Saw the SpaceX Starlink satellites

[alarmguy]

deleted

 

[IndyIan]

I agree, $100 a month for data is not cheap, you have TMobile offering internet for $60, local companies offering it for $50 and big companies offering it for up to $80, total cost includes taxes and most always equipment. All of them over 100 Mbps. Of them all satellite will be the most weather dependent.
Time will tell but if you have none of the mentioned options, satellite is the only answer, with that said we are talking a small, very small part of the population, others will have many choices, choose is good. I think the cell companies are going to give everyone a run for their money.

As far as "market of cell phone" not sure what you mean? Home internet has come a long way and been around longer.

Up here our cell companies have been very reluctant to offer internet at reasonable prices as it would show that their cell phone plans are silly expensive for what they are. People can pay 1 or 2 dollars a gig/month on home internet out where I live out in the sticks, if they still with the big companies... We have a local guy who set up his own business with a set of towers to do over the air for less money than the big companies and unlimited data plans. He's got the ping down to about 100ms in the busy periods and 25mb/s runs all the youtube, zooms, etc four of us can use at once.
Lots of people around me are already on Starlink beta and are pretty happy with it, there are some drops and you can see there will be slow times or even momentary outages based on how many satellites are going over and what angles they are and if you have trees or buildings blocking some. But no one has said they are going back to cell tower based internet.
https://satellitemap.space/ This is a neat realtime tracker that sees whats over you at the moment.

 

[PandaBear]

I agree, $100 a month for data is not cheap, you have TMobile offering internet for $60, local companies offering it for $50 and big companies offering it for up to $80, total cost includes taxes and most always equipment. All of them over 100 Mbps. Of them all satellite will be the most weather dependent.
Time will tell but if you have none of the mentioned options, satellite is the only answer, with that said we are talking a small, very small part of the population, others will have many choices, choose is good. I think the cell companies are going to give everyone a run for their money.

As far as "market of cell phone" not sure what you mean? Home internet has come a long way and been around longer.

The term "cell" means the same frequency can be reused if you bring the coverage of the antenna down by make use of less powerful antenna for smaller "cellular" coverage. Bandwidth is expensive, they figure out how to roam from one to another so this is not a problem anymore.

Satellite is the same, they have lower the orbit of the satellite so it takes more satellite, it is more expensive IF you do not have more customer reusing the same, now smaller, coverage. If you reuse them your cost is actually lowered per customer.

Cellular phone call and data is what I was talking about, as soon as it shrink the coverage size and put up more towers it becomes cheaper per user. Same will happen with 5G (higher frequency, less penetration, shorter distance, more bandwidth reuse, cheaper cost per user) and starlink like low orbit satellite.

 

[mk378]

There should be a program like the REA to install fiber optic cables in rural areas. These could be used either wholesale in support of a 5G or other wireless distribution, or ultimately as a direct to consumer utility. The technology to do this has existed for at least 15 years, but it doesn't fit with conventional business practices. Just like electricity, the payback to install a long line to serve few customers is very long, but it does exist.