Starlink Users Miffed They Have To Pay Extra To Skip The Long Wait

from the pay-more-to-get-less dept

While Space X’s Starlink is a promising broadband option if you’re out of range of traditional options (and can afford it), many users who’ve pre-ordered aren’t having a great time. Some say they’ve been waiting for service more than a year, during which time Starlink has often refused to answer basic emails or issue refunds, while imposing price hikes on waiting customers.

Waiting customers are also annoyed because Starlink keeps introducing new plans that allow users to skip the wait… if they pay more than those who’ve spent the last year patiently waiting.

For example, back in February Starlink offered a new “premium” tier. While basic Starlink customers already pay $600 for hardware and $110 a month for variable-speed service, premium users can pay $2500 up front for hardware. That not only netted those users faster speed, but the hardware shipped sooner than those who had already been waiting patiently for months.

This week, Starlink unveiled another option specifically aimed at RV enthusiasts. The new service allows you to affix a satellite to your mobile home if you’re willing to pay $25 more each month ($135 a month). While your speeds will be deprioritized on the network while traveling (read: slower), users who sign up for this option are also being allowed to skip long waits if they’re willing to pay more for service.

Unsurprisingly, some Reddit users who’ve been waiting in some cases more than a year aren’t particularly happy:

Just another way to ask for more $$ and being able to order immediately, when instead people like me are waiting since Feb/8/2021 , paid $99 deposit , and getting nothing even with the already increased price for the hardware and monthly service .

The fact that Starlink has introduced what are basically business-class tiers and a mobile RV tier aren’t really the issue. The issue is that Starlink has been unable to respond to basic customer inquiries about long wait times, much less provide refunds to those waiting for more than a year if they want them, so adding the option to skip the queue if you pay even more is a bit of a slap in the face.

Granted many of those users have no broadband access at all, and may be motivated to sign up for the deprioritized, more expensive RV service, which will… result in long wait times for the RV product as well.

Starlink’s issue is that the service capacity is capped out at somewhere around 800,000 total users for the first few years. So the company’s in a race to keep Starlink financially viable (which Musk himself has claimed may not be possible), while simultaneously keeping pre-orders from defecting en masse after long waits and taking their down payment with them.

Somewhere between 20 and 40 million Americans lack access to any broadband whatsoever. 83 million more currently live under a broadband monopoly, usually their cable provider. That’s an awful lot of demand Starlink won’t be able to meet for a very long time even if everything goes perfectly (which it isn’t). The entry price of $600 down and $110 a month is also far too steep for many of those disconnected users.

This is all a fairly delicate balancing act that could easily go wrong if Starlink can’t keep pace with demand and balance irritable users that have been waiting for an extremely long time for service. Musk fans have a lot of patience, but even that patience will eventually find its limit.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: spacex, starlink

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Starlink Users Miffed They Have To Pay Extra To Skip The Long Wait”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
24 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Naughty Autie says:

Re:

So you’ve made two claims here: one is that Techdirt received money intended for charity and is using it to ‘trash’ Elon Musk, the other is that Bill Gates is giving money intended for charity to blogs that ‘trash’ Elon Musk. I, for one, would like to see you prove both claims.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

That’s fucking awesome. Let’s see, if Gates shorted Tesla when it was around $1000 a share, it’s now about $700 a share, that’s around a 30% return. So if Gates shorted half a billion dollars of Tesla stock it means he made $150 million. That’s almost as much as Elon made by illegally not reporting his Twitter stock purchase.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

So you’ve made two claims here: one is that Techdirt received money intended for charity and is using it to ‘trash’ Elon Musk, the other is that Bill Gates is giving money intended for charity to blogs that ‘trash’ Elon Musk. I, for one, would like to see you prove both claims.

He can’t, because neither is true.

We have received no money from Bill Gates or any Gates-connected non-profit ever.

As for the claim that Gates is funding non-profits to attack Musk, that’s a Breitbart story that you won’t find in any respectable media, because it’s so stupid it’s not even worth debunking.

