Did you find local providers were actually upfront about their speeds, though? I've heard some horror stories about advertised vs. actual speeds in rural areas... makes me wonder if Starlink's transparency might be worth the extra cost. Curious how your experience compares.
Local providers can be hit or miss, honestly. My experience:
- Advertised speeds rarely matched reality—usually 20-30% lower.
- Peak hours were especially rough; evenings slowed to a crawl.
- Starlink's upfront transparency might justify the premium, especially if your work depends on stable internet.
Starlink's transparency is appealing, but I'd still crunch the numbers carefully. Have you factored in equipment costs and potential price hikes down the road? Stability matters, sure, but budgeting realistically is key too...
Good points about Starlink's hidden costs—been there, done that with unexpected expenses popping up later. But here's a curveball: have you thought about the resale value impact if internet reliability improves down the line? I mean, rural perks are awesome now, but what happens when fiber finally creeps out your way...could that boost your home's value even more? Just something else to chew on before diving in headfirst.
Went through something similar a few years back—bought rural, banking on satellite internet. Couple quick thoughts:
- Starlink was decent at first, but reliability issues popped up more often than expected. Not deal-breakers, but annoying enough.
- Fiber finally arrived last year, and yeah, home value did tick up noticeably. But honestly, it wasn't a massive jump—more like a nice bonus.
- Bottom line: don't count on future fiber as a guaranteed windfall. It's great if it happens, but don't let it sway your decision too heavily.
