Starlink internet is going from rural savior to unreliable luxury • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by shaklee3 » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 2:51 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #264

shaklee3 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5bps/Hz is way overestimating their spectral efficiency.

64 QAM with FEC is specified as the original modulation in regulatory filings. This predicts 4.5-5.5 bits/Hz.

Yes, and dvbs-2 also supports very high modulation and code rates. but they're never used in practice since PSD limits don't allow you to transmit that much due to interference on other systems. starlink is not first in line for most of their spectrum, so they're abiding by direct spectral mask limits. I would guess they're at 16APSK at the highest.

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

#272

Post by publicmenace » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 2:55 PM UTC

shaklee3 wrote: post #268

publicmenace wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that’s how the RDOF program was designed. You have a number of years to meet your targets in exchange for the subsidies to help you do it.

if this was some kind of stunt pulled by the FCC, SpaceX can sue. but in reality, this was exactly by the book and SpaceX accepted it

>if this was some kind of stunt pulled by the FCC, SpaceX can sue. but in reality, this was exactly by the book and SpaceX accepted it

Again wrong. SpaceX in fact has already appealed the decision to the full Commission. But the chairwoman can legally just sit on that petition for a very long time. And SpaceX can’t sue in court until the FCC makes a decision on that, since you have to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.

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

#273

Post by shaklee3 » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 2:55 PM UTC

publicmenace wrote: post #269

shaklee3 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is quite the conspiracy theory. I'm not sure why musk fans say that the FCC is acting egregious here when they are doing the same exact thing they have done for decades. musk fans just don't want the same standards applied to them. they're okay interfering with other systems, but they certainly don't want anybody interfering with them.

No this is not the same thing they’ve done for decades. You just make that assertion but it’s not true. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. This is the whole point of winning elections. The people in charge of tech policy in this admin want universal fiber service. You don’t get tens of billions from Congress every year for that unless there’s public demand for it. Starlink would undermine that demand despite not being g…

keep in mind that at the time the FCC allowed them past the first round of RDOF, they did not know the price of the terminal since StarLink wasn't live. part of their complaint was that the user had to buy a $600 terminal with no subsidies.

this excludes a lot of the population outright since they don't have a payment plan for lower income users to afford it.

the FCC's letter says that they determined they could not deploy a system of the size they promised in the timeframe they promised. whether you agree with it or not, that assertion has been correct so far.

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

#274

Post by publicmenace » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 2:59 PM UTC

shaklee3 wrote: post #273

publicmenace wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No this is not the same thing they’ve done for decades. You just make that assertion but it’s not true. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. This is the whole point of winning elections. The people in charge of tech policy in this admin want universal fiber service. You don’t get tens of billions from Congress every year for that unless there’s public demand for it. Starlink would undermine that demand despite not being g…

keep in mind that at the time the FCC allowed them past the first round of RDOF, they did not know the price of the terminal since StarLink wasn't live. part of their complaint was that the user had to buy a $600 terminal with no subsidies. this excludes a lot of the population outright since they don't have a payment plan for lower income users to afford it. the FCC's letter says that they determined they could not…

There was nothing in the rules prohibiting the terminal price.

And the letter of course says that. That doesn’t mean it’s their real motive or a correct conclusion.

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

#275

Post by adriancr » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 3:04 PM UTC

teekert wrote: post #193

adriancr wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which provider goes to 2500/2500?

Delta does, although I see now it's 8000/8000 (XGS-PON): [0] I need new gear ;) It's a bit annoying to find, everything is hidden behind area code filters. [0] https://www.delta.nl/internet/glasvezel/xgspon/

awesome, thanks, can't wait until they extend to my area

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

#276

Post by Gustomaximus » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 3:04 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #181

Gustomaximus wrote: post #178

Am I being unfair, but doesn't this article seem a bit of a selfish whine. I feel sometimes we forget how amazing the things humans are doing to. We had a person and his teams literally build re-usable rockets and then blanket the earth in thousands of satellites, largely on private funding. This seemed unconceivable 10 years ago. This of all the people tat said this was ridiculous and bound to fail financially or te…

The fact that starlink is technologically impressive doesn't really change that paying 150 for a "30-50/2-10Mbps" connection is worth a whine

It's not just a connection. Its a connection anywhere in relevant countries. That 'anywhere' is a big difference.

So if your in a urban location, its not mean for you, price sux. If you have a cabin in hte middle of nowhere, this seems cheap and amazing to me.

And for speed, tested as typing this, I'm running 210mb down: https://prnt.sc/dXDNiqWQdtaC - I guess benefits of not being overly congested yet

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

#277

Post by mlyle » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 3:12 PM UTC

shaklee3 wrote: post #271

mlyle wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

64 QAM with FEC is specified as the original modulation in regulatory filings. This predicts 4.5-5.5 bits/Hz.

Yes, and dvbs-2 also supports very high modulation and code rates. but they're never used in practice since PSD limits don't allow you to transmit that much due to interference on other systems. starlink is not first in line for most of their spectrum, so they're abiding by direct spectral mask limits. I would guess they're at 16APSK at the highest.

> so they're abiding by direct spectral mask limits

Yes, obtained by channelization and OFDM, not by limiting modulation.

Reverse engineering of the 10 to 12.7GHz band has shown a mixture of 16-QAM and 64-QAM frames. There's a bit of periodic 4-QAM too, which seems to be for acquisition and synchronization.

Even 16-QAM can climb basically to 5 bits/Hz.

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

#278

Post by shaklee3 » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 3:17 PM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #277

shaklee3 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and dvbs-2 also supports very high modulation and code rates. but they're never used in practice since PSD limits don't allow you to transmit that much due to interference on other systems. starlink is not first in line for most of their spectrum, so they're abiding by direct spectral mask limits. I would guess they're at 16APSK at the highest.

> so they're abiding by direct spectral mask limits Yes, obtained by channelization and OFDM, not by limiting modulation. Reverse engineering of the 10 to 12.7GHz band has shown a mixture of 16-QAM and 64-QAM frames. There's a bit of periodic 4-QAM too, which seems to be for acquisition and synchronization. Even 16-QAM can climb basically to 5 bits/Hz.

Please show a link where this was reverse-engineered. I'd be curious to see it.

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

#279

Post by JohnFen » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 3:40 PM UTC

tedk-42 wrote: post #22

All these talks about Starlink -> Remember it's a bandaid solution to your governments poor planning and infrastructure rollout of a core utility / service. I say this as an Australian who watched one government plan a national rollout of fibre while another came in justifying most people don't need a connection better than 25/5 (based on usage data at the time) and went ahead and gutted the project. We're now trying…

> it's a bandaid solution to your governments poor planning and infrastructure rollout of a core utility / service.

Or, in the case of the US, it's what you get when you have private for-profit corporations doing all the planning and rollout.

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

#280

Post by secstate » Mon, Apr 03, 2023, 3:41 PM UTC

Still makes me a little depressed that instead of evolving Iridium, the best we can do with cheap launches is put up a bazillion bent-pipe satellites. I know all the technical reasons why not, but damn. Seems like a missed opportunity to use low interest rate VC money to build--or just improve--a generationally important system.