They said they were limiting people to 1tb/month this year, but I don't think that's enacted yet. At least, if it is, I haven't noticed it yet...

That's more than I use. On the other hand, it's mostly just me and I don't do a huge amount of streaming video.

That's still a pretty generous cap. When I was living with 5 other heavy internet users, our monthly usage didn't exceed 600GB.

It’s still unlimited beyond that, you’re just “deprioritized.” Depending on how rural you are, you might not even notice.

It’s much like a cell tower where a geographical area has finite capacity. You use your “priority” data that has speed guarantees, then it slows down, but is still unlimited. Apparently some users were reselling the link & maxing out the upload/download 24/7. (yeah, I get it, but in this case some kind of QoS probably needs to happen to turn a profit)

I’ve been a beta user since the first couple months of launch. They’ve had growing pains, but it has overall been light years ahead of our local WISP or Hughesnet/Viasat in terms of speed and reliability. Several of my neighbors have no other option than traditional geostationary satellite providers, and I don’t think any of us every want to go back to 600ms+ latencies!

edit: I just wanted to add that for many people, priority speeds for 1TB & having sub-100ms latency is far, far better than the alternatives.

> They said they were limiting people to 1tb/month this year

Comcast has similar traffic caps for many of their plans. It's perfectly adequate for most typical users.

You don't know real suffering until you've tried browsing on HughesNet. $74.99/month for 50gb of 4mb/s up and 1mb/s down (yes, in 2023).

Don't worry though, once you hit your gratuitous 50gb/month limit, they only make your network 8x slower until you pay $10/extra gig... I wouldn't praise Starlink if it wasn't such a steal by comparison.

> 4mb/s up and 1mb/s down

Don't you mean the other way around? Not that it's any better.