However, here are the details that the Breitbart reporter is too stupid to understand. Bill Gates’ foundation funds a number of non-profits, including organizations like New Venture Fund. New Venture Fund is a sort of incubator for non-profits. Many newer non-profits use NVF as what’s known as a “fiscal sponsor.” NVF is one of the larger such organizations, and thus lots of non-profits effectively have NVF handle administrative work for them.

That means when the non-profits that use NVF get donations, the donations are technically to NVF, who takes a small cut, and passes along the rest.

NVF gets money from basically all the big foundations, including the Gates Foundation.

Breitbart made a ridiculously confused and misleading story out of the fact that a out of a bunch of non-profits that signed onto a (silly, but understandable) letter were fiscally sponsored by NVF. The letter was asking advertisers to pull their ads from Twitter if Elon Musk opens it back up to abuse and harassment.

Breitbart turned that into “Bill Gates is funding attacks on Elon Musk through shadowy non-profits” or whatever.

None of that is accurate.

First, Bill Gates spreads his money around to lots of non-profits that do lots of good work.

Second, some of that money goes through NVF, because if you’re doing anything vaguely good for the world in the non-profit space, you’re probably putting money through NVF. That’s just how it works.

Third, none of the groups were “attacking” Elon Musk. They were just telling advertisers to consider whether or not they wanted to have their ads next to assholes harassing people.

Fourth, any reporting on funds from the Gates foundation wouldn’t be from this year, since reporting isn’t out for this year, so it couldn’t possibly be about Gates funding those orgs to do anything about Musk.

In other words, a very dumb, but very motivated Breitbart reporter wanted to create a narrative basically out of thin air, and links the fact that Gates Foundation throws money at a large number of non-profits, and some of those non-profits signed onto a fairly benign letter to advertisers… means that Gates is secretly paying dark money groups to attack Musk.

Of course, Musk played up the story, and tons of absolute morons now believe it to be true.

But you have to be too stupid for words to actually fall for it.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I implied no such thing. NA appeared, correctly, skeptical, and asked the original commenter for evidence to back it up. I was pointing out why the original commenter will be unable to back it up. Assuming they return, they will undoubtedly link to the misleading article, or one of the others repeating its claims. So I explained why that’s based on a near total ignorance of how any of this works.

Anonymous Coward says:

What do you mean ‘could easily go wrong’? I think it is pretty clear that it is already going wrong. I have never really understood the whole Musk fandom, the guy never really delivers on his promises, and personally he is an arsehole. You could argue that Tesla was first to the gate on electric cars. But there are other companies out there now building cheaper and better quality electrics.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Great balanced piece on Starlink. I do believe that orbital internet technology has great potential but that apparently has to be realized in some distant future and not from SpaceX, how good Musk may be or not at making it a commercial success.
And Amazon’s Project Kupier has yet to be launched. Maybe 2023 will see more success in the orbital technology area, I hope.

OGquaker says:

Re: Re: Fk It Nikola

If i was Musk, i would pull the plug and let all the satellites self de-orbit within five years, as they are designed to do.

When i built an electric car factory in 1994-95 i got NO support from anybody i ever knew, and i stayed away from E-Groupies, even turning away Jay Leno one day.

Better to die in a hotel room with a loving pidgin than take hate for trying

That One Guy (profile) says:

Oh look, pay to win

‘So we know we took your money and added you to the long waiting line where you’ve been sitting all this time with nothing to show for it, but if you pay us even more money we’ll look into bumping you up in the queue…’

Oh yeah, that’s not a self-inflicted PR black-eye likely to cause people to bail or avoid the service at all…

OGquaker says:

Re: You are correct

The MORE people to bail or avoid the service at all the better for those who need a chance at web access.

Capital-ism is absolutely built around scarcity, real or believed. Thus dopers on 5th street are germane to keep everyone in bad “Jobs” & fluoride and chloramines in municipal water sells each and every citizen a thousand single-use plastic water containers every year.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...