alt Hacker NewsA mobile failover would be cheaper and would give you better connectivity in heavy rain.
A 4G dongle can be purchased for $15, rather than $200 for a Starlink Mini. Then, let's say your main internet source fails and you need to actually use the backup plan beyond the standby amount of 0.5 Mbps. That will cost you a minimum of $50 for Starlink, versus roughly $25 for a month of unlimited cell service. As for standby costs, you can find phone plans for $5 per month tat give a small amount of fast data, as opposed to Starlink's unlimited amount of slow data.
But of course this only works for areas that actually have cell service.
Replies
TFA specifically calls out not wanting to depend on 4G/5G coverage, which is anything but ubiquitous:
> It has the advantage of working pretty much anywhere with a view of the sky so no relying on mobile network coverage.
I'm also not sure if $25/month is anything close to the global average for unlimited 4G/5G data (if even available).
If you're in a rural area (and heck, even in an urban era) the primary ISP of a region dropping is likely to cause a lot of congestion from cellphones falling back to the operator network.
I found it quite absurd that Spectrum (my cable operator) wants to sell me a modem with integrated 5G/4G backup knowing that as soon as the cable plant drops, hundreds of local phones are going to congest the network as well and my "Invincible WiFi(tm)" will end up dead as a dodo.
I'll just throw a Peplink up and throw the cable and Starlink into it and run that as my load balancer.
[dead]
I live a 25 minute train ride from london in a town with about 16000 residents, on a busy street 5 minutes walk from the main station.
My cell is unusable.