a big contributor.
@Wardaddy: The Rudd Gillard government added around $200bn in national debt from 07 to 13, The Abbott/Turnbull government added around $290bn in the same time frame from 13 to 19. The Morrison government added $450bn in half the time from 19 to 22. (though Covid)
Im not agreeing with @adinico (unless specifically referring to the NBN or a few other things), but parroting right wing talking points back to @adinico probably is equally not very constructive.
@Thanges: $200 billion, plus the $160 billion they gave away for iPod Christmas. If you are presuming to lecture people, try to get it right. And it was Turnbull, the pretend Lib, really a Labor stooge, that ran up the debt. And as you said, Morrison got hit with the pandemic.
And as you said, Morrison got hit with the pandemic.
But there was no GFC in 07 - 08 apparently.
How quickly, or conveniently, we forget.
@Wardaddy: What about my statement was incorrect? But yes, they did have surplus to spend which future governments didn't, but they also avoided the severe impacts of the GFC.
Also trying to pin it all on Turnbull because he wasn't far right enough, still a Lib PM.
Morrison got hit with the pandemic, but still managed to give $14bn away to big profitable companies for nothing, and wasted about $40bn of the $89bn spent on jobkeeper.
But even if you remove the $291bn spent on the pandemic that's still more spending than the previous Labor or Liberal governments per 3 years.
@The Judge: Yes, let’s go back to what the market provided us then, shit ADSL all over the place with pockets of decent fibre if you were lucky.
I think the NBN was a fustercluck of a rollout, but the service is better then before.
@freefall101: You can say that about any government service really, that it was previously not as good, and only after lengthy periods of shit service & complaints, and incredible sums of money, has it improved…sporadically.
@The Judge: Except NBN improved things greatly and it was previously shithouse. Back in 2015 our average internet speed was less than 10mb and there had been all the time in the world for Telstra/Optus/etc to pull their thumbs out of their arseholes and actually spend some money on something.
Their plan was always 5G everything, and look at how quickly that is rolling out. Starlink, for all the fanfare, is seeing speeds get slower and slower as time progresses.
I think corporations should always run the market where there is a proper competitive market. However we can't have that for a broadband network - no one is going to build competing grid. Much like our privatised power networks, if we want it upgraded the owners of it don't pay for that, the government does, because they're under no incentive to spend money on anything.
@The Judge: Privatisation of = Water, Power, Gas, Airports, Roads are a dismal failure.
The publicly owned but corporatised NBN is also a dismal failure.
Private ownership isn't some amazing solution.
@prodrome: NBN isn't really a dismal failure,
the shift to FTTN/HFC wasn't a good choice, but on the whole availability of >25mbit/s is vastly better than it would have been otherwise.
@Binchicken22: It's not a geography issue.
Politics meant the early NBN rolled out in a few tough regional areas first and lots of mistakes were made.
NZ did the opposite. Cities > Towns > volcanoes and so on. By the time they got the easy stuff done, they had money coming in, knew what they were doing and their costs came down.
@prodrome: The reason NZ got it right is that they seperated the infrastructure provider from the service provider. This was the obvious smart move but Howard et al sold us out.
@Bystander: Howard? Er, wasn't it Rudd that "devised" the NBN on the back of an envelope while trying desperately to think of something useful to do? And wasn't this after Howard retired? You have no idea of what you are talking about.
…….Rudd that "devised" the NBN on the back of an envelope…….
You most certainly don't - but hey, don't urban legends make great talking points.
@jackspratt: Say what? Are you also claiming that Howard had anything to do with NBN? And I most certainly don't what?
@jackspratt: Ahhhh, so you won't say if Howard preceded NBN. Because you don't know? There's nothing a left wing nong hates more than facts and evidence.
@Wardaddy: You're the one talking about Howard - not me.
I guess that makes you a right wing nong. 👍
@jackspratt: No, Bystander was talking about Howard and I replied to him. You just stuck your nose in uninvited. Do try to keep up, if you're going to continue to try to be a troll you really must do better.
@prodrome: You can compare Aus to Canada.
We started Fiber before them, we are less isolated than they are, we don't have to think about icing on the units, and we can lay the infrastructure all-year round.
Our NBN has been mostly a failure.
Canada has spent less than us, they've managed to finish earlier than us, it has costed their tax-payers much less than us, and the consumers pay a smaller fee than us.
With that said, the private companies own their copper infrastructure and they could have shifted to Fiber years ago. Just like California when they did their rollout and didn't wait for the rest of the country. We really have Greater (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane), three cities to build-out which would have the biggest impact overall. But they didn't. So if we didn't form the NBN, I think things would've continued to be bad for a while until they got really ridiculous and then decided to go Fiber.
I've been jealous of South Korea's connection for ages now.
