Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Communications

Starlink's Satellite Internet is Cheaper than Leading ISPs in Five African Countries (restofworld.org) 114

Posted by EditorDavid from the down-in-Africa dept.
"In at least five of the 16 African countries where the service is available, a monthly Starlink subscription is cheaper than the leading fixed internet service provider," reports Rest of World.

"Starlink, launched in 2019 by Elon Musk's SpaceX, has become the leading satellite internet provider in the world." Now available in more than 100 countries, Starlink can also be a relatively affordable option for users trying to log on in countries with limited internet service providers... A Rest of World analysis indicates that in at least five of the 16 African countries where the service is available, a monthly Starlink subscription is cheaper than the leading fixed internet service provider... [Kenya, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Cape Verde — though not including the upfront costs of Starlink hardware.]

Historically, internet connections around the globe have typically been enabled by ground-based internet service providers using fiber-optic cables and mobile base stations. But in many parts of the world, that infrastructure is sparse or nonexistent. "This is where satellite providers come in," said Nitinder Mohan, a computer science professor at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands who has studied Starlink's performance around the world. "I can be in the middle of a forest and, if I have a direct view of the sky, I can get my internet connectivity," he told Rest of World. "Regions which are previously underconnected — where there was no way of getting internet connectivity to them — now with these satellites, you can actually enable that...." According to the latest figures by the International Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency focused on information and communication technologies, 38% of the population in Africa uses the internet, compared to 91% of Europe...

Since launching in Kenya in July 2023, Starlink has disrupted the existing internet service provider industry. Starlink offers high connectivity speeds and wide availability in remote areas, along with dramatically lower prices. The company also introduced a rental option... Starlink has become so popular in Kenya that the company paused new subscriptions in major cities in early November due to network overload. The company plans to deploy more infrastructure in Nairobi and Johannesburg in order to bring more people online, said Mohan, the computer science professor at Delft University.
Starlink is less than half the cost of the leading ISP in Kenya Ghana, and especially in Zimbabwe (where the difference is dramatic):

Starlink: $30
Leading ISP in Zimbabwe: $633.62

Now in Kenya legacy telecom providers like Safaricom "have responded by lowering prices and increasing internet speeds," according to the article. The head of the research wing of the Global Systems for Mobile Communications Association even told Rest of World ISPS are also developing their own satellite networks (like Vodacom's partnership with satellite mobile network AST SpaceMobile) — though ironically, AST SpaceMobile launched its first satellites with the help of SpaceX.

Starlink's Satellite Internet is Cheaper than Leading ISPs in Five African Countries More | Reply

Starlink's Satellite Internet is Cheaper than Leading ISPs in Five African Countries

Comments Filter:
  • Is a tariff on starlinks intertubes. At least if it was a company in the US facing foreign competition.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 )

      Starlink is heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of various multi-billion contracts to schpace yikes.

      The goal is the same as always, undercut the competition, kill it, and then be a monopoly.

      The second-oldest trade practice after outright robbery :)

      • Re:The only solution to this (Score:5, Informative)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday January 12, 2025 @11:18PM (#65084127)

        Starlink is heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of various multi-billion contracts to schpace yikes.

        Not at all. On those contracts, Starlink is massively undercutting the competition and saving the government billions. That's just facts, not an endorsement of you-know-who.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          And you think that will stay that way? As soon as the victims have become dependent, the prices will raise. Oldest trick in the book.

          • Well that's where we have been for the last half-century, so it's something to worry about. But, no, now that it has been done by private industry I don't think we'll backslide that far. Blue Origin's New Glenn is supposed to be taking off for the first time... (checks watch)... within the next 6 hours.

            https://www.wesh.com/article/b... [wesh.com]

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Bert64 ( 520050 )

            Well likely this will kill off any investment in ground based infrastructure, so they will be limited by the available radio spectrum.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 )

          LOL, another tech bro who doesn't understand how subsidies work.

          • Starlink isn't being subsidized by anybody. Period. Arguably the opposite given the whole idea behind SpaceX running it is to raise funding for starship, and that's exactly what it's doing. The government isn't funding ANY of that, unlike ULA. The government itself already pays below market rate for falcon 9 launches. Yes, higher than private launches given the additional stipulations the government itself mandates, but still well below what SpaceX competitors charge, which is a pretty big deal considering

        • Not at all. On those contracts, Starlink is massively undercutting the competition and saving the government billions. That's just facts, not an endorsement of you-know-who.

