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

171–180 of 249 posts

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#171

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

protocolture wrote: post #164
vablings wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink amazing solution to a problem that should have been solved by governments years ago, the USA has power to most homes and USPS will deliver anywhere so why do we not have the same for internet? God knows

Starlink is an amazing solution to the problem of "How do I keep my orbital transport business somewhat liquid" which isn't really the kind of problem governments are meant to resolve.

The US kept Iridium alive for the military and intelligence services. If Starlink falters they will fund it the same.

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#172

Post by M4R5H4LL »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #4

I also do this. Xfinity went out for a few hours earlier this month and Unifi failed over almost instantly, and within minutes we had high speed internet once I upgraded us. The standby mode would have been plenty for basic web browsing, too. $5/mo for pretty guaranteed connectivity, plus being able to take it around with me on travels is pretty awesome.

XFinity has been terrible lately, and I have a Starlink Mini. XFinity failed today, and I did fallback for a few hours on the Mini. Connectivity was actually better than fiber. If only it worked when it is cloudy -- for $50 on roaming, that's a no-brainer given the exorbitant cost of living in northern cal.

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#173

Post by drnick1 »

intrasight wrote: post #10
mynameisvlad wrote: post #4

I also do this. Xfinity went out for a few hours earlier this month and Unifi failed over almost instantly, and within minutes we had high speed internet once I upgraded us. The standby mode would have been plenty for basic web browsing, too. $5/mo for pretty guaranteed connectivity, plus being able to take it around with me on travels is pretty awesome.

What is the role of Unifi here? I read the article and went to their site but I still have no clue.

Same remark here. This reads more like paid promotion for UniFi than anything. It should be mentioned that any Linux box can trivially accommodate multiple WAN interfaces. You don't need to pay the UniFi tax for this.

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#175

Post by dboreham »

I use Starlink as a backup provider, have done loads of work to tunnel public IPs via it, automatically fail over traffic etc, yet had no idea they supported public IPv6 subnets until reading this article.

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#177

Post by corford »

I've just done something similar in response to a heavy storm that's taken out the fiber where I live (7 weeks now, still hasn't been reconnected). Starlink has been a life saver and works flawlessly (~200Mbps, Had to get this going quickly so used tplink gear as it was readily accessible and surprisingly it's worked quite well. Used an NX210 (for WiFi to house and the backup 4G sim). Connected the NX210's WAN to an ER605, with Starlink router in WAN1 (in bypass mode) and fiber router in WAN2. This gives me instant fail over across all three and the option of load balancing across fiber and starlink (whenever the fiber comes back). Last step was to get an EAP211 so I could share my starlink over to a neighbour who also lost their fiber after the storm. That has worked well too.

* I'm using a residential starlink plan with the full dish (not mini), mounted with their pipe adapter accessory

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#178

Post by rjh29 »

lxgr wrote: post #72
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…

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).

I mean it's more to do with the cool factor of using a satellite, not practical concerns. Practically a mobile failover is superior if you have coverage.

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#179

Post by rjh29 »

prism56 wrote: post #9
kkapelon wrote: post #8

Using a 4g/5g router is much easier and probably cheaper/power efficient. Depending on your area you don't even need an external one. A simple 4g dongle would do.

Yup, OP is from the UK. In the UK I got a ThreeUK business SIM for £49 that lasted 2 years with 500GB data. It sits in wan failover and manages about 50mbps which is perfect to keep most services running.

Is that £49 a month, or £49 for the 500GB data? Sounds useful!

Re: Starlink Mini as a failover

#180

Post by TacticalCoder »

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…

> A mobile failover would be cheaper and would give you better connectivity in heavy rain.

When I was living in the rural seaside (literally grapes growing in front of the sea: nice place), when a bad electricity outage would happen it'd take down everything, including the only cell tower we'd be connected to. So no Internet, no mobile phone. No nothing but the laptop's batteries.

There are also people who have the same ISP as the company giving them their phone number: about a year ago in my country (highly modern, western EU country) a major carrier went down for a few hours. Electricity kept working but all the people on that ISP and mobile phone carrier were sorry out of luck. Most shops couldn't accept payments anymore (except cash but people don't use that much here).

Failover on mobile is, for many, the same thing as no failover at all: you may as well not even bother.

Satellite failover, on the other hand, is quite harder to disrupt.

Post reply on HN