Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

Post by fastaguy88 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #130

gamblor956 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 by SNACKeR99 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 8:07 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #114

bdamm wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Main advantage of Starlink over existing satellite is a (much) lower latency. Starlink constellation is flying by with a new satellite overhead every 10 minutes or less, and they're operating just above the atmosphere. Musk has claimed 20ms latency, which if true, would be absolutely a smash victory for rural Internet users everywhere.

That would have been absolutely awesome. If memory serves me right, my latency was around 150ms on average, which was ok-ish but not great.

Post by nix23 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

francis_t_catte wrote: post #151

mc32 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s better than the DSL AT&T provides in some parts of SF where “you’re too far from the CO, you’re maxed out at 12”.

LOL, try Verizon-level of rural infrastructure neglect. I paid for a guaranteed 3,300Kb/s down, 768Kb/s up. I usually got 900Kb/s down, and 150Kb/s up. to quote the linesman who had the shit job of patching together the literal 1930's(!) phone lines," I was told by corporate to absolutely not replace any lines unless they're taken out by a drunk or a tree. the cable on that spool I pull behind my truck is going to go…

Post by bargl » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

t-writescode wrote: post #122

bargl wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by jonny_eh » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 8:11 PM UTC

trothamel wrote: post #157

Maximus9000 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not alone there. I wonder if starlink will increase property values in rural areas.

Especially with COVID showing the downsides to living in urban areas.