For those WILLING to pay a premium for Starlink fast internet, how much would you pay?

[NutsAboutGolf]

***Disclaimer, you're welcome to post anything you want but sharing your opinion here that you WOULDN'T PAY or would pay NOT to use starlink due to being anti-internet and/or anti-Musk and/or anti-starlink ("there's too many satellites!"), serves no purpose in this thread***

 

Based on Vloggers who tested the Freedom of the Seas, there will be two speeds and the lowest speed was able to do a zoom call without interruption, not sure if X will follow that or do their own thing.

 

Keeping this intentionally open so folks can share their thoughts vs a poll

 

If sailing on a cruise only rate, I personally would pay $50/night for one device and $25/night for each additional night to have the fastest speed.

[CHEZMARYLOU]

We get the upgraded internet free with our suite so I wouldn't pay more than $1 per night. (Didn't want to break the rules and say zero)

[PTC DAWG]

1 cent. I’m not all that important…the world will keep turning without my daily input. 🙂

Edited August 31, 2022 by PTC DAWG

[DCPIV]

I might be willing to pay something along the lines of 10-15% over their cost, allowing for some reasonable amortization of their equipment cost.  It's a nice amenity, but I still somewhat shudder at the thought of "luxury" being some form of staring at a screen while on a cruise ship.

 

Honestly, though, I'm fairly happy with what's there now (other than the occasional day when it doesn't work worth a flip at all).  I'm not interested in streaming or huge downloads, as I'm happy to take care of that prior to boarding.  I don't need anything beyond email, wifi calling/texting, and decent web browsing/downloading for my work.  I'm not looking for service like I have on land, so I'm not willing to pay an enormous premium.

[jcpelly]

I've always heard that the current version of internet at sea is very expensive for the cruise lines to provide.  I would think Starlink could actually be less expensive than the current version to the cruise lines. I really doubt that they would forward on the potential savings to the customer if that is actually the case.  I'd pay 5.00/day 

[Mike981]

We do run a couple of internet business's and would love to have better WiFi. BUT, I need a whole lot more input on how it works for others to be able to come up with a price I would be willing to pay.

[mnocket]

43 minutes ago, jcpelly said:

I've always heard that the current version of internet at sea is very expensive for the cruise lines to provide.  I would think Starlink could actually be less expensive than the current version to the cruise lines.

Bingo!  I suspect this will wind up costing the cruise lines no more, probably less, than their current internet costs. Remember, all of those satellites are currently sitting idle while orbiting over the oceans. The incremental cost to Starlink for servicing cruise ships is very small.  It's a win-win for both Starlink and the Cruise lines that sign up.

[mnocket]

This is one of those rare cases where I would prefer to pay by the gigabyte rather than a fixed daily rate.  I don't use the internet much when I'm cruising, but when I do I'm frustrated by how slow or unavailable it is.  I'd gladly pay for the bandwidth I actually use.  

[Aoife_immortal]

26 minutes ago, mnocket said:

This is one of those rare cases where I would prefer to pay by the gigabyte rather than a fixed daily rate.  I don't use the internet much when I'm cruising, but when I do I'm frustrated by how slow or unavailable it is.  I'd gladly pay for the bandwidth I actually use.  

Me too.

[phoenix_dream]

I would prefer we not be giving Celebrity free marketing data regarding what some people might be willing to pay.  I don't see any good coming of it (meaning the data, not the internet itself).

Edited August 31, 2022 by phoenix_dream

[jelayne]

$1 a day/

[prmssk]

What I have read implies that this move will actually cost the cruise lines a lot less so I would hope they would pass at least some of that cost savings on to us.  I would be very disappointed if this move to Starlink raised internet prices at all.  I also think it would put Celebrity at a competitive disadvantage since their internet costs are already higher than many other cruise lines.

[blueskadoo]

If it would allow me to use a VPN with 100% reliability such that I could work from the ship without burning vacation days, that would be life-changing, and I'd be willing to pay 50/day for the privilege.  I could even go higher if I had to, but I'd feel like it was totally worth it at that price point.

[NutsAboutGolf]

1 hour ago, phoenix_dream said:

I would prefer we not be giving Celebrity free marketing data regarding what some people might be willing to pay.  I don't see any good coming of it (meaning the data, not the internet itself).

The funny thing is, they have no idea how to utilize the data…ha ha

[kywildcatfanone]

Not much.  Internet on a cruise ship is not that ultimately important to me.

[broker1217]

I can't say for sure. As long as we can email, I am fine. 

We don't watch TV or stream movies or FaceTime while on vacation so basic internet is fine.

Although our last cruise, Princess Alaska, the internet was so horrid that I would have paid maybe $20 per day for it to simply function.

If the basic internet allows email and some browsing--that's good. Prefer to be able to to Wifi phone calls but not a necessity.

[dlh015]

Like others, I can do without the internet so I wouldn't be willing to pony up any more for something that's already too much...imo, of course...

