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

SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

testmy.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 325 posts

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#151

Post by sneak »

kumarvvr wrote: post #51
tfehring wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question - why is it a given that there will be latency issues? It looks like the satellites are only ~350 miles, or a little less than 2 light-milliseconds, from Earth's surface.

The issue is with overall latency. User -> Satellite -> multiple hops between satellites (as they are orbiting earth and the right one has to be selected to relay data to -> earth DNS servers -> multiple hops across internet -> satellite -> user Additional latency is introduced due to satellites and the grid between the satellites, as well as complications from rotation of satellites.

Starlink does not at this time use any intersatellite communication links, despite having talked about it.

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#152

Post by Dylan16807 »

fluffything wrote: post #128
ColoradoDev wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fortunately I can count on one hand the applications that don't work with +100ms latency (not counting gaming). Pardon my ignorance, but what are some exampes of applications that wouldn’t work with +100 latency?

Anything that requires real-time interaction between a client and a server and other clients, e.g., gaming, stadia/geforce now, videoconferencing, ... 150ms is often "unusable", and for a smooth experience you might need < 30ms depending on the application (e.g. depending on the game you might need < 90ms or <60ms or <30ms).

Videoconferencing does not need imperceptible latency.

The other two things on your list are both gaming.

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#153

Post by phinnaeus »

krageon wrote: post #147
jfindley wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consistent 30ms would be pretty excellent, and make it useful for many things. Consistent 50ms, similarly. It starts to get a bit more of an issue at 80ms or 100ms, but my worry is more that jitter may be huge, and 30-100ms is a huge jitter window that could limit usefuless not just for games, but also many other things such as voice calls.

A 100ms ping is perfectly playable in everything except twitch-based shooters. In voice calls you will notice it, but it won't get in the way like say a 1-2s delay would (like you get if you phone from one end of the world to the other). It's really a very good result bearing in mind that this can work absolutely anywhere.

Fighting games, too. Most gamers know to avoid wifi, much less a wireless ISP.

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#154

Post by joshspankit »

jfindley wrote: post #141
gertrunde wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30-100ms is better than I feared, and should be generally reasonable for most uses.

Consistent 30ms would be pretty excellent, and make it useful for many things. Consistent 50ms, similarly. It starts to get a bit more of an issue at 80ms or 100ms, but my worry is more that jitter may be huge, and 30-100ms is a huge jitter window that could limit usefuless not just for games, but also many other things such as voice calls.

One thing that may be a game changer: inter-satellite relaying. With the whole network, Starlink client to Starlink client latency might actually drop.

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#155

Post by peteretep »

garmaine wrote: post #39
de_watcher wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you can break the speed of light, you don't need a second exchange.

It’s quite easy to “break” the speed of light in fiberoptic glass.

> It’s quite easy to “break” the speed of light in fiberoptic glass.

I don’t understand this, why? Does light travel faster than the speed of light in fibre optic glass?

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#156

Post by john_minsk »

mola wrote: post #122
zhte415 wrote: post #55

Fantastic. I'm keenly curious on how this will work with national regulations. Having a single global ISP is very attractive on the surface and that's with the huge caveat on monopoly, but as an additional option. I'm just not sure how this will interact with some nations' policy/restrictions. Looking at this aspect very much.

Why is a single global isp good? That's basically saying a single company owning and controlling the internet. That sounds dystopic

For many countries like mine this will be a window towards freedom. As long as US stands behind its constitution

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#157

Post by koonsolo »

dstick wrote: post #5
mbrevda1 wrote: post #2

Speed is variable, capacity can be improved. The bigger question re Starlink is latency, which this test doesn't show.

I saw these Starlink speed test results 2 weeks ago: https://tweakers.net/i/xDBb34kfMAju3YPPMsC3iOc2gXc=/656x/fil... Seems like pretty solid latency :)

I wonder when the first CDN's will be put into space when this will become broadly used.

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#158

Post by michaelt »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #152
fluffything wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that requires real-time interaction between a client and a server and other clients, e.g., gaming, stadia/geforce now, videoconferencing, ... 150ms is often "unusable", and for a smooth experience you might need < 30ms depending on the application (e.g. depending on the game you might need < 90ms or <60ms or <30ms).

Videoconferencing does not need imperceptible latency. The other two things on your list are both gaming.

Depends how much you care about people talking over one another. If your call is a presentation/lecture/class with few switches between speakers, latency's no problem.

But if your calls normally have lively discussion where someone different jumps in any time there's a pause, the higher the latency the more likely people will say "meeting in person is much better"

Likewise, with things like remote desktop, 100ms of latency isn't a dealbreaker but it'll certainly leave some of your users saying "things that run locally just feel snappier"

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#159

Post by alias_neo »

y04nn wrote: post #133

This is easy to have a lot of bandwidth when you only have 10s of users, but when the bandwidth will be shared between 10000 users will it plummet? I remember when 4G was new and only few user where using it, it was very fast, but when more users arrived on the spectrum, the bandwidth per user decreased and the latency incised.

I have been on EE 4G in central London (Westminster) for several years now while at work. A speed test back when it was new would get me 85/85 Mb, these days, with a much more capable device, I am lucky if I get 15/30 Mb (download is being taxed more). It's not horrific, but it's a far cry from what I was advertised when I started. I guess I'll just upgrade to their 5G plan and start the cycle again sigh

Re: SpaceX Starlink average speedtest is 42.3Mbps down / 9.7 Mbps up

#160

Post by swiley »

joshxyz wrote: post #144
dstick wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw these Starlink speed test results 2 weeks ago: https://tweakers.net/i/xDBb34kfMAju3YPPMsC3iOc2gXc=/656x/fil... Seems like pretty solid latency :)

That's actually better than what most 3rd world countries got, oh god.

It’s better than what most of the US has (by land not people)
Post reply on HN