100% came here to say this
Similar to the 4G vs NBN infrastructure comparison. Australia's 4G networks are considered some of the best in the world and are delivered via private sector. Our NBN on the other hand was 100% government debacle. A case study in competition creating effecient delivery vs public sector bloat and wastage.
There was no competition. There was lies by Telstra and a big black dildo being held by foxtel.
The Australian people were fecked from the start.
A case study in competition creating effecient delivery vs public sector bloat and wastage.
And there's literally thousands of examples just like this. NASA's average launch cost was about $150M, SpaceX is about $60M. I read somewhere that even when NASA use SpaceX rockets it still cost the taxpayer over $100M because they add layers and layers of red tape over the top.
NASA's average launch cost was about $150M, SpaceX is about $60M
That's not a fair comparison. NASA is always under threat of having their budget cut, so they can't afford to go blowing up rockets like SpaceX did. NASA had to build their rockets to be ultra-reliable. Can you imagine the screams of politicians saying "look how wasteful NASA is", if they blew up rocket after rocket like SpaceX did?
And let's not forget the pork-barreling that was required to prevent the worst of the budget cuts. NASA's rockets are made all over America, not because that's the most efficient way to do something, but because multiple politicians said "I won't vote for it unless my electorate gets a cut".
For example, during the space shuttle program, the booster rockets were made in Utah, 3000km from the Florida launch site.
That's not a fair comparison. NASA is always under threat of having their budget cut,
Which is the perfect example of why government is a worse option. The layers of bureaucracy and all the stakeholders who have no real interest in the product always results in an inferior outcome.
NASA had to build their rockets to be ultra-reliable.
And failed miserably at that task. They lost 2 of their 5 launch vehicles which is a terrible record.
not because that's the most efficient way to do something, but because multiple politicians said…
So govt is worse than private then. It seems we've arrived at the same conclusion…
They lost 2 of their 5 launch vehicles which is a terrible record.
Thanks for confirming you're just here to argue, while carefully leaving out context to distort the argument.
Let's see … NASA had 2 shuttle failures in 135 launches, so a success rate of better than 98.5%. SpaceX's reusable vehicle is the Falcon 9, with 142 successful landings in 151 attempts, so 94% success rate.
And let's not forget that the space shuttle was the very first reusable space vehicle, was first launched in 1981 (more than 35 years before SpaceX's first Falcon 9 launch), and generated a huge amount of knowledge that SpaceX used. Second time around is easier, no? Actually, it's not even second time around, there was Russia's Buran and the Boeing X-37 in between, so it's fourth-time around. And a lot of other space vehicle research happened in that 35 years.
It's also worthwhile pointing out that the part of the Falcon9 that lands doesn't reach orbital velocity, so it doesn't undergo the same heat stresses that every space shuttle had during re-entry. I'm sure you've seen the videos of the shuttle enveloped in glowing plasma as it re-entered. So the shuttle did a more difficult task.
And let's not even think about how difficult it is to go from 94% successful to 98.5% successful. I suggest you ask a process engineer if you aren't familiar with how difficult it is.
And let's not even think about how difficult it is to go from 94% successful to 98.5% successful.
You seem to have forgotten your own argument: "NASA had to build their rockets to be ultra-reliable". So it was their own requirement that they failed to meet, not yours, mine or Elon's. And who made that requirement? Someone who had no connection to economic viability I guarantee you that.
Elon is spending his own money (or is directly accountable for shareholder funds), so he has a direct interest to ensure success, so this forces him to be efficient and practical and find the most economic solutions. This principle is the same across private business and is the key differentiator of private from public.
So the shuttle did a more difficult task.
You see you are unknowingly demonstrating my point. The shuttle was hard because NASA made life harder for themselves because being gov they are immune to the realities of running an economically viable business. The space shuttle was always a poorly though-out concept. Traditional rockets were always going to be cheaper and easier, but hey, free taxpayer money, let's dream a crazy dream on someone else's dime!
I suggest you ask a process engineer if you aren't familiar with how difficult it is.
94% to 98.5 is not actually that big a leap. Try getting to 99.999% then see how many zeros you need to add to your budget to achieve that.
In the private sector they will ask you to justify why you need 99.999% before spending a dollar, and if you can't they'll wind back the requirement immediately. In Gov they demand it as a blanket rule for everything regardless of what the product or service is. And it if means an extra year's work and millions more dollars then so be it. It truly is horrific how much waste there is because it's never their money they are spending.
@1st-Amendment: So now you're making arbitrary limits on what "ultra reliable" means, ignoring that I showed you to be wrong, and creating side arguments.
I can see you're a professional arguer.
