10 ms·
For $380B you can get both AT&T and Verizon and you pay ~1.55x the revenue. Why pay 38x for Starlink?
by cerved 6mo ago
For $380B you can get both AT&T and Verizon and you pay ~1.55x the revenue. Why pay 38x for Starlink?
- ahahahahah 6mo agoWhat do you mean $380B? This "fair market value" forecast also includes $147B for starlink enterprise and $75B for starlink direct-to-cell. So almost $600B all in.
- cerved 5mo ago> Starlink Consumer Broadband at $380B (9.2M subscribers, ~38x revenue) I mean that Starlinks consumer broadband is valued at ~38x revenue, when other telcos are valued around 1.5x revenue. That revenue is 2533% more expensive, why pay such a big premium for something that's essentially the same?
- 0xy 6mo agoStarlink is less than 10 years away from providing full data services to cellphones globally, allowing them to offer a better service at a cheaper rate to AT&T and Verizon. Not to mention more coverage. Also, AT&T and Verizon customers don't love their provider. They despise them. I walked into a Verizon store last year and was outright scammed by the staff member into their insurance plan after explicitly declining it (they just added it to the bill anyway). These legacy companies will be irrelevant.
- ben_w 6mo ago> Starlink is less than 10 years away from providing full data services to cellphones globally 10 years is a long time, considering the global reactions to America under Trump, and also Musk's tight coupling to Trump, and even in the US given how many bridges Musk burned. If Starlink was properly spun off and independent of Musk this would be much less of an issue, but now? Now the rest of the world is likely to treat it like the US treats Huawei.