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

Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 607 posts

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#121

Post by vetinari »

Alupis wrote: post #36
xenadu02 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having this kind of network is a good thing but the idea that any kind of satellite or wireless can replace wires is just fantasy. Delivering just 10Mbps to 100 million customers is over 900 Tbps. There is absolutely no way a satellite network can clear that kind of downlink bandwidth. And that's just a tiny fraction of the market. Physical cables/fiber represent several orders of magnitude more capacity and always w…

And even in remote areas, building out VDSL2 networks with relatively decent speeds (200Mbps down and 100Mbps up[1]) would be better, honestly. Most homes already have a phone line and can support a DSL network... and in some countries a phone line is mandated by law, so the infrastructure already exists. But, DSL is not nearly as "sexy" as thousands of satellites... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDSL#:~:text=VDS…

In rural areas, we have LTE-based FWA.

10 MHz wide channel with 256-QAM can push 100 Mbps down.

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#122

Post by t-writescode »

bargl wrote: post #69
xutopia wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the price is 5 times cheaper though... what then?

There is a set capacity for these satellites, they can accomodate X number of users per satellite which would be a region (I'm making an educated guess) about the size of New Jersey. I think the size is larger than that which means fewer users but I'm trying to ballpark during my lunch break. So if they expect to have 10,000 users (again ballpark) in New Jersey, but they instead get 40,000 they'll increase their cost…

I believe the satellites are moving, so there's no "Wyoming satellite customers" in the same way as existing satellite internet. The Wyoming customers will be sharing satellites with several other places as they move in and out of their regions

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#123

Post by bdamm »

jedberg wrote: post #100
Alupis wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will Starlink even be able to legally sell internet services in China? Would they not have to comply with CCP's censorship policies and disconnect people at their will? I strongly disagree with CCP's policies here, but that's not for us to decide.

I was thinking of the opposite use case -- an American traveling to China for work and getting uncensored internet. But I mean once a Chinese citizen gets their hands on the equipment, I'm not sure how China would stop them. I suppose they could have roving bands of listening posts looking for the uplink signals. I'm sure someone could figure out a way to take payments for them. Many rich Chinese citizens already hav…

SpaceX isn't going to piss off China. The satellites are really just repeaters to the local base station. Starlink will be firewalled off from the world just like the rest of China (when the terminal is in China.)

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#124

Post by zhoujianfu »

aaomidi wrote: post #63
Barrin92 wrote: post #59

just to do some napkin maths, the entire constellation is supposed to be 12k satellites. Some googling gives 20Gbps throughput per satellite, so that'd be about 240k Gbps per second. Now of course the satellites keep exchanging information themselves and not all satellites are everywhere all the time but ignoring that, and let's say you can assume ten times as much bandwidth because not everyone is online at the same…

Bandwidth is over provisioned at 50-100x the amount. Sometimes even more.

If that’s the case, assuming 50mbs at 50x overprovisioning and $50/mo average, the 12k satellite system could provide service for 240m people and generate $144B/yr in revenue.

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#125

Post by Alupis »

bdamm wrote: post #117
Alupis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even in remote areas, building out VDSL2 networks with relatively decent speeds (200Mbps down and 100Mbps up[1]) would be better, honestly. Most homes already have a phone line and can support a DSL network... and in some countries a phone line is mandated by law, so the infrastructure already exists. But, DSL is not nearly as "sexy" as thousands of satellites... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDSL#:~:text=VDS…

Even if DSL can get there, reliability of the connection in rural areas is often very suspect. A tree falls over in a winter storm, a bad crash that takes out an exchange box, a pole just plain falls over due to shifting ground, or maybe construction takes out a main trunk... these problems happen in cities too, but in a city you have maybe 1 km of infrastructure to worry about. In rural areas you could have 100 or 2…

> Even just as a reliable alternative Starlink would be a big boon to rural users

Starlink is susceptible to cloud cover, rainstorms, lightning and other things that would interfere with signal quality (or render it unusable for periods of time).

Seems buried lines (either POTS for DSL, Coax for Cable, or Fiber) is the best solution. We just need to figure out how to incentivize it being built.

