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

Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

xda-developers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 348 posts

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#91

Post by cozzyd »

mlyle wrote: post #58
cozzyd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do cheap launches help when spectral bandwidth over an area is going to be the true limitation? Starlink's problem is going to be that most profitable areas are better served by terrestrial LTE/5G, leaving only truly remote areas that are low density enough. But not many people live there...

> Do cheap launches help when spectral bandwidth over an area is going to be the true limitation? Spectral bandwidth doesn't matter so much with beamforming with reasonably narrow beams. At least not until you get to a lot of satellites overhead at once. Dishy probably obtains a beam ~3 degrees wide; there's a lot of 3x3 degree sectors in the sky. Similarly, the ground "cells" are 300 sq km; there's a lot of these in…

well 3 degrees wide means at best ~28 square degrees on the sky (pi * 3 * 3). But the problem is the other way. It looks like Starlink has 7 GHz total downlink bandwidth from satellite to customers. A cell may be ~300 sq km, but no way you can pipe all that bandwidth in adjacent cells due to interference (or... if you did, you'd probably lose in spectral efficiency). If we assume something like 10 Gbps/cell total downlink bandwidth (based on two polarizations, 1/4 the total bandwidth and 3 bits/Hz efficiency), then you can maybe serve... 500 people / cell reasonably? How many people live in places with fewer than a few people/km^2? Only Alaska averages below that in the US.

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#92

Post by StrangeATractor »

m4jor wrote: post #51
capableweb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentiment has been (up until this point?) that Starlink needs to lower costs for the customers, not increase them, as otherwise the customer base will remain as tiny as it currently is. Last I remember, the cost was ~500 USD + the monthly fee, I wonder how many in a rural environment are ready to pony that up for a measly connection. Maybe not difficult for live-on-a-farm-software-developers, but what about the r…

> Last I remember, the cost was ~500 USD + the monthly fee, I wonder how many in a rural environment are ready to pony that up for a measly connection. Maybe not difficult for live-on-a-farm-software-developers, but what about the rest of the spare population? If you think $500 setup cost + the ~$90 monthly fee is bad, I got news for you. The same people using Starlink out in the middle of nowhere now were paying way…

Can't speak for $250/mo, but I've definitely lived in places where ISP's weren't required to expand in, meaning a big chunk of residents had zero internet options. This wasn't too far out of SEATAC, actually.

Not a fan of Musk, but the calculus becomes pretty simple at that point for someone who wants a home internet connection.

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#93

Post by fsloth »

crispinb wrote: post #83
runarberg wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they still need internet?

Internet without connected power is pretty common around here. Internet is obviously needed for those who work from home. And it's increasingly required for the needs of everyday life (government services moving online, bank branches closing). So, yes, absolutely - many people without connected power need the internet.

"Internet without connected power is pretty common around here."

Oh, that's interesting! I always thought this to be an outlier scenario. What is "here"? Can you estimate the size of population to this applies?

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#94

Post by jonathankoren »

fsh wrote: post #50
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #7

So Starlink has been so effective and so popular that — utterly unsurprisingly — it is becoming more congested and they're raising rates. This is good news and not bad. It's a strong sign that the model fundamentally works and they will be able to fund continuous improvements to meet strong demand.

Satellite internet essentially means that you have to share one cellphone tower with your entire district. I don't see how this can be sustainable for anything but the most rural areas.

Well, why would anyone in an urban area need something Starlink, when there are already plenty of cheap and reliable alternatives, including alternatives at higher bandwidths?

The problem with building your company around rural internet is that there just aren’t that many people to spread the cost around, thus whatever the alternative is very expensive.

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#95

Post by fsh »

jonathankoren wrote: post #94
fsh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satellite internet essentially means that you have to share one cellphone tower with your entire district. I don't see how this can be sustainable for anything but the most rural areas.

Well, why would anyone in an urban area need something Starlink, when there are already plenty of cheap and reliable alternatives, including alternatives at higher bandwidths? The problem with building your company around rural internet is that there just aren’t that many people to spread the cost around, thus whatever the alternative is very expensive.

According to the article, the system is alreay overloaded in rural Kansas.

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#96

Post by TwoNineFive »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #7

So Starlink has been so effective and so popular that — utterly unsurprisingly — it is becoming more congested and they're raising rates. This is good news and not bad. It's a strong sign that the model fundamentally works and they will be able to fund continuous improvements to meet strong demand.

The ol "This is good for bitcoin" er, Starlink, argument.

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#97

Post by bombolo »

lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #7

So Starlink has been so effective and so popular that — utterly unsurprisingly — it is becoming more congested and they're raising rates. This is good news and not bad. It's a strong sign that the model fundamentally works and they will be able to fund continuous improvements to meet strong demand.

> This is good news and not bad.

In the same way that finding out about having a terminal illness is good news!

> It's a strong sign that the model fundamentally works and they will be able to fund continuous improvements to meet strong demand.

The main question is: "can it scale to offer decent speeds to more than 10 people, without having to create a dyson sphere in the sky?"

Because it looks like it was yet another elon's scams to raise money with no substance.

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#98

Post by noncoml »

jonathankoren wrote: post #94
fsh wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satellite internet essentially means that you have to share one cellphone tower with your entire district. I don't see how this can be sustainable for anything but the most rural areas.

Well, why would anyone in an urban area need something Starlink, when there are already plenty of cheap and reliable alternatives, including alternatives at higher bandwidths? The problem with building your company around rural internet is that there just aren’t that many people to spread the cost around, thus whatever the alternative is very expensive.

> when there are already plenty of cheap and reliable alternatives, including alternatives at higher bandwidths

That’s not true even in California. Plenty of small town where the only alternative is line of sight wireless internet.

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#99

Post by noncoml »

m4jor wrote: post #51
capableweb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sentiment has been (up until this point?) that Starlink needs to lower costs for the customers, not increase them, as otherwise the customer base will remain as tiny as it currently is. Last I remember, the cost was ~500 USD + the monthly fee, I wonder how many in a rural environment are ready to pony that up for a measly connection. Maybe not difficult for live-on-a-farm-software-developers, but what about the r…

> Last I remember, the cost was ~500 USD + the monthly fee, I wonder how many in a rural environment are ready to pony that up for a measly connection. Maybe not difficult for live-on-a-farm-software-developers, but what about the rest of the spare population? If you think $500 setup cost + the ~$90 monthly fee is bad, I got news for you. The same people using Starlink out in the middle of nowhere now were paying way…

> ~$90 monthly fee is bad

~$120 in California

Re: Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury

#100

Post by imwillofficial »

bombolo wrote: post #97
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #7

So Starlink has been so effective and so popular that — utterly unsurprisingly — it is becoming more congested and they're raising rates. This is good news and not bad. It's a strong sign that the model fundamentally works and they will be able to fund continuous improvements to meet strong demand.

> This is good news and not bad. In the same way that finding out about having a terminal illness is good news! > It's a strong sign that the model fundamentally works and they will be able to fund continuous improvements to meet strong demand. The main question is: "can it scale to offer decent speeds to more than 10 people, without having to create a dyson sphere in the sky?" Because it looks like it was yet anothe…

This is a completely and utterly unfounded comment in the light of the massive gains in progress for not only SpaceX, but also Starlink.
Post reply on HN