Since its launch in 2021, Starlink has quickly gained global traction, expanding rapidly and attracting a growing user base across 105 countries.1 Many countries have welcomed Starlink as a promising solution to bridge the digital divide, bringing high-speed internet to remote and underserved areas.2 Yet not all governments have embraced it; some have indeed resisted its deployment, unsure of its impact on local telecoms markets, spectrum usage and digital sovereignty. Despite these mixed reactions, Starlink’s ability to provide connectivity to even the most isolated communities position it as a genuinely transformative answer to global internet access. A critical question remains: can Starlink truly make digital inclusion affordable on a global scale? To answer this, we collected and analysed data on Starlink’s pricing examining its economic accessibility across different countries. In this article we present our findings, offering insights that aim to guide policy and strategic decisions on digital infrastructure and connectivity worldwide.
Starlink’s retail service offerings vary slightly by country, but they generally revolve around three main categories tailored to different user needs and geographic considerations. These include:
The residential service: the core offering of Starlink, which promises high-speed broadband for households, particularly targeting areas where conventional internet options are limited. Speeds and latency can vary based on local demand and the number of active users.
Business and enterprise solutions: a separate business-tier plan, designed for enterprises requiring higher speeds, increased bandwidth and more robust connectivity support. This package is typically priced higher than the residential option and is available in select markets.3
Mobile options: Responding to the need for mobile connectivity, Starlink also provides options for motorhomes and RV owners, campers, maritime businesses and other mobile users, allowing internet access while travelling.
In this analysis, we have focused on the residential service, marketed by Starlink as ‘best for households’.
Across all regions, customers pay a one-time hardware fee for the satellite dish and router, followed by a monthly subscription. Our analysis focuses on the total cost of Starlink’s residential service over one year, which includes both the one-time hardware fee and the monthly subscription costs. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the true financial commitment required for a household to adopt Starlink, while allowing for consistent comparisons across different markets and income levels.
Different nominal pricing across different markets
Starlink’s annual residential price averages USD 1,060 globally, but this varies significantly across regions and countries, highlighting diverse pricing strategies. The chart below shows the top five most and least expensive countries for Starlink’s residential service.
Figure 1: Top five most and least expensive countries for Starlink (USD, spot.4) Source: Starlink, Plum Analysis
North America leads as the most expensive region, with the United States topping the list at $1,739, followed closely by Canada at $1,575. Europe’s average pricing is lower ($1,019) with the UK reaching an annual cost of $1,521 and France standing out with a remarkably low price of $798.5 The Asia/Pacific region presents a mix of high and moderate costs, with Singapore and Indonesia at $1,496 and $1,490 respectively, while countries like the Philippines and Fiji exhibit lower prices around $1,044 and $944. Latin America and the Caribbean display broad pricing variability, from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, where prices align with North American rates at $1,538, to Jamaica and Colombia, with significantly lower rates at $557 and $630. The African continent predominantly features the lowest prices, with Nigeria being the least expensive at $538. Other African nations like Kenya and Zambia also exhibit relatively low annual prices of $832 and $664 respectively.
The low prices in African countries reflect not only the lower income levels but also the significant addressable market in the region that has the most connectivity gaps in the world.
These price differences suggest that Starlink’s approach is not simply cost-based but potentially tailored to market conditions.6 The high prices across North America seem to reflect the relatively higher income levels and the strong demand for broadband connectivity in rural and underserved areas where terrestrial options are limited.7
Besides, the price paid by Starlink customers in the US is roughly comparable to what households typically pay for a terrestrial residential internet service. In contrast, the low prices in African countries reflect not only the lower income levels but also the significant addressable market in the region that has the most connectivity gaps in the world. In Europe, however, price variations between countries are interesting as they cannot be explained either by the difference in income levels or by a lack of terrestrial alternatives. The price level in France, for example, suggests a strategy that has been adapted to the competitive local market where FTTH (fibre-to-the-home) and 4G coverage are high, and prices amongst the lowest.
Beyond spot rates: Starlink’s real price
The analysis of Starlink’s annual price using purchasing power parity (PPP) reveals a starkly different affordability landscape than spot exchange rates suggest. By adjusting for the local cost of living, PPP provides a more equitable comparison of service costs worldwide, offering valuable insight into the relative financial burden on consumers.8
Figure 2: Top ten most and least expensive countries for Starlink (USD, PPP). Source: Starlink, The World Bank, Plum Analysis
As shown in Figure 2, Ukraine emerges as the most expensive market for Starlink in PPP-adjusted terms, with an annual price of $5,268 — a substantial economic strain compared to the highest spot rate of $1,739 in the United States. This discrepancy highlights how differences in purchasing power impact affordability; the PPP adjustment reflects the true cost relative to local income levels and living standards. While Ukraine’s nominal price is $1,333, the PPP-adjusted figure of $5,268 indicates that, for the average Ukrainian resident, the financial burden of a one-year Starlink subscription is equivalent to what a US-resident would experience if they paid $5,268 for the same service. This high price may be a temporary issue due to the ongoing conflict in the country, and we understand that in some cases Starlink is offered to users in Ukraine at substantial discounts. Nevertheless, this published price remains out of reach for most of the population.
