buckeyefarmer
Epic Contributor
Noticed mine is pointed a little bit east, and getting 97Mbps right now.
We very rarely break 100Mbit/s; most often Starlink service is in the 25-40Mbit/s range. That's way better than our previous, and unreliable, AT&T DSL service. We are happy, though, we would certainly appreciate faster service.Interesting. I hadn't heard of anyone on standard residential service being below about 75 Mb/s on an average basis. Also interesting that the dish reoriented and has better speeds. Cool.
Agreed.much better than DSL, but not exactly fiber.
Happy customer here.
I am very curious in what world starlink is faster than fiber. Fiber is typically approaching 1gbps, where starlink is under 100mbps.We have fiber available here, I have Starlink as it is faster and cheaper.
The world where the infrastructure is over fiber but the customer subscribes to a plan at lower max speeds. Just because the pipe CAN flow at a speed doesn't mean they're letting you have it.I am very curious in what world starlink is faster than fiber. Fiber is typically approaching 1gbps, where starlink is under 100mbps.
I'm glad that you got it fixed!Agreed.
I formerly had HughesNet in CA and ATT DSL in NV. SL is far better than either of them.
I posted a while back about a 2nd router failure with SL. But it wasn't a router failure.
What I believed was a router problem turned out to be a problem with the 150' cable. Oddly, it had been installed, untouched, and working fine for probably 6 months. Then SL became very unreliable with frequent reboots. After slowly swapping out *everything* except the cable, the problem persisted.
I replaced the cable and system reliability returned. Even with a close inspection of the cable (including a magnifying glass at the ends) I could not/cannot find anything wrong with it. Hmmm maybe I can sell the bad one on Craigslist ...![]()
I'm seeing download speeds with my 'regular' Starlink in the 130-160 Mb/s range, for $110/month. Fiber here has a MAX download speed of 100Mb/s, my neighbors who actually have the service are seeing 50-80Mb/s speeds. Cost for the fiber 100Mb speed package is $150/month, lower speed packages cost less. They wanted $8500 to install fiber to my house. Starlink wins.I am very curious in what world starlink is faster than fiber. Fiber is typically approaching 1gbps, where starlink is under 100mbps.
Wow, fiber around here is starting at 500mbps up and down, most of them are exclusively gbit. And it costs about $80/mo. If it's that different, then I completely understand, I never heard of fiber being that slow though.I'm seeing download speeds with my 'regular' Starlink in the 130-160 Mb/s range, for $110/month. Fiber here has a MAX download speed of 100Mb/s, my neighbors who actually have the service are seeing 50-80Mb/s speeds. Cost for the fiber 100Mb speed package is $150/month, lower speed packages cost less. They wanted $8500 to install fiber to my house. Starlink wins.
The company provides 1-20Gb/s for business service at $737-$1252/month, but 100Mb/s is max for residential service and they just raised those rates to $170/month.Wow, fiber around here is starting at 500mbps up and down, most of them are exclusively gbit. And it costs about $80/mo. If it's that different, then I completely understand, I never heard of fiber being that slow though.
That's ridiculous. Happens when there is no competition.The company provides 1-20Gb/s for business service at $737-$1252/month, but 100Mb/s is max for residential service and they just raised those rates to $170/month.
No. Different equipment, different subscriptions. You could use the RV at home, but the subscription price is a little higher ($135/mo, instead of $110/mo). For the RV version, there are two types of hardware, a portable base station, like the home version($599), and an "in motion" version for $2,300.So if I was to get Starlink for Home can I still take when I am in the RV as well?