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

Starlink Mini as a failover

jackpearce.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 249 posts

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#141

Post by matthews3 »

bdavbdav wrote: post #100
Reubend wrote: post #42

A mobile failover would be cheaper and would give you better connectivity in heavy rain. A 4G dongle can be purchased for $15, rather than $200 for a Starlink Mini. Then, let's say your main internet source fails and you need to actually use the backup plan beyond the standby amount of 0.5 Mbps. That will cost you a minimum of $50 for Starlink, versus roughly $25 for a month of unlimited cell service. As for standby…

I live a 25 minute train ride from london in a town with about 16000 residents, on a busy street 5 minutes walk from the main station. My cell is unusable.

I live a 5 hour train ride from London and my mobile data is also unusable.

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#142

Post by kotaKat »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #119
forinti wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a second fiber connection and found out recently that both fibers come along the same route and when a fire took out a utility pole, I lost both connections. I then found out that all providers bar one (there are 5 or 6) come along the same street. So if you are going to go with this option choose carefully your providers!

This entirely. “I like docsis”… cool, it turns to fiber 500ft after your house.

Gotta love the new suckered generation of "Fiber-Powered With Asterisks Internet" being advertised by the cablecos. "Fiber powered and delivered to the home by HFC!"

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#143

Post by alexfoo »

antonkochubey wrote: post #84
lxgr wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA specifically calls out not wanting to depend on 4G/5G coverage, which is anything but ubiquitous: > It has the advantage of working pretty much anywhere with a view of the sky so no relying on mobile network coverage. I'm also not sure if $25/month is anything close to the global average for unlimited 4G/5G data (if even available).

Sounds way too high to me, I am paying €8.80/month for unlimited 5G, calls and texting

UK is a bit more expensive than that but not silly.

I can get close to £10/mo but that's because I'm already paying that carrier ~£30/mo for two separate SIMs (mine and my kid's).

The £9/mo deal offered below is just half price for 6 months, it then becomes £18/mo.

https://5g.co.uk/unlimited-data-sim/

The bottom of the page does give some details about what "unlimited data" means here in the UK between the different carriers. Some cap speeds, some monitor usage and then either turf you off on "fair use" grounds or do traffic management/shaping. The general rule seems to be 650GB in 6 months is just about the limit of what is ok.

That wouldn't be anywhere near enough for me. Looking at my router I see I've downloaded 522GB in the last 34 days alone.

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#144

Post by czbond »

jonathonlui wrote: post #117
codethief wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My carrier detects and throttles hotspot traffic by measuring packets TTL, so I tweaks the router's iptables to dodge that. Could you elaborate on this?

Some mobile phone providers check the packet TTL to limit tethering. Network packets commonly have start with default TTL values of 64, 128, or 255. Each hop in the network subtracts 1. When phone connects direct to carrier (cell tower, I assume) the carrier will see TTL of 64. A laptop tethered to a phone introduces a hop so laptop-to-phone TTL is 64, phone-to-carrier TTL is 63. Carriers can then limit bandwidth if…

Thank you for explaining this, I had always wondered how a carrier could tell a device was tethered if a router was not passing on tethered device details.

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#147

Post by [deleted] »

grumbelbart2 wrote: post #6
LeoPanthera wrote: post #3

[flagged]

> OP doesn't live in the US, so maybe they don't feel this quite as acutely It's the same sentiment in large parts of Europe, and a major reason for dropping Tesla sales. He actively supports right-wing, eurosceptic politics and parties in several European countries.

[deleted]

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#149

Post by mordechai9000 »

jagged-chisel wrote: post #111
dylan604 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend that is also curious. Their fibre cable was cut by addicts trying to find a source of copper that took a few days to be repaired. Using their hot spot during the outage used up their allotted hot spot bandwidth for the month. My friend would be very interested in how to avoid potential down time in the future.

Might I suggest an email address added to your HN profile, lest a publicly posted reply result in observation by a nefarious telecom employee who just might obviate the proposed solution to your friend’s conundrum.

Are we back to this again? I have a friend who wants to know how to build a blue box.

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#150

Post by asdefghyk »

boredatoms wrote: post #138
jonathonlui wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some mobile phone providers check the packet TTL to limit tethering. Network packets commonly have start with default TTL values of 64, 128, or 255. Each hop in the network subtracts 1. When phone connects direct to carrier (cell tower, I assume) the carrier will see TTL of 64. A laptop tethered to a phone introduces a hop so laptop-to-phone TTL is 64, phone-to-carrier TTL is 63. Carriers can then limit bandwidth if…

How do you figure out what detection method a carrier is using?

Make the TTL change , and see if traffic bw changes?
Post reply on HN