[giant_loser]

So a high latency connection that is also susceptible to atmospheric effects and run by a madman is okay?

I am still on DSL because there is no fiber or 5g internet here yet*. And I live on the edge of an area with 500k people. DSL is good enough for 4k streaming video and anything else I need and costs me $65.

Why on earth would I want to make things worse by using starlink?

Of course, if I lived 50 miles from a gas station, that is different. But living rural has many risks and downsides that the people out there accept.

*This is the real issue. If corporations had to put its customers(and employees) on the same level as shareholders(very few actually benefit the corporation directly because they don't buy stock directly from the company) a lot of problems would be solved. Or, if companies realized that taking care of the customer and employees first means that everything else will follow.

[gruez]

>So a high latency connection

It's hard to take the rest of your comment seriously when you're starting your comment off with this. Independent reviews says latency is in the 20-30ms range. That's in the same range (if not better) than cellular internet, and even though coax/DSL might lower, you won't really notice unless you're a competitive esports streamer or running a HFT bot out of your basement.

[manuelmoreale]

You clearly talk a lot but ask very few questions and make a lot of assumptions.

My only other option here is a FWA connection that is 1/10th the speed, it’s even more subjected to weather and costs me the same. That is it.

There is no DSL good for anything. Say what you want about the man (which I’m definitely not a fan of at this point) but Starlink is solving a real issue for many people.