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#126

Post by darkwizard42 »

bargl wrote: post #45

Starlink internet is not meant to replace hard line internet. There is no getting around the physics of cable being so much cheaper/easier. Even terrestrial cell towers are more efficient and cheaper than satellites. This is 100% meant to supplement existing infrastructure not to replace it. You will almost always get cheaper and faster internet (for both you and the company providing internet) over a cable to your h…

Would this improve the internet quality on planes? Just wondering how that could get better... its absolutely crap most of the time

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#127

Post by LinuxBender »

Alupis wrote: post #118
LinuxBender wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The land I am looking at is in the south western part of Wyoming. Could you link the law? My understanding is that once a line is run, there is a process to decom the line, but that no line is required for a home. Many homesteaders do not have phone lines or on-grid power. The only requirements I am aware of are around septic systems.

Interesting. I couldn't find the exact law to link to, but did turn up this WaPo article talking about 4 states starting to relax the requirement. > The universal landline requirement has been repealed in Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin. There, new homeowners have no guarantee that they could order phone service at affordable rates, consumer advocates say. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy…

That seems more like a plan [1] to ensure that people can get an affordable line if they want it. I can't find any laws saying that all homes require a phone line. It also appears that recent discussions in the government were about changing money allocation from pots lines to internet specifically. I suppose we would need a land developer here to chime in.

[1] https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#128

Post by Reason077 »

bserge wrote: post #102
gamblor956 wrote: post #82

For comparison, DSL is 1.5 Mbps. 4g is between 5Mbps and 12 Mbps (up to 50Mbps in burst mode), while 5g generally starts at 50Mbps. Cable internet is usually 25 Mbps, and up to 1 Gbps if you're willing to pay, and fiber is up to 10 Gbps if you're lucky enough to live in an area with fiber built out to your home. So in other words, Starlink is useful if you live too far away from a major residential center to have acc…

So, I'm on 4G right now, getting 45/25 Mbps, in what is considered a rural area (20km from the city). I lived in Birmingham, UK, a way more populated area, and got ~40/30 on 4G, as well. I noticed many people say they're lucky to get ~15 Mbps on 4G and I'm confused, why? Is it just congestion or is there some difference in the towers/implementation?

> "I noticed many people say they're lucky to get ~15 Mbps on 4G and I'm confused, why? Is it just congestion or is there some difference in the towers/implementation?"

It can depend on the network, the device, congestion levels, and location. Some networks are notoriously bandwidth-constrained (ahem Three UK) and will always be prone to bad 4G speeds. Some networks have added capacity on more exotic 4G bands that are only supported by relatively recent devices. If you're connected to a macro site in a major city it probably has fibre backhaul with plenty of bandwidth available, but if you're connected to a small edge cell it may have radio backhaul with less capacity available.

And newer devices will support things like carrier aggregation and higher levels of MIMO that get faster speeds.

Interesting site showing how the UK mobile frequency is allocated here: https://pedroc.co.uk/content/uk-commercial-mobile-spectrum

Note that only fairly new devices will support the more exotic bands like 32/38/40 (and, of course, 5G).

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#129

Post by rubber_duck »

hesdeadjim wrote: post #53

Anyone complaining about this has never experienced the frustration of rural living when it comes to internet. This is absolutely amazing, and it will just get better. Even a reliable 10mbps would be a godsend in many places.

And 30-100 ping is usable as well - wonder what the packet loss rate is.

Re: Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

#130

Post by bryanlarsen »

gamblor956 wrote: post #112
arcticbull wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There aren't enough people in the US or EU that live in rural areas far from decent internet connections for Starlink to be more than a tiny fraction of the ISP market. Oh, I'm not sure that's true. 41,000,000 Americans don't have access to broadband [1]. That's the entire population of Canada and then some. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-19/where-the...

Starlink can't handle that many people, so it's a moot point that there are a theoretical 41 million potential customers. You can build out landlines far more easily than you can launch satellites; you just need the cable/fiber and some guys to dig a trench. The reason it hasn't happened is because it's not worth the financial investment without government subsidies (and this is why the federal government provides so…

> You can build out landlines far more easily than you can launch satellites;

Each satellite costs SpaceX about $250K to build and $500K to launch and services thousands of customers.

That same $750K might buy you a mile or so of trenching and cable. Many rural customers need multiple miles each.

Post reply on HN