The argument that national average bandwidth for Starlink is probably worse than for those rural communities is a solid one. Not sure if it makes up for the large gap, but in my opinion Starlink is well suited because it works better the less other users are in your cell (ie better in less densely populated regions).
It has fluctuated over time, but has almost always been over the minimum limits (25/3) IMO. It is also vastly more reliable than our only WISP option in the area.
What I have seen is that the cell will start to fill up, speeds slow down a little (still better than our WISP and other Satellite providers), then the cell closes. More satellites launch, speeds go up, and the cell opens again. It's my experience, so take it with a grain of salt. I've had it since the original beta / before 100% coverage.
Most of the complaints I see are from people with existing cable options. It is not as good as cable/fiber, but a complete game changer for those of us who have had flakey connections.
I agree. I have a WISP and it is shite. $99/mo for up to (but almost never) 100 Mpbs down.
Charter's trucks are now running lines to my property and we will be switching to Spectrum as soon as we can.
Fuck Adaptive.