So now you're making arbitrary limits on what "ultra reliable" means
Your term, you never defined it.
ignoring that I showed you to be wrong
You arbitrarily decided that the threshold was somewhere between 94 and 98.5% with no explanation or justification, I merely used your same standards, yet I'm wrong and you are right because…?
I can see you're a professional arguer.
I'm not being paid to be here. I have an opinion which is usually based on observable data. When others have their opinions with conflict I like to verify if I am being exposed to new information or maybe the person is just talking out of their exit valve. In 99% of cases it is the latter, which is where you have ended up. Nothing you have said contradicts my point that private production is almost always more efficient than public. In fact you even supported my view with some of your own examples, yet still can't bring yourself to accept it.
@1st-Amendment: You're quite right, but you'll never convince the socialist students on here, they've all been brainwashed by their socialist teachers and are incapable of critical thinking.
"Australia's 4G networks are considered some of the best in the world and are delivered via private sector."
Please, Sol Trujillo at Telstra did the bare minimum required on broadband as they had a monopoly, we only have a decent 3/4/5g network because of competition (Optus)
It's not because of public / private.
@Jessie Ryder: 100% Sol Trujillo - And whats funny is he left back to the US stating Australia is a backwards racist country - PM parting message at the time - "Adios!" (real story)
@Headless: I don't know specific situation but
The Australia is backwards quote is not entirely incorrect
@Jessie Ryder: To be honest, Trujillo was useful to transform a slow-private Telstra into a more modern-fast (still private) telecom. He was what was needed, a coal under the bum. A Ying to a Yang.
But what his long-term goals were not good for Australians. His National Fiber Rollout was hilariously overpriced, it was a godsend having Rudd at the time to block it. Rudd was instrumental in getting NBN out, but it all faltered after that stage in an embarrassing manner.
Please, Sol Trujillo at Telstra did the bare minimum required
You've clearly never traveled. Whatever your complaints about the Telstra cellular network, I can assure that it is one of the best in the world.
we only have a decent 3/4/5g network because of competition (Optus)… It's not because of public / private.
Your first statement contradicts the second. Think about that a bit harder and see if you can work out where you went wrong…
The NBN was a case study of political infighting and corruption. Where politics and vested interest was the priority and actual industry experts were completely ignored. We now know that the original Labor NBN which was designed by experts would have been far better and cheaper than the LNP's dismal multi technology mix. The only real argument here is that we should be listening to scientists and experts and not politicians. Not surprising that the LNP made sure to heavily cut the CSIRO's budget.
We now know that the original Labor NBN which was designed by experts would have been
What about the experts that said it was a stupid idea to begin with? How do you decide which experts are right?
The only real argument here is that we should be listening to scientists and experts
The same experts that told us the vaccine would prevent Covid when it turns out they were lying?
Or the experts that said only a year ago that inflation wouldn't be a problem for the next few years then promptly kicked off the largest inflation jump in 40 years?
Or the experts that said we only have 10 years to act on cLiMaTe ChAnGe 30 years ago? And said cLiMaTe ChAnGe would mean that the dams will never be full again right before the dams filled up all the way to the top?
For so-called experts, they seem have a amazing record of being wrong all the time… yet people keep believing them. It truly is a remarkable phenomenon.
……… cLiMaTe ChAnGe 30 years ago? And said cLiMaTe ChAnGe ……
I wonder what the experts would say about someone writing in such a silly, childish fashion. 🤔
You could look at the opposite side of the fence, if the government never stepped in the majority of Australia might still have been stuck on ADSL2+.
@1st-Amendment: What does socialism have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that the private sector can have problems too. And the "laws of supply and demand" doesn't exist because outside of very niche areas no company could build competing infrastructure since Telstra owned everything.
What does socialism have to do with anything?
Socialism is the idea that things should be provided by the government, in contrast to capitalism which is the idea that the free market does a better job at it.
Look at all the cool things you own and ask yourself who does it better?
All I'm saying is that the private sector can have problems too.
Of course, nobody is perfect. But you get far better services overall when you allow competition in the market.
And the "laws of supply and demand" doesn't exist because outside of very niche areas
Supply and demand always exist, everywhere, all of the time.
no company could build competing infrastructure since Telstra owned everything.
Yet Starlink exists… and Vocus, and TPG, Optus, Vodafone, Google Fiber etc etc
So the part you are almost at but missed, is that the State-owned monopoly that was Telecom was a shit show that created this mess. Get the government out of the way and things invariably get better for everyone.
@1st-Amendment: The "laws of supply and demand" enable cherry picking, meaning high density city areas would get service, and remote, isolated areas would not.
NBN and other government services deliver community service obligations to enable people across Australia to get enhanced levels of service, not just those 'with very high demand'
The "laws of supply and demand" enable cherry picking, meaning high density city areas would get service, and remote, isolated areas would not.