          Both can be true. Undercutting the competition wins the contract, the contract can be a form of subsidy depending on how it's setup. The government can still subsidize a private corporation while saving money.

        • Re:The only solution to this (Score:5, Interesting)

          by mjwx ( 966435 ) on Monday January 13, 2025 @08:48AM (#65084777)

          Starlink is heavily subsidized by the US government in the form of various multi-billion contracts to schpace yikes.

          Not at all. On those contracts, Starlink is massively undercutting the competition and saving the government billions. That's just facts, not an endorsement of you-know-who.

          Whilst that is quite true, we're talking about Africa here, politicians and business are horrifically corrupt. I also am suspect of the prices, I strongly suspect they've fudged the numbers, specifically by omitting mobile telephony providers.

          Kenya's Safaricom [safaricom.co.ke] offers data plans, 8 GB for 1000 Ksh (about US$7.80 at todays exchange rate) and 100 GB for 10,000 Ksh (US$78 for those at the back). Found this with 20 seconds of Googling.

          Many African nations skipped the landline and went straight to mobile because of the expense of laying out so much copper, especially as copper became more expensive in recent decades. So an easy way to fudge some numbers is to look for landline plans.

          Also like others have said, I strongly suspect that Starlink would have to raise their prices in the future as government subsidy taps get turned off.

        • Starlink is available in Africa for $30 and Canada for something like $120.
          Are satellites launched to cover Africa cheaper to make? Of course not. They cover the whole planet anyways.
          The only reason it's so cheap in Africa is predatory pricing to get a monopoly by killing competition.

  • to make the world so dependent on one single person, much less a far-right sociopath who has no need for money?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      It is not. Obviously. Although that particular cretin has far less power than he thinks he has.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Better than letting it become dependent on a far-left sociopath who always seems to need more of my money.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Far-left sociopaths don't want money at all, that's the point of socialism/communism.

        • Instead they just want to control the entire economy, full stop.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Baloo Uriza ( 1582831 )
            Or, you know, that it's possible to have an economy and not have billionaires, everyone comes out better in that scenario.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ichthus ( 72442 )

              it's possible to have an economy and not have billionaires, everyone comes out better in that scenario.

              Yeah, that's the theory. Unfortunately, in practice, this has never been the case.

            • Can an economy exist without billionaires? Yes, Cuba has an economy and no billionaires. However, a dynamic economy cannot exist without billionaires (or at the very least, centi-millionaires). When government taxes are excessively high or actively hinder wealth accumulation, risk-taking plummets due to the inability to recoup investment losses. This explains why venture capital (VC) activity in the US significantly surpasses that in China (3:1) and India (11:1), despite the US population being one-fourth t

              • Oh that's laughable. Economies with billionares stagnate like ours because there's not enough liquidity to give people the economic freedom to innovative, which is why it's easy to abuse workers into being a cheap alternative to automation right now and why innovation isn't happening here much anymore.

            • Or, you know, that it's possible to have an economy and not have billionaires, everyone comes out better in that scenario.

              Sure, it's possible, but nobody comes out better. Members of the party maybe, but nobody else. In fact, exactly the opposite happens. Every. Single. Time. As in 100%. No room for *maybe*. China called it the great leap forward. Russia called it collectivization. We're not talking just poor but otherwise happy. We're talking mass famine. People starving to death by the millions. I don't know what Cuba called theirs, but same outcome, though less extreme because they were being subsidized by Russia, who by th

  • It does not only happen in countries that mistakenly think they are tech-leaders...

    • Re:Nice example for a market failure (Score:4, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday January 12, 2025 @11:29PM (#65084145)
      I guess "internet service" doesn't mean the same thing or play the same role as here, because:

      Here are DataReportalâ(TM)s essential headlines for digital adoption and use in Zimbabwe in early 2024:

      There were 5.48 million internet users in Zimbabwe at the start of 2024, when internet penetration stood at 32.6 percent.

