pull down to refresh

207 sats \ 12 replies \ @kr 12 Jan
counting down the days until i can pay starlink and stop paying the telecom dinosaurs they’re about to disrupt
reply
Starlink makes sense on countryside, where it competes with mobile broadband. It's more expensive, but faster. But in Riga I pay 11 EUR per month for 100 Mbps wired Internet in a flat, makes no sense to use Starlink, besides latency is higher.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kr 12 Jan
wow, sounds like you’re paying 5-10x less for mobile/internet than most service providers in Canada
reply
Yes, historically there have been a lots of competition in Riga, lots of small ISPs, so prices are cheap compared to the rest of the world. And in phone I mostly don't use WiFi too, as unlimited mobile broadband is cheap too (I pay around 50 EUR per month for three numbers, everything unlimited).
reply
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.
66 sats \ 1 reply \ @davidw 12 Jan
Not sure whether to be ‘pumped-up’ or ‘bummed-out’ about this news.
For those that are interested in reading more about the pros and cons of Starlink, this SN post might be a useful starting point. Even after learning a great deal, I’m still on the fence.
Every cell network may depend on Starlink at the pace they’re growing, if not compete directly with them in future.
reply
Every cell network may depend on Starlink at the pace they’re growing
Don't see how. Starlink makes sense only in remote areas. In cities it's cheaper to provide service with towers on ground, connected via fiber. Starlink will always be more expensive and will have worse latency due to physics (speed of light).
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 12 Jan
The dude should just dissolve x and use resources for other ventures, might lower the costs to users. Some parts of the world it may have cost benefit, but not in so many places.
reply
deleted by author
reply