https://www.engadget.com/starlink-mini-is-now-widely-available-and-doesnt-need-a-residential-subscription-150039444.html?src=rss
ABsolutely looking into this. I had no idea that moving closer to Kansas City would give me crappier internet service than living in unpopulated Kansas.
Seems fairly expensive to me, but I guess the users are a bit of a captive audience without much other choice.
Yeah, the RV crowd is already spending as much or more than that for kludge-y portable access --usually cell-based now.
> moving closer to Kansas City
You'll likely want the fixed-base system. Ergophobe was/is? using it and may have an update. I think it is $130-ish per mo.
Yes, I am using it and so are most of my neighbors now.
For "always on" internet, you want standard Starlink for $130/mo. That's the cheapest plan. The RV plan is more expensive but you can pause it for the winter (for example) so while more per month, you only pay for the months you use.
Starlink mini is a new thing that fits in a backpack and runs off grid with a solar panel. If you already have Starlink, it's only $30/mo to add a mini (or at least that's what they were pitching with a July 4 deadline). It's also capped at 50GB/mo.
I thought about getting a mini so that I could use that for channel binding rather than Hughesnet. The idea being that two dishes in two locations gives you different views of the sky and when one is blocked, the other might not be.
In terms of my experience, it is quite good. We can't really do things like Facetime with it or anything that is real-time like that because we lose signal whenever it goes behind a tree. I imagine gaming would be out of the question.
But we can stream movies, which we really could not do with Hughesnet.
Neighbors with fewer trees have a better experience.