      A total of 13.88 million cellular mobile connections were active in Zimbabwe in early 2024, with this figure equivalent to 82.4 percent of the total population.

      https://datareportal.com/repor... [datareportal.com]

      Anybody think 32.6% of people in Zimbabwe are paying $633.62 per month for internet?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        I guess "internet service" doesn't mean the same thing or play the same role as here, because:

        Here are DataReportalâ(TM)s essential headlines for digital adoption and use in Zimbabwe in early 2024:

        There were 5.48 million internet users in Zimbabwe at the start of 2024, when internet penetration stood at 32.6 percent.

        A total of 13.88 million cellular mobile connections were active in Zimbabwe in early 2024, with this figure equivalent to 82.4 percent of the total population.

        https://datareportal.com/repor... [datareportal.com]

        Anybody think 32.6% of people in Zimbabwe are paying $633.62 per month for internet?

        Not unless they're mixing USD and ZWL. If this site [paynow.co.zw] isn't hopelessly out of date, then it sounds like there are a decent number of "unlimited" plans for not a whole lot more than their $30 number, but with caps on video streaming resolution from major sites and other similar limitations. For Starlink speeds, probably more like $70 a month.

        So maybe somebody moved the decimal point?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        I guess "internet service" doesn't mean the same thing or play the same role as here, because:

        Here are DataReportalâ(TM)s essential headlines for digital adoption and use in Zimbabwe in early 2024:

        There were 5.48 million internet users in Zimbabwe at the start of 2024, when internet penetration stood at 32.6 percent.

        A total of 13.88 million cellular mobile connections were active in Zimbabwe in early 2024, with this figure equivalent to 82.4 percent of the total population.

        https://datareportal.com/repor... [datareportal.com]

        Anybody think 32.6% of people in Zimbabwe are paying $633.62 per month for internet?

        I suspect they deliberately omitted mobile phone services, A quick google reveals it's about US$12 a month for a basic phone service (4 GB)... which is definitely not cheap by western standards, let alone African ones but hardly the many hundreds touted by the article.

  • Residential Lite is KES4000, which is $55NZD
    Same plan here is $79NZD

    They also have a 50GB $18 plan that isn't available here.

    Same service, same costs, different prices in different markets. Typical.

    Even the % difference between the Residential Lite and Residential plans are skewed.
    NZ is $79 and $159, about 2x the price
    Kenya is 4000 and 6500, about 60% more

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by g01d4 ( 888748 )
      The sky is the same but what you can afford is different. Google's AI came up with geographical pricing [investopedia.com],

    • Re:Is my sky different than Kenya's? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Sunday January 12, 2025 @11:31PM (#65084151)

      The pricing is not based on cost or value provided. It is based on what they think they can squeeze out of you.

      • In a perfect economic system GDP is maximised by pricing a product or service exactly as high as any individual is willing to pay. Unfortunately for that you need individualised perfect information, which neither party has, so you end up with at best regional pricing differences.

    • With a substantially growing population. It's also in the process of modernizing similar to China from 30, 40 years ago.

      So everyone wants in on the action on the ground floor. As such they are willing to subsidize prices quite a bit.

    • It seems likely that the Kenya prices are extortionate given how cheap it would be to employ the people necessary to build and maintain the network there will be. Do you think Kenyans pay the same price for a haircut as you do?

      There's an economic concept called 'Purchasing Power Parity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] that seeks to capture the experienced income of a country rather than that merely captured by converting the currency at market rates.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        The labor costs are in general a lot lower, but:

        While there is no shortage of unskilled laborers, there is a severe shortage of skilled ones. Workers with marketable skills will demand higher salaries, or will often migrate to countries where they will receive higher salaries.

        Basic costs for the equipment is the same, actual price may vary depending on taxes and import costs.
        Legacy IPv4 costs are higher for new/growing providers vs the incumbent ones in the west that got allocations years ago.
        Costs for CGNA

      • How many employees do you think Starlink has in Kenya?

        Starlink has the ability to route through their orbiting network before picking a ground station. They can service a country without any local infrastructure.

  • They always get you with the cheap intro rates. (Score:3)

    by leonbev ( 111395 ) on Sunday January 12, 2025 @11:33PM (#65084155) Journal

    Here in my area of the US, a residential class Starlink subscription would cost $90. A compatible 1 gigabit symmetrical fiber connection would cost $59 a month, assuming that you can get one in your neighborhood. If not, you'll probably end up paying similar price to Starlink for slower non-symmetrical Comcast cable connection once you add all their insane taxes and fees.

