[mukundmr]

Starlink cost is 499$ for equipment and 99$ per month? That is way too high for broadband prices in India. Fibre internet of 100 Mbps is about 18$. Mobile 4G is even cheaper.

[jhgb]

In that case, what's the problem? If nobody is going to buy it, then there's nobody that needs to be discouraged from buying it.

[dddnzzz334]

It means losing the dictatorial control that the Indian government currently has over internet.

[foobiekr]

It’s about bribes.

[minhazm]

How many people have access to this 100 Mbps fiber though? From what I'm seeing on Wikipedia, the internet penetration rate is around 50% of the population. Starlink isn't intended to replace existing reliable broadband solutions. It's meant to provide internet access to remote areas where running fiber to those areas is way more expensive. Fiber and cellular (usually needs fiber backhaul) would be prohibitively expensive to bring to many areas of the world and telecoms won't do it unless the government pays for it. But for $500 up front and $99 a month you can bring 150-300 Mbps to remote villages and schools. They don't need a dedicated connection per household, 300 Mbps is enough to split across potentially dozens of households or even a smalls school.

[mohanmcgeek]

Serious question: can you show me in a map where in India these remote villages and schools are that lacks cellular or fiber coverage?

[wmf]

Starlink might make more sense as cellular backhaul in some places.