Starlink Surpasses 4 Million Subscribers (circleid.com) 67
Longtime Slashdot reader penciling_in shares a report from CircleID: Starlink, SpaceX's satellite-based internet service, has hit a major milestone by surpassing 4 million subscribers worldwide. SpaceX confirmed the news on Thursday after company President Gwynne Shotwell hinted earlier in the week that the service would reach the mark within days. Since its beta launch in October 2020, Starlink has rapidly scaled, growing from 1 million subscribers by December 2022, to 2 million by September 2023, and now 4 million just months later. The service operates through a vast constellation of nearly 6,000 satellites, providing satellite internet to users in almost 100 countries, including expanding into previously underserved regions like Africa and the Pacific islands. [While competition from OneWeb and Amazon's Project Kuiper looms, Starlink remains the market leader. However, challenges like slowing U.S. growth and concerns over satellite interference with radio astronomy persist.] Starlink is coming to United Airlines' entire fleet and Hawaiian Airlines Airbus flights. Air France also announced yesterday that it, too, will support free Starlink Wi-Fi on all its aircraft.
Hm (Score:2)
How many people said Starlink would never work, and that it was snake oil to fool investors out of their money?
Re: (Score:2)
How many people said Starlink would never work, and that it was snake oil to fool investors out of their money?
Can you please point me to someone saying that? Especially given they are far from the first satellite internet company? Or are you generating fake smugness in your head?
Re:Hm (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they really need to? When it was announced, and even through its early days of operation, there was a *ton* of people claiming it would never work. That it wasn't economically viable. That it couldn't scale and could never handle more than a small number of users.
It's hardly been a perfect service, but the performance has largely held up even as their subscriber count got into the millions.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes they do. They made the claim, and now you're repeating the claim. Source it. I never saw the claim so I will continue to call out bullshit and will only retract it once you or the OP provide a source for the claim. That's how it works to make a claim.
Of course it's hardly a perfect service. I'm questioning the claim that it wouldn't work at all. The economics of it I can understand, Starlink relies heavily on its ability for SpaceX to make launches and bring down the cost of launches so it stands to rea
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
the anti muskies. people who love to hate on elon musk. the fun thing about this is that they didn't hate him until around 2020 when he was one of the first to push for back to work. he became the enemy of the woke crowd at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
the anti muskies.
And see, this is why I am asking. You've brought the culture war into it. I'm wondering if anyone seriously claimed it wouldn't work, and had a justification for it. There will always be haters and fanbois, but they should be flat-out ignored on all issues.
Re: Hm (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I just like living in reality. I try not to judge people as idiots / trolls until they make claims that they can't back with proof. Especially here on Slashdot I'm very inclined to think the OP is just a troll, but I'm a fair man and offering them the ability to back up their position.
Re: (Score:2)
I literally pasted a couple of links, did you not see? The reasons people thought it wouldn't work was they didn't believe back in the early days it was announced 2014+ (before Falcon 9 had routine reusability) that anyone could acheive that launch cadence and have the capex/budget. The other people who tried to do it, such as WorldVu (now OneWeb) and Boeing flopped. Iridium and other companies didn't even try.
Re: (Score:2)
So by not works you meant as in people thought it was too expensive. Good to see you climbed down from the absurd claim in your original post.
Re:Hm (Score:5, Informative)
Yes they do. They made the claim, and now you're repeating the claim. Source it. I never saw the claim so I will continue to call out bullshit and will only retract it once you or the OP provide a source for the claim. That's how it works to make a claim.
Of course it's hardly a perfect service. I'm questioning the claim that it wouldn't work at all. The economics of it I can understand, Starlink relies heavily on its ability for SpaceX to make launches and bring down the cost of launches so it stands to reason that people would have thought that particular part of it was economically infeasible. But that story would have been laid to rest at the first launch.
Who claimed it would never work?
"Ookla reports, based on user-initiated speed tests, were cited by the Federal Communications Commission last month when it rejected Starlink's application to receive $885.51 million in broadband funding that had been tentatively awarded during then-Chairman Ajit Pai's tenure. The FCC said it doubts whether Starlink can provide the grant's required speeds of 100Mbps downloads and 20Mbps uploads." https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If "It works" means that it satisfies FCC 100/20 requirements, then it doesn't.
But if "it works" means "just what you choose it to mean — neither more nor less", then you are debating in bad faith.
Plenty of folks wish Elon Musk were Delos D. Harriman. But he just ain't.
The FCC wasn't wrong. (Score:2)
To be fair they haven't universally met the 100/20 requirement. Especially in the USA the speeds seem to be below that, so the FCC wasn't wrong. In some areas where the satellites are undersubscribed they can exceed those speeds, but in the USA the average fails to meet the FCC's requirements.
But in any case that's moving the goalposts a bit isn't it? The claim I wanted backed up is: "Starlink would never work, and that it was snake oil to fool investors out of their money" Got any evidence for that one?