    I'd imagine that the less developed countries are getting a much cheaper Starlink intro rate than we do to bring in business. Then they'll raise their rates once they have a solid customer base, just like most ISP's would.

    • Re:They always get you with the cheap intro rates. (Score:4, Informative)

      by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday January 13, 2025 @12:02AM (#65084187)

      Starlink Residential, at my address (in the US), would be $120/month. Their stated expected speed for that plan is 150-250Mbps, although people report somewhat less than that (especially for uploads).

      The monthly cost for my existing Comcast internet plan, 800Mbps down / 100Mbps up, just went up $3 to $99/month. FWIW what I see at speedtest.net is typically right around 700+ down and 120 up.

      I'm glad Starlink exists, since it's likely the only reason Comcast's upload speeds have increased is competition - something they've managed to suppress for most of their existence. But between Comcast's increased upload speeds and Starlink's increased US prices, Starlink isn't exactly undercutting Comcast now.

    • I am pretty sure in Africa people are sharing these Starlink connections

  • Wait a second. $30? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Monday January 13, 2025 @12:09AM (#65084197) Homepage Journal

    Yikes. Only $30 a month for unlimited data? Meanwhile, in the U.S., their residential plans start at $120 a month, unless you include their "dribble of data" basic roaming plan where you can burn through all of your data allowance in just over an hour, and even that joke of a plan is $50.

    I mean yes, I realize that cost-of-living-wise, $30 in Zimbabwe is the equivalent of about $400 in the U.S. after adjusting for average salary, but either it costs money to provide data or it doesn't, and if you can provide it at that price and still make a profit, then providing it at 4x that price is just gouging because you can, and if you're losing money at that price, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

    Their pricing doesn't make a lot of sense. They charge peanuts in a few countries where almost nobody has Internet service, I guess because they'd love to end up cornering the market, or maybe because the satellites would go completely unused at that point in their orbit, and they might as well make at least a little bit of money from them. So that part at least kind of makes sense.

    But everywhere else (U.S., Europe, etc.), their rates are about 2x to 3x the national average. They aren't at all competitive unless you live where the alternative is no service at all. If they're going to charge rates that would make even most extortionate monopoly cable company ISPs blush, it makes me wonder why they're even bothering at all. I just really don't get it.

    If they don't cut their prices, they're going to be stuck with only users who live in the middle of nowhere, and over time, you can expect the number of homes without access to fiber to decrease, so that's not a very sound business strategy on even a ten-year horizon, much less in the longer term.

    I thought maybe it was because they were still setting up the network and didn't want to overload it too quickly, but they're almost two-thirds of the way to their 12k satellite target at this point. Seems like a good time to start reducing prices to be competitive in the broader market before LEO satellite competition (e.g. Project Kuiper) comes later this year and gives them a good swift kick in the a**. Just saying.

    • I mean yes, I realize that cost-of-living-wise, $30 in Zimbabwe is the equivalent of about $400 in the U.S. after adjusting for average salary, but either it costs money to provide data or it doesn't,

      What you are not thinking about, is that probably a user in Zimbabwe is not using nearly so much data per month as a US user.

      MY mother uses Starlink for example (vastly better than any other solution she can get in her rural area), and even she has something like four devices that all use the internet, update f

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        I mean yes, I realize that cost-of-living-wise, $30 in Zimbabwe is the equivalent of about $400 in the U.S. after adjusting for average salary, but either it costs money to provide data or it doesn't,

        What you are not thinking about, is that probably a user in Zimbabwe is not using nearly so much data per month as a US user.

        I actually did think of that, and actually wrote that in an earlier draft, but decided to delete it, because although the average might be lower, the folks who would flock to an unlimited plan are likely to be the biggest data users, and also because one of the reasons they don't use much data is likely because of lack of availability of big pipes. Give them big pipes, and you'll probably see usage increase considerably.

        MY mother uses Starlink for example (vastly better than any other solution she can get in her rural area), and even she has something like four devices that all use the internet, update frequently, and she has a lot of people she communicates with including video calls.

        Now someone in Zimbabwe, they are probably on average not going to have so many devices, probably not doing as many things like video chatting, so I can easily see them using 2x less data than most US users, maybe up to 4x.

