[sp0ck]

Calling them "competitor" is eufemism. Cheapest plan (Anchor) is $625/month for 40 GB, with 10/2 Mbps speeds.

Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service.

[CaptainOfCoit]

> Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service.

I dunno, is "bus factor" a political or technical thing to consider? How about "did the country of this business threaten us before?" a technical or political consideration?

Personally, I'd try to stay away from entities I can't rely on, on a technical basis. Based on the article, it seems like Greenland traded stability and resilience for performance and price, doesn't seem political.

[kotaKat]

And terminal costs will be through the roof in comparison.

Who else out there is making full-on beamforming capable satellite terminals under $1k? Kymeta's over $20k+ for a single dish.

People may hate the company and the man behind it but there's something special about being able to grab specialized satcoms hardware for like $300 at Best Buy.

10 years ago a BGAN terminal ran me $5000+ and a 384k connection several thousand bucks a month. Now you can get ~512k for $5 a month in Standby Mode on a $300 dish.

[saubeidl]

There's no terminal costs. Eutelsat uses bog-standard 5G.

The company and the man behind it cost $300 more per terminal.

[kitd]

How do you know Greenland are paying consumer prices?

[mlrtime]

You're right, they're most likely paying more!

[tonyhart7]

no fucking way you pay 600+ usd for 40gb data

[CaptainOfCoit]

For us who experienced satellite internet and phone networks before Starlink appeared and tried to push down the prices, that doesn't sound so outlandish for internet that goes through space and is accessible literally everywhere on the planet. If anything it sounds cheap.