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

Starlink Premium

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 223 posts

Re: Starlink Premium

#181

Post by shaklee3 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #168
lamontcg wrote: post #138

Can we get a $50/mo Starlink Budget?

There will definitely eventually be cheaper options. But not for a while and likely not in America. The satellites are unused over Africa etc, and they can't pay $100 per month. But until the manufacturing cost of the dishes comes down, a cheaper option is unlikely.

I don't agree with that. the likelihood of them reducing the cost of the antenna to what it needs to be in Africa is close to 0. even legacy satellite providers, with terminals that are 1/5 the cost cannot do it. and those aren't phased array

Re: Starlink Premium

#182

Post by shaklee3 »

wmf wrote: post #129
staunch wrote: post #105

> Are there data caps? > At this time there are no data caps. Too bad they don't commit to no data caps. Data caps suck ass.

Fortunately RDOF requires the data cap to be at least 2 TB/month.

these terminals and plans aren't for the rdof program.

Re: Starlink Premium

#183

Post by wmf »

shaklee3 wrote: post #180
wmf wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink is limited by the FCC to only use one satellite at a time (technically called Nco=1).

no, the antenna is cheap and cannot receive from more than one at a time. nothing to do with fcc.

Yeah, no. Legally, each cell can only be covered by one satellite beam because otherwise it might cause interference [with non-Starlink systems]. Given that the terminal only has one beam hitting it, there's no point in designing the terminal to support multiple beams.

Re: Starlink Premium

#184

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

shaklee3 wrote: post #179
initplus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink blows competitor offerings out of the water. Starlink has higher speeds, lower latency, and no data cap.

because they have no users yet. once the satellites are filled you're back to the status quo.

That's not true. The biggest problem with other satellite internet is ping, which has nothing to do with # of users (it's just that geostationary is really far away). Starlink satellites are 100x closer (so 10000x stronger signal), and there are well over 100x as many starlink satellites, so Starlink has roughly 1 million times the capacity as the other satellite internet providers.

Re: Starlink Premium