        Fewer devices, maybe, but having more devices doesn't result in less bandwidth unless t

    • But everywhere else (U.S., Europe, etc.), their rates are about 2x to 3x the national average. They aren't at all competitive unless you live where the alternative is no service at all.

      That's their use case, and people are willing to pay. They're probably using a good portion of their bandwidth too (in the US and EU -- maybe not in Zimbabwe).

    • Re:Wait a second. $30? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday January 13, 2025 @05:14AM (#65084489)

      Their pricing doesn't make a lot of sense.

      Their pricing makes perfect sense. Economics 101 says that GDP is maximised by pricing any product or service at the highest limit of what each individual is willing to pay. No one (thankfully) has enough information to individualise pricing like this, but there is enough generalised information available to make it regional.

      Launching a satellite is a sunk cost. The ongoing fixed costs of offering Starlink are minimal. So while they may not be able to, invest, offer a service, and make a profit if their customers only pay $30, the fact that some other customers pay $120 helps cover the initial investment, making the $30 customers profitable as well.

      So why not offer it for less? Because they aren't a charity and because they have established their customers in the USA are willing to pay $120.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        Their pricing doesn't make a lot of sense.

        Their pricing makes perfect sense. Economics 101 says that GDP is maximised by pricing any product or service at the highest limit of what each individual is willing to pay. No one (thankfully) has enough information to individualise pricing like this, but there is enough generalised information available to make it regional.

        Ah, but they aren't doing that. They're pricing it at two to three times what every other service costs in the area, which means they would only be considered by the 1% of people who have no other options. By pricing it closer to the market rate, they would be considered by 100x as many people.

        So why not offer it for less? Because they aren't a charity and because they have established their customers in the USA are willing to pay $120.

        They have established that a few desperate people are willing to pay $120. They're missing 99% of their potential market at that price, because nobody who has the option of choosing (for example) Comcast, which off

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          They have established that a few desperate people are willing to pay $120. They're missing 99% of their potential market at that price, because nobody who has the option of choosing (for example) Comcast, which offers comparable speeds at their $20 per month tier, is going to spend $120 for Starlink.

          Note that I didn't do any deep digging into that $20 number. That could be an introductory price. But I'm getting Comcast Business service with 8 static IPs for less than $120 a month (IIRC) with no caps, so I think it is reasonable to assume that a comparable residential plan would be considerably less than $120.

        • Their pricing doesn't make a lot of sense.

          Their pricing makes perfect sense. Economics 101 says that GDP is maximised by pricing any product or service at the highest limit of what each individual is willing to pay. No one (thankfully) has enough information to individualise pricing like this, but there is enough generalised information available to make it regional.

          Ah, but they aren't doing that. They're pricing it at two to three times what every other service costs in the area, which means they would only be considered by the 1% of people who have no other options. By pricing it closer to the market rate, they would be considered by 100x as many people.

          You're assuming they could service 100X as many people with their current constellation and downlinks without excessive negative impact to performance.

          So why not offer it for less? Because they aren't a charity and because they have established their customers in the USA are willing to pay $120.

          They have established that a few desperate people are willing to pay $120. They're missing 99% of their potential market at that price, because nobody who has the option of choosing (for example) Comcast, which offers comparable speeds at their $20 per month tier, is going to spend $120 for Starlink.

          Sure. But nothing you said is incompatible with the idea that their current pricing is maximizing revenue and profit in the US.

          I strongly suspect that they are, and I expect that prices will go down as their capacity goes up... especially when Starship becomes operational and they start putting up their third-generation satellites, which are far more capabl

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            Their pricing doesn't make a lot of sense.

            Their pricing makes perfect sense. Economics 101 says that GDP is maximised by pricing any product or service at the highest limit of what each individual is willing to pay. No one (thankfully) has enough information to individualise pricing like this, but there is enough generalised information available to make it regional.

            Ah, but they aren't doing that. They're pricing it at two to three times what every other service costs in the area, which means they would only be considered by the 1% of people who have no other options. By pricing it closer to the market rate, they would be considered by 100x as many people.

            You're assuming they could service 100X as many people with their current constellation and downlinks without excessive negative impact to performance.

