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

Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

satellitemap.space

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 241 posts

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#111

Post by diimdeep »

Now do live map with latency measurement through Starlink

New York City - New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and NASDAQ Stock Market

Tokyo - Tokyo Stock Exchange (TSE)

Shanghai - Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE)

Hong Kong - Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX)

London - London Stock Exchange (LSE)

Toronto - Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX)

Mumbai - Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and National Stock Exchange of India (NSE)

Frankfurt - Frankfurt Stock Exchange (FWB)

Paris - Euronext Paris

Sydney - Australian Securities Exchange (ASX)

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#112

Post by mlindner »

Thlom wrote: post #108
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's probably economically viable without selling to consumers at all. if they get planes boats and military, that on it's own would be plenty to sustain it

I doubt it. The ongoing operational costs of a mega constellation like this is huge and I doubt they will be able to sell their services to maritime, aviation and military sectors at a much higher price than existing operators. They will also meet hefty competition the next few years from Amazon Kuiper, Oneweb and I assume existing operators are scrambling to meet the competition. Interesting times.

They already sell it to maritime and aviation sectors at significantly less than existing operators, though significantly more than the regular service.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#113

Post by mlindner »

hungryforcodes wrote: post #99

No one in Asia or Africa or India seem to be using it. Are we just polluting LEO for the sake of a handful of Americans? I feel like in the US it's not even widely used...

They've only just started expansion into those areas (so far 2 countries in Africa). Here's the service map: https://www.starlink.com/map

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#114

Post by fooker »

Thlom wrote: post #108
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's probably economically viable without selling to consumers at all. if they get planes boats and military, that on it's own would be plenty to sustain it

I doubt it. The ongoing operational costs of a mega constellation like this is huge and I doubt they will be able to sell their services to maritime, aviation and military sectors at a much higher price than existing operators. They will also meet hefty competition the next few years from Amazon Kuiper, Oneweb and I assume existing operators are scrambling to meet the competition. Interesting times.

Most operating costs estimates assume that sending up more satellites is an expensive proposition.

For starlink, its not. Maybe for the first time in history.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#115

Post by walrus01 »

jrockway wrote: post #87
pier25 wrote: post #70

How come there are so many satellites all over the world but so little coverage? (I'm assuming the green hexagons it's the service coverage)

I believe the current implementation of the network requires the satellite to see both you and a ground station at the same time. So ground stations are the limiting factor.

It was this way until very recently, google "starlink lasers". The newer satellites have satellite-to-satellite laser links which can form a chain until they reach a satellite that is presently overhead of an earth station. SpaceX has now started selling the global ocean maritime product version of starlink which specifically advertises full ocean coverage worldwide. I recently saw a person's first hand experience of successfully using Starlink on a cross ocean voyage from Polynesia to Ecuador.

Most starlink traffic still is "up and back down again" to a satellite that's moving while simultaneously in view of the CPE and a starlink-run earth station.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#116

Post by 7952 »

noncoml wrote: post #59
fooker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really a service meant for SoCal, but I'm sure they see it as a valuable stress test.

Every time Starlink comes up it’s the same argument. “It’s not meant for high population density areas” Without the “high population density areas” it is simply not economically viable

But it doesn't necessarily need high subscriber rates in any one place to make lots of money. If you just focus on those high population areas, 1.7 billion people live in cities. If you can sell to a few in a thousand then you will have several million subscribers across the world and they will likely be wealthier people. And then there are cruise ships, airliners, oil rigs, ski chalets, military compounds, backhauling WiFi for musical festivals, and millions of people living in the woods with rubbish DSL.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#117

Post by 7952 »

Thlom wrote: post #108
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's probably economically viable without selling to consumers at all. if they get planes boats and military, that on it's own would be plenty to sustain it

I doubt it. The ongoing operational costs of a mega constellation like this is huge and I doubt they will be able to sell their services to maritime, aviation and military sectors at a much higher price than existing operators. They will also meet hefty competition the next few years from Amazon Kuiper, Oneweb and I assume existing operators are scrambling to meet the competition. Interesting times.

But at this point in their plan it doesn't matter if they undercut existing providers. If the marginal cost of the extra client is small enough then it is just extra revenue. And you get the clients operations dependant on that extra bandwidth that they won't want to give up.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#118

Post by 7952 »

lionkor wrote: post #106
hungryforcodes wrote: post #99

No one in Asia or Africa or India seem to be using it. Are we just polluting LEO for the sake of a handful of Americans? I feel like in the US it's not even widely used...

I believe so - its a very small niche. If I understand correctly, the target audience is: - remote places, with - people who need internet but dont have a wire or fiber running to them, and - who can afford a super expensive starlink (have disposable income), and - for who 3G/4G isnt good enough Thats not a lot of people outside the US

There is no reason why they would necessarily need to charge such high monthly prices in poorer countries. If the marginal costs can be kept low enough then it would be stupid to miss out on the revenue. A key to that is probably the inter satellite links to avoid needing so many base stations.

Also, parts of Africa have pretty good cell coverage. So it may not be needed in a lot of areas.

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#119

Post by kmlx »

hungryforcodes wrote: post #99

No one in Asia or Africa or India seem to be using it. Are we just polluting LEO for the sake of a handful of Americans? I feel like in the US it's not even widely used...

> No one in Asia or Africa or India seem to be using it

from my understanding in order to provide internet services in any country you need to register with the authorities and get approval for providing those services.

their map shows where they got approval so far and where they're still in the process: https://www.starlink.com/map

Re: Live Starlink Satellite and Coverage Map

#120

Post by charcircuit »

ben_w wrote: post #104
charcircuit wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IPv6 is not a solution when there still is a lot of people whose networks don't support it. Making the network publicly routable shouldn't be any more complex than any other ISP which seem to do this just fine.

IPv6 is 24.5 years old. When there's enough time for you to conceive a new child, send them through school, then university, then most of a PhD program… If your network equipment supplier doesn't support the tech, demand better of them rather than blaming the ISP that's specifically intended for people who weren't being properly served until now anyway.

>IPv6 is 24.5 years old.

And Chinese is hundreds of years old and I still don't know it. People don't invest into supporting things the instant they release.

>If your network equipment supplier...

In this hypothetical my network supplier would, but someone who is trying to connect isn't. IPv6 isn't even at 50% support in the US. That means if you want your friend group to all connect to your server there is a very good chance that some of them will not be able to. What are you supposed to tell them? That they should complain to their ISP?

Post reply on HN