• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    Here’s the rub. Starlink is not and can not be profitable without venture capital and subsidies. It exists to funnel money away from taxpayers. It’s a con built on lies like the rest. At least some people get to benefit from this, unlike people sold overhyped cars and promises of Mars colonies, but that’s changing with price hikes and service degredations too.

    • cole@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      can I get a source on the math for this? I haven’t heard that before

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        What math do you want? The cost of launching infinite space ships forever is more than what subscribers pay. The satellites fall down in about a year and new ones need to be launched. The subscribers would have to pay for every single rocket launch. Right now American tax payers do.

        • cole@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          The problem is you say this with certainty but have no numbers or evidence to back it up. How do you know the revenue from subscribers can’t cover rocket launches?

          • echo64@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            It got almost a billion dollars in subsidies from America last year. This is whilst being unprofitable.

            • cole@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              It seems Starlink A) isn’t getting subsidies and SpaceX is B) providing services in exchange for payment rather than just getting free money.

              On top of this, SpaceX is reportedly still profitable. I just don’t understand your argument here. No sources, no actual hard data just conjecture.