            I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming that they can service more people than they service now, which is not very many. At least in the U.S., they've probably already basically hit saturation of houses that have no other options, give or take. And I'm assuming they don't intend to permanently be known as the ISP that is used only by people who can't get service from anywhere else, because that isn't exactly going to pay the bills. Right now, they have less than a quarter as many customers in the entire U.S

            • I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming that they can service more people than they service now, which is not very many.

              And I'm saying you have no basis for the assumption that they can service more people than they service now.

              Unless they're already approaching capacity, their current pricing is too high.

              I think they are close to capacity right now. It was only two years ago that they stopped making people get on a waitlist for anywhere in the US, and there are still regions of the US where subscription is capped. They also offer premium plans that prioritize your data over others in the case that the available satellites/downlinks are bandwidth constrained.

              Folks were saying that for the second-generation satellites, too.

              What they used to call the V2 satellites a

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming that they can service more people than they service now, which is not very many.

                And I'm saying you have no basis for the assumption that they can service more people than they service now.

                SpaceX estimated that they would hit 20 million users worldwide by 2022 [arstechnica.com]. To by knowledge, they aren't three years behind in their launch schedule. Since then, SpaceX has doubled the number of satellites, so logically, you'd expect them to be able to handle O(40 million) users now. They currently have 4.6 million users.

                They should be able to handle considerably more users than they are currently handling. Maybe they were planning to provide less bandwidth at that level, which could factor in, but unless

        • Ah, but they aren't doing that. They're pricing it at two to three times what every other service costs in the area, which means they would only be considered by the 1% of people who have no other options. By pricing it closer to the market rate, they would be considered by 100x as many people.

          Starlink isn't attempting to completely maximise their subscriber count, doing so would cause the system to collapse. As it stands they have bandwidth problems throughout America to the point where they didn't even qualify for the broadband subsidiy as they were unable to provide not just their advertised speeds, but the minimum required to consider broadband. This is a localised issue, speeds are far higher in areas with lower counts so it stands to reason they can drop their price in some areas while milk

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Bert64 ( 520050 )

      Starlink has limited bandwidth available in each location...
      If they made it cheap they would get more users, who would saturate the available spectrum and drag the service to a crawl. It makes sense so increase the prices in any given area to a level which will keep the number of users to a manageable level.

  • Imagine if the only decent access to the internet you could afford required you to give money to a raging Nazi.

  • 1) wait for the "sky to fall on your heads" [youtube.com] [French] before praising the wonderfully disgusting Elon Musk. By the way, you can also judge how considerate he is in Boca Chica [youtube.com]

    2) I've been wondering what everybody is paying for in many different countries. I still don't have the answer, just the general idea that it's way too much, especially in the USA. In France, prices have been rising a bit in the last 10 or 15 years. I used to pay 30€/month for a copper/ADSL, around 25 Mbps/s. Now, it's 40€/m

  • Meanwhile, it's Comcast's prices that are out of this world. Starlink appears to be more down to Earth. Strange reality reversal.

  • I am surprised some of these countries (especially those where the government either owns or heavily benefits from the incumbent ISPs) haven't just outlawed Starlink.

  • ..that in Senegal, where the full internet is switched off each year for the high-school exams, to prevent cheating, it will ruin their anti-cheating program and allow the companies to continue to do business during that time. :-)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Megane ( 129182 )
      But on the bright side you will be able to tell who the cheaters are because they have a backpack with a big square antenna sticking out of it.

      • "But on the bright side you will be able to tell who the cheaters are because they have a backpack with a big square antenna sticking out of it."

        Hardly, they'll have a friend with a van outside and a directional antenna pointed at the exam room, like we did it analogically in the 70ies. :-)

  • I know a 6th, so I think the article is understating it.
  • It's cheaper than a ton of it's competitors. They're proposing pricing it low right now to gain traction.
  • Sounds like a great way to make sure local infrastructure isn't being built, local people aren't being trained and employed, and the client state is kept dependent.

  • Cheaper for now. Eliminate the competition then monopolize.

  • Well, not that shocked.

    You're telling me that satellite based internet is cheaper than countries with poor infrastructure? Who could've guess that one. (roll eyes)
  • (glances at comments) Yep ...

Slashdot Top Deals

Mausoleum: The final and funniest folly of the rich. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close