Other countries also exhibit substantial burdens in PPP terms. Most of these are in Africa: Nigeria’s PPP-adjusted price of $4,367 contrasts sharply with its nominal spot rate of $538. Similarly, PPP-adjusted prices in Sierra Leone ($3,795), Benin ($3,748) and Madagascar ($3,588) are amongst the highest in the world, revealing the considerable impact on populations with lower nominal prices but reduced purchasing power.
At the other end of the spectrum, some countries see lower PPP adjusted prices. Barbados stands out with the lowest price at $765, slightly below its spot rate of $990. This suggests that Starlink services are relatively more affordable in Barbados when adjusted for local incomes. Similarly, Switzerland and Ireland show lower relative costs of $828 and $868, reflecting the higher incomes and stronger purchasing power in these countries.
Across all the countries analysed, the average annual price of Starlink’s residential service using PPP stands at USD 1,945 — 83 per cent higher than the average USD 1,060 derived using the spot rates.
What does it mean for digital inclusion?
Digital inclusion is about ensuring that all individuals, regardless of income level or location, have access to the internet and the opportunities it brings. A key factor in achieving true digital inclusion is affordability; if internet services are too costly, large segments of the population remain excluded from critical digital resources such as education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. Affordability, therefore, is not just a financial consideration—it’s a social necessity for bridging the digital divide and fostering equal opportunity. The average gross national income (GNI) per capita serves as the standard international benchmark against which broadband affordability is measured. The United Nations Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development has set a goal that broadband costs should be no more than 2 per cent of GNI per capita, marking this as the affordability threshold for meaningful, inclusive access.
In assessing the affordability of Starlink globally, we calculated for each country the annual price of Starlink as a percentage of the GNI per capita (both in PPP terms). We then divided countries into three distinct affordability categories. These are set out in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Starlink affordability by country based on % of GNI, PPP. Source: Plum analysis.9
- Affordable (< 2% of GNI per capita): Countries in this category meet the UN’s threshold for affordable broadband, indicating that Starlink’s cost would be accessible to most households without imposing significant financial strain.
- Moderately affordable (>2% and <5% of GNI per capita): this range indicates a moderately affordable bracket where Starlink’s service might be a viable option for some, but challenging for lower-income households. This category suggests that while Starlink could enhance connectivity for a portion of the population, it may still exclude economically vulnerable groups, thereby limiting its potential for universal digital inclusion.
- High financial burden (> 5% of GNI per capita): For countries in this category, the cost of Starlink represents a significant financial burden, making it accessible to a ‘happy few’.
Our findings show that most countries fall outside the affordable range, with most classified under ‘high financial burden’ (see Figure 3). For instance, in Fiji the annual cost of Starlink services amounts to 17 per cent of GNI per capita. In other countries, such as Kenya, Nigeria, Benin and Madagascar, the annual price constitutes between 40 and 195 per cent of GNI per capita, highlighting the considerable financial burden that Starlink’s pricing represents in these countries. This indicates that while Starlink offers technical potential and claims a growing customer based, only a fraction of the population in these countries can afford to pay for it. These high prices undoubtedly hinder its role as an inclusive connectivity solution, especially for low-income regions.
Wholesale access to Starlink platforms
The analysis above has examined Starlink’s retail price offers globally. However, as can be seen from Figure 3, there are a number of countries in which Starlink is not available. In the majority of cases we understand this is due to local telecommunications network licencing restrictions, whereby Starlink is unable to obtain regulatory approval to run retail services – this may be due to (for example) content restrictions, privacy and encryption concerns, or laws about ownership of utility companies.
In some countries Starlink does not offer a retail service but instead is willing to contract with existing retail operators to provide wholesale connectivity. This allows incumbent operators to increase coverage without expensive network investment, particularly in rural areas. Such agreements are carried out in commercial confidence and we do not have visibility on the prices charged in these cases. However, Starlink’s prices would naturally be constrained by the cost of rolling out alternative networks; if Starlink’s prices were higher, then operators would instead opt for self-provision. Experience shows that the costs of satellite connectivity are significantly higher than those of fixed wireless access networks other than in the most rural areas.
Considerations for governments and policymakers
In light of these results, governments and policymakers might consider the limitations of relying on LEO satellite services such as Starlink for nationwide connectivity, particularly as these companies are often criticised for not investing in national infrastructure or in local communities.
Countries also remain subject to business decisions beyond local control. The reliance on an extra-territorial provider inevitably creates vulnerabilities, as the service can be discontinued due to capacity constraints or repriced at any time.10 This has been the case in Nigeria, where the monthly subscription prices have almost doubled recently.11
It is therefore important that policymakers carefully evaluate the role of satellite services within their broader digital strategies. While Starlink can be a valuable supplementary option, the primary focus should be on building national, resilient broadband infrastructure that aligns with national goals for inclusive, sustainable and autonomous connectivity.
Starlink’s pricing strategy appears to be more than merely cost-based; it seems to adapt to local market conditions, resulting in notable price variations across regions and countries. While developing and low-income countries often see lower prices, these reductions do not necessarily translate to affordability, limiting Starlink’s role as a truly inclusive solution. This raises important questions for the whole telecom industry and for policymakers: can satellite-based solutions ever be affordable enough to serve as a primary tool for digital inclusion or will they remain a premium option, accessible only to a small segment of the population?
and then