Re: (Score:2)
https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org]
https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So... two guys out of > 10 million Slashdot members?
Re: (Score:2)
So... two guys out of > 10 million Slashdot members?
Well, if two guys said it... maybe dozens more were thinking it. That counts for something, amiright? ;-)
Re: Hm (Score:2)
Given the moderation, probably. Though I personally recall seeing a lot more comments to this effect. Problem with slashdot is comments aren't very searchable.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, perhaps it's my own biases but I too recall Starlink getting skewered more than the first iPod, iPhone, etc. and not just by ACs....
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, perhaps it's my own biases but I too recall Starlink getting skewered more than the first iPod, iPhone, etc. and not just by ACs....
Starlink: No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame?
I do recall a fair number of people bringing up, early on, (what seemed to me to be valid) questions about potential technical limitations which might impact how many customers / how much bandwidth Starlink could practically support - which certainly does not appear to have been an issue to this point. And, as time went on, more people (myself included) soured on Musk as a human being... which is a completely different issue, other than it might impact co
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/zaUCDZ9d09Y?s... [youtu.be]
4 million minus one subscribers (Score:2)
Command Senior Chief Grisell Marrero of the USS Manchester, a Littoral Combat Ship (how ironic a choice of ship giving this "troubled program") has been demoted as well as relieved of access to Sarlink.
Re: 4 million minus one subscribers (Score:2)
The fact she wasn't broke down to corporal is infuriating.
Re: (Score:2)
She potentially endangered the entire ship. She should have been keelhauled.
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder how many total responses on this article will be EDS driven? I am surprised this article was even allowed to be posted.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly works in that subscribers receive what they pay for.
However, those numbers work out at about 667 subscribers per satellite, and 667 Starlink subscriptions is not going to pay for the cost of the satellite. Not even remotely close.
FCC (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile the government spent $42 billion on rural broadband and still haven't connected even one person. Reference: https://www.washingtonpolicy.o... [washingtonpolicy.org]
Why couldn't they just spend the $42 billion on giving every unconnected rural household (3 million total) a free Starlink subscription for 10 years .. a full decade .. at $0 cost .. (3 million * $12,000) ? They'd still have $6 billion left over to spend on fentanyl.
Re:FCC (Score:5, Informative)
And by the way that $42 billion is just the Biden administration amount, we're not even counting the tens of billions given to AT&T, Verizon etc. by previous administrations. No accountability .. nothing. Nobody went to jail. Nobody got fired. Nothing.
Re: FCC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And the Feds are already becoming beholden to SpaceX and not looking forward to throwing more money and power to the richest man on earth.
By the way, why would you think that Musk would be stupid enough to make any subscription deal that lasts 10 years at a fixed price? Never going to happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Elon is by far not the richest man on earth.
Perhaps one of the richest "self made" men on earth in our times ?
There are plenty of people who are 100 times richer than he is.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, why would you think that Musk would be stupid enough to make any subscription deal that lasts 10 years at a fixed price? Never going to happen.
Given that he's more likely to drop the price of the subscription than to increase it, it might not be that stupid of a move.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation is real, yes. But fixing a contract to a reasonable index is not that uncommon in long term contracts. Mortgages for example are a much bigger industry than satcom, and they widely use that for multi-decade contracts.
So if you're willing to shell out extra to cover risks, I imagine you would be able to negotiate a contract linked to an index as a large enough entity.
Re: (Score:3)
Your position is that AT&T didn't exist until 2021, or is it that you think some new tech needs to be developed? What do you reckon it takes 3 years to do? In the case of satellites .. the satellites had to be designed and the launch system had to be ready. In the case of rural broadband what do you reckon is taking engineers 3 years to figure out what to do? What new tech are they working on?
Re: (Score:2)
This is pathetic cope. Infrastructure herp derp!
Running low voltage wires is the easiest form of "infrastructure" that exists. It barely qualifies as infrastructure. You're talking about sites that already all have both power and telephone service, poles, easements, etc. Why are you so desperate to defend and apologize for these failed government boondoggles?
Yes, Elon really did design an entire space based solution, complete with phased array transceivers, and made it profitable, before the US gove
Re:FCC (Score:4)
No shit. Surprise, Starlink didn't connect a single person in the first 3 years of its inception either. Infrastructure takes money to build. Sure telecom companies have a vested interest to pocket the money without doing anything, but your expectations are wildly ignorant of how things are built. Throwing money around doesn't magic things into existence.
Starlink had to build rockets and satellites before anyone could get service. Here on earth connecting people requires digging into the earth or attaching cables to poles or attaching to or erecting radio towers. This is very much an incremental process where it doesn't require three years to start seeing results.
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink didn't build any rockets. They had to design satellites. That's actually a far easier and faster activity than building rural infrastructure.
This is very much an incremental process where it doesn't require three years to start seeing results.