[Jeremiah1212]

Based on the email from the CEO this evening, it sounds like only those on Streaming plans will have access to the new system. Deployment begins 9/5 on Beyond. 

[mayleeman]

I would pay $10/day for a faster internet.

 

I would pay an extra $5/night for a consistent X website run by competent people.

[mnocket]

6 hours ago, blueskadoo said:

If it would allow me to use a VPN with 100% reliability

Yes Starlink works with VPN.  I suppose the cruise lines could for some reason block VPN connections, but I don't see why they would.   I use it at home and it's been very reliable.  The biggest reliability issue some people have is obstructions (e.g. trees).  As the satellites pass overhead they can get short periods of outages.  This most definitely won't be an issue in the middle of the ocean🙂

[the penguins]

13 hours ago, PTC DAWG said:

1 cent. I’m not all that important…the world will keep turning without my daily input. 🙂

Add me to the 1 cent group and that's only after I have used my free Elite+ minutes. 

[verizon]

14 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

I would prefer we not be giving Celebrity free marketing data regarding what some people might be willing to pay.  I don't see any good coming of it (meaning the data, not the internet itself).

I strongly believe and agree with you.

The more we chat the worst outcome it will be just like what happen to SV cabin in solstice class ship.

[Definitas]

Performance of the "surf" package has been abysmal on recent cruises and unavailable for days on a transatlantic cruise earlier this year so I would not pay anything for it until I had read real time reports from users to see what sort of performance it provided. The large number of subscribers on a ship concentrated in a very small area means that the available bandwidth will be the key factor regardless of satellite numbers or location. Given that bandwidth is the price driver, I suspect this is a case of positive spin on a commercial decision to move to a cheaper provider rather than provision of an improved service.

[canderson]

2 hours ago, Definitas said:

Performance of the "surf" package has been abysmal on recent cruises and unavailable for days on a transatlantic cruise earlier this year so I would not pay anything for it until I had read real time reports from users to see what sort of performance it provided. The large number of subscribers on a ship concentrated in a very small area means that the available bandwidth will be the key factor regardless of satellite numbers or location. Given that bandwidth is the price driver, I suspect this is a case of positive spin on a commercial decision to move to a cheaper provider rather than provision of an improved service.

Re your TransAtlantic experience: Bandwidth in the middle of the ocean should be at its best for ships vs. near land .. less need to share it .. since unlike the current system, where each bird has a maximum 81 degree view of the planet, serving a potentially huge number of simultanious subscribers, each Starlink only covers a patch about 160 miles in diameter, and can supposedly serve up data at 20Gb/sec.  Again, the HUGE difference in orbital altitude (22,236 miles now vs. Starlink at about 350 miles) concentrates a lot more data in a much smaller space.  Of course, it takes a lot more satellites to cover all when each one covers only a 160 mile patch (something our "too much space junk" poster in another thread fails to appreciate).  Not only that, since a Starlink has a fairly narrow 'field of view', and since these things aren't tied to a terrestrial server with really long Cat6 cable, they also require a lot of ground stations to complete the connection vs. geostationary satellites.

 

So with that in mind, back to the cost/value question.

 

The shipboard equipment should be a good bit less expensive to deploy vs. the tech currently in use.  OTOH, the cost of the space and ground infrastructure to support the system is a lot more expensive.  I can't begin to calculate the difference in cost per bit between the two systems, and Starlink still hasn't launched even 1/10 of its planned constellation yet.  So whether Starlink will prove to be a "cheaper provider" may be a loaded question.  Cheaper per year for RCG?  Probably not unless a promotional deal was cut.  Cheaper cost per GB delivered?  Definitely, but of course the extent of the savings per GB for RCG depends on profit margins at Starlink.

 

The current bifurcation of service bandwidth aboard probably still makes good business sense, and does provide a somewhat fairer value to passengers (if/when that bandwidth is actually being delivered! - the problem that spawned this whole thing!).  If RCG's shipboard IT architecture would stick to just bandwidth limits instead of resorting to port blocking and other silly games for their lower bandwidth customers, that bifurcation would be even fairer and clearer.  I doubt whether shipboard gear is smart enough yet to manage this properly on a per-customer basis.  As others have pointed out, the "big pipe" is only part of the equation.

 

Once shipboard gear is in place to properly manage bandwidth per customer, it's entirely possible that the new system could supply data at costs per Gb at prices comparable to today's prices, but do it more reliably.

 

So my answer to the original question, understanding that there's an amortization cost for improving the shipboard infrastructure, is an arbitrary buck a day.  The big difference is that reliability should finally catch up with what is being charged now.  RCG probably pays the same to their current provider whether the service is great or crap on any given day on any ship.

[Tigerfnan23]

I'm one of those who enjoys unplugging during a cruise so I'd not be willing to pay much extra for it but since so many people are always on their phones I'd assume there would be a demand for this kind of thing.