Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 331 posts

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#321

Post by olympus »

def_true_false wrote: post #261
olympus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm doing it (mobile internet, not van life). The conversations on RV forums deal with stuff like unlimited data in the middle of Wyoming for less money, or how to get a SIM card and plan from a connected car device that AT&T discontinued because RVers were using for other than it's intended purpose. What the RVers are too cheap to do is pay for the product they want. Go to unlimitedville.com, pay $200 a month, and y…

From their site: > Data abusers are those who purposefully push limits or conduct known illegal activity like torrenting etc. If you consistently burn through a half terabyte or more a month (that’s over 500 GBs!), that is not normal internet usage and you could be asked to split your usage between two accounts or the service could be terminated by certain carriers. Why would you pay this much just to get what's basi…

500 is effectively unlimited compared to the 22 GB that AT&T throttles you at on their native plans.

My Cox internet also had a 500 GB warning.

Plus, Netflix HD streaming is about 3GB per hour. You can stream a two hour movie every night and only use 180 GB per month. I've never gotten to 500 GB, so it's effectively unlimited.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#322

Post by greglindahl »

shaklee3 wrote: post #297
greglindahl wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct about coverage -- 3 GEO sats can cover most of the planet -- but not about capacity, which kinda scales with satellite mass, and benefits from being closer (less power needed per bit.)

That is not correct. You have satellites of roughly the same mass over the last decade that are adding more and more capacity. You also do not benefit from being closer.

Why yes, I'd noticed high throughput satellites. And being closer means you can use less electricity on the satellite for the same signal-to-noise ratio, so yes, it is a benefit that comes from physics.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#323

Post by vatueil »

unepipe wrote: post #58
neo4sure wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to know how this technology will affect the great firewall of China, does anyone have any ideas?

It will not affect it in any way. They have released their plans for Starlink and there will be a "blackout" zone over China, so China doesn't shoot down their satellites. In 2007, China shot down FY-1C as a test of a kinetic kill vehicle (leaving tons of high speed space debris). Unless they receive approval from China to broadcast, they won't over China. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-internet-satell…

The linked source says nothing about a "blackout zone" over China. More likely SpaceX won't sell ground receivers in mainland China and/or the PRC will simply ban Starlink receivers.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#324

Post by tbabb »

sjwright wrote: post #257
t3rmi wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. It looks like their orbit is around 800 miles compared to the usual 22,000. Expected latency seems to be around 25ms. Would satellites be used for first hop only? I image latency would quickly increase if used for multiple hops.

I imagine SpaceX could eventually perform the majority of routing in orbit, with packets returning to earth for the "last mile". If they're successful, you could potentially see a high bandwidth SpaceX link on the roof of every major data center on the planet. They could be self-reliant for connections to every major online service. If they're very successful, you could potentially see data providers like Netflix and…

Space is just about the worst place to put a datacenter.

Price to orbit is thousands of dollars per kilo. Maintainability is zilch. And you have lots of cosmic rays flinging charged particles into your sensitive memory banks, flipping random bits. Also, heat management is very difficult.

I couldn't think of a worse place to put a datacenter than space. The bottom of the ocean would make more sense.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#325

Post by taneq »

gsich wrote: post #296
taneq wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

17£/mo is sustainable when your users are just scrolling through Facebook and streaming Spotify. When they're all using it as their primary data connection and watching a few hours of HD Netflix a night, you need to charge more. Unlimited mobile data went away or got expensive in most places right around the time that smartphones gained the ability to act as wifi access points.

That doesn't make any sense. An AP is just an AP, it has no internet connection. How does the smartphone get internet connection? With UMTS/LTE or similar. So you still need a data plan (or a combination with it).

The point is that without a way to tether your phone to a 'real computer', you have to be actively trying to use more than a couple of GB of data per month, so "unlimited" really means "up to maybe 5GB". While tethering was possible beforehand, it became much easier when wifi tethering was added to Android. This let anyone push a button and use their 3G / 4G data connection for torrenting, streaming and other such heavy duty usage, and suddenly "unlimited" phone plans were seeing hundreds of GB per month.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#326

Post by lsaferite »

jandrese wrote: post #304
agildehaus wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once the constellation is built, you can do worldwide routing in orbit, which is actually more efficient latency-wise (at least for international hops) as you're not dealing with political and physical boundaries and light is passing through vacuum not fiber.

While this is possible, it is very challenging to actually achieve. Your latency numbers go to hell in a hurry if you're bouncing around satellites in orbit (eating a queuing delay on every hop). Iridium did this, but at the end of the day their mobile to mobile latency numbers are similar to Geo satellites. SpaceX's plan is almost absurdly ambitious and there is a lot of skepticism in the comm satellite community th…

>there is a lot of skepticism in the comm satellite community that they will achieve their stated goals, especially at an affordable price point.

Not that I have any experience in that industry, but didn't the commercial rocket launch have the same set of opinions?

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#328

Post by Dylan16807 »

taneq wrote: post #325
gsich wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't make any sense. An AP is just an AP, it has no internet connection. How does the smartphone get internet connection? With UMTS/LTE or similar. So you still need a data plan (or a combination with it).

The point is that without a way to tether your phone to a 'real computer', you have to be actively trying to use more than a couple of GB of data per month, so "unlimited" really means "up to maybe 5GB". While tethering was possible beforehand, it became much easier when wifi tethering was added to Android. This let anyone push a button and use their 3G / 4G data connection for torrenting, streaming and other such he…

These days you can easily consume tons of HD video directly to your phone, even without tethering. So the situation has changed yet again.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#329

Post by Dylan16807 »

olympus wrote: post #321
def_true_false wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their site: > Data abusers are those who purposefully push limits or conduct known illegal activity like torrenting etc. If you consistently burn through a half terabyte or more a month (that’s over 500 GBs!), that is not normal internet usage and you could be asked to split your usage between two accounts or the service could be terminated by certain carriers. Why would you pay this much just to get what's basi…

500 is effectively unlimited compared to the 22 GB that AT&T throttles you at on their native plans. My Cox internet also had a 500 GB warning. Plus, Netflix HD streaming is about 3GB per hour. You can stream a two hour movie every night and only use 180 GB per month. I've never gotten to 500 GB, so it's effectively unlimited.

If it's good enough for you, I'm glad. But imagine someone that replaces a TV on in the background with an internet stream. Now 2 hours is 6 or 10. Then multiply that by multiple people in a household.

It doesn't take abusive behavior to hit a limit like that on a home connection. If you took a 2007-era 250GB cap, and kept it price-constant, you'd be looking at something like 20TB caps these days.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#330

Post by cweagans »

olympus wrote: post #172
lev99 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This new tech is going to be better than 4G

It won't be as good as you think. This one is going right next to the Model 3 in Elon's book of things he'll technically deliver but will progressively dial back the claims before and after delivery.

Even if he delivers half of the bandwidth he promised for twice the cost that he quoted, it's still a far better option in many places. I have two ISPs where I live. One only goes up to 12Mbps/1Mbps. The other is a gigabit connection, but it's $200/mo and has a substantial amount of downtime.
Post reply on HN