That isn't remotely how things work. You don't spend money and someone gets on a backhoe. You spend money, issue contracts, get planning approval, spend months on design work (just because it isn't building a satellite in a lab doesn't mean it isn't designed), and start laying out core infrastructure. You very much do need to get 80% of the work done before yo
Re: (Score:2)
Also if you think the Australian government is incompetent (I agree with you) then you can look to another example. The Netherlands, well known for being top 10 in internet speeds around the world where virtually every house in a major city has FTTH. How did we get here? Well only 8 years ago the FTTH rollout started, but when was it announced and funded... 2010, well even that took 9 months of bureaucracy, the funding was requested in 2009 - they also took about 4 years between project funding and getting
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile the government spent $42 billion on rural broadband and still haven't connected even one person. Reference: https://www.washingtonpolicy.o... [www.washingtonpolicy.o] [washingtonpolicy.org] Why couldn't they just spend the $42 billion on giving every unconnected rural household (3 million total) a free Starlink subscription for 10 years
Because the Congresscritters wouldn't get the same kickbacks from SpaceX that they do from the telecom providers. Silly rabbit.
There ought to be a criminal investigation, to find out just exactly where that $42 billion has landed. Why was the contract not performance based? Why pay out money, when there were no results? Where are the penalty clauses? Lots of people were on the take, from the contract officers up through Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
> Meanwhile the government spent $42 billion on rural broadband and still haven't connected even one person
What? I live out in the middle of nowhere, and I got fiber to my door this year, courtesy of a federal grant. And writing the words, "I have fiber to my door" is something I NEVER thought I would be able write.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a multi-step, multi-year program where states develop proposals, which are then subjec
Re: (Score:2)
That's a hell of a lie by omission. Projects like this aren't done for "random results". They're done for specific goals. The goal here is to connect rural regions to fast internet.
If there has been zero connected regions, then you have no results. Even if you can babble about "emotional labor", or "making progress" or "planning was done" or similar popular excuses. Yes, those excuses are "results". They are in no way satisfactory results however, especially considering the money spent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's accept this pundit framing at face value, pretend for the sake of argument that allocated money free lunch at this point and move on to cast judgement. We have several points on the table:
Stated goals: Link up a lot of rural users with broadband in certain time frame.
Outcomes:
1. Massive amount of money allocated.
2. None spent.
3. No projects completed.
4. No rural users linked with broadband.
Alternative solution suggested: funding more satellite launches and more terminals for end users for Starlink. It
Re: (Score:2)
The only way this could be done in a day is to do what people on the internet assume they do - write a big blank check to Comast and hope for the be
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
If anyone has any mod points, toss one to the parent.
The GP's source link is the Washington Policy Center, a free market/anti-regulation think tank. So they're not an unbiased source of news here.
Furthermore, the linked article doesn't actually cite any sources for its claims. It's basically an op-ed advocating for their position, with the general lack of academic rigor that entails.
Why not Starlink? (Score:2)
Well, I'd call it "personal relationships". Biden got too in bed with the traditional carmakers for his big EV push. He said a number of only marginally correct things - for example, praising GM for their "EV progress", apparently referring to the mostly shredded EV1 cars, while totally neglecting to mention how Tesla had progressed EVs. You see, Tesla isn't good because they don't use union labor, apparently, because Biden's EV push specified only union labor qualified for the extended subsidies, puttin
Finances? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And will other rural broadband projects eat their lunch before break even?
Re: (Score:3)
Starlink is already profitable. Google it.
Rural broadband projects are boondoggles. The Powers That Be don't give shit #1 about making it work; rural areas are mostly Enemies Of The State, as far as our establishment is concerned.
Whatever. The market worked again: Musk did it without a piece of the federal broadband money, which was denied because Starlink doesn't achieve some arbitrary bandwidth figure. Starlink is hooking up thousands of new Bitter Clingers and Deplorables every month.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that it actually is reasonably cheap to put satellites in orbit now. That's SpaceX's main breakthrough when they got reusable first stages to work properly over tens of launches. That brought prices in launch sector down quite a bit. And Starlink launches allow them to make launches regular, as they fill potential moments when there are no other launches. Which in turn makes everything cheaper, because work on launches becomes routine at well established intervals rather than boutique industry
Re: (Score:2)
Not only atmospheric - he intends to launch 42K satellites in total so even assuming multiple satellites per launch thats a fuck load of launches - but light pollution in the night sky? Yeah big deal all the techno evangelists say , but it does matter not only to astronomers and some migrating birds but just for people to be able to look up at the stars and not seeing scintillaitng points of light everywhere.
Wow... the terrestrial internet providers could have asked for additional money for literally doing nothing because they're saving the environment from the likes of Starlink. Those CEOs messed up big time!
But ... but ... (Score:2)
So currently the ratio is ... (Score:2)
One satellite in orbit per 600 subscribers
One satellite launched per 654 subscribers
They all have a limited lifetime and will need to be replaced
Even with SpaceX's cheap launches that is not sustainable ...