A prime example of that was the cable TV rollout. Cherry-picked suburbs got both Optus and Telstra cable, less profitable suburbs got only one of them, and some suburbs got none.
The "laws of supply and demand" enable cherry picking,
That's exactly right, because that's how economically viable businesses operate, when they are economically viable. I mean when you spend money do you think about it, or do you just give your money to everyone and hope for the best?
NBN and other government services deliver community service obligations to enable people across Australia to get enhanced levels of service
Which is socialism. You demand things and you demand that someone else pay for it, and you don't care how much it costs becasue you aren't paying for it.
The only possible outcome under this model is inefficiency and waste, yet you'll be the first person to complain when the economy hits the skids, taxes go up and people lose their jobs, then act all surprised like 'how on earth did this happen'.
@1st-Amendment: So where are all the other private high speed networks that the free market installed in the decades before we had NBN?
Or did the telcos make no investment and continue to deliver ADSL so that they could ensure high profits?
So where are all the other private high speed networks that the free market installed in the decades before we had NBN?
Well firstly 'high speed networks' were only a technological reality from the mid-90's onward. So there was no 'decades before the NBN'.
Secondly, businesses that offered high speed network services were severely restricted from operating by can you guess… government restrictions.
So the mess we had pre-NBN was due to government ineptitude, and the mess we have now with NBN is still govt ineptitude. But for some reason you think that government is best?
Starlink is the perfect example of a private business offering a far superior service than the government run NBN satellite services. Do you accept that Elon Musk is doing a better job than Stephen Conroy?
Well firstly 'high speed networks' were only a technological reality from the mid-90's onward. So there was no 'decades before the NBN'.
So from the mid 90s to mid 2010s is not decades?
Starlink is the perfect example of a private business offering a far superior service than the government run NBN satellite services.
Is it?
Because I'm 250km from Darwin and can't get Starlink but I can get Skymuster.
Starlink aren't offering me a superior service at all!
Looks like a great example as to why we need government funded infrastructure so that services are delivered to non profitable areas.
If it was up to private business what am I supposed to do? Launch my own satellite? Run my own fibre?
So from the mid 90s to mid 2010s is not decades?
NBN was proposed in 2007, 11 years after the first broadband.
Because I'm 250km from Darwin and can't get Starlink but I can get Skymuster.
Starlink is still new so coverage is currently low but will eventually cover the globe. It's also restricted by the government on where it can operate in Australia because they don't want their shitty and expensive NBN cannibalised.
Looks like a great example as to why we need government funded infrastructure so that services are delivered to non profitable areas.
So socialism then. I want stuff, and I want someone else to pay for it…
If it was up to private business what am I supposed to do?
It would be your choice if you choose to live remote and get inferior services, or if you prefer better services move to where they are being offered. Why should I be forced to pay for things you want?
It's also restricted by the government on where it can operate in Australia because they don't want their shitty and expensive NBN cannibalised
No it isn't. While Starlink was initially only able to provide internet service to "low and remote density areas", it now has the necessary licenses to operate Australia-wide.
So socialism then. I want stuff, and I want someone else to pay for it…
That's not what I said.
Why should I be forced to pay for things you want?
So then I assume you do not use the public health system, you must drive on your own privately built roads, you use electricity from your own power again, drink water collected and filtered on your estate and do not benefit in any way from all of the other publicly funded infrastructure and services?
It must be great to be as rich as Jeff Bezos to be able to live such a lifestyle
@Masterami: So all farmers should relocate their entire farm into the metropolitan areas, or do we just not have farms?
Do we tell tourists coming to see the outback "sorry we don't have internet here"?
Secondly, businesses that offered high speed network services were severely restricted from operating by can you guess… government restrictions.
They weren't, up till the NBN rollout there wasn't any restrictions on rolling out a new fiber network,
but brown-fields rollouts outside CBDs didn't make for a good business case, which is why there were plenty of disparate 100mbit/s+ links in housing developments, but very limited, and very expensive services outside of that.
They weren't, up till the NBN rollout there wasn't any restrictions on rolling out a new fiber network,
Too funny…
I used to work for the largest independent ISP in the country in the 20 years ago, and I can tell you first hand is was a regulatory nightmare.
The simple fact that the largest player was a government backed monopoly means it was not an open market.
I used to work for the largest independent ISP in the country in the 20 years ago
And I ran a few rollouts to greenfield sites pre-NBN (and a few sneaky final leg completions post-NBN),
if it was Optus, TPG or iiNet we've probably talked before.
government backed monopoly
Agreed, the privatisation of Telecom was planned like crap (thanks Howard…), and had a massively negative impact on the rollout of xDSL services,
but it didn't really affect HFC/FTTx networks beyond offering a lower cost solution.
Absolutely slays rural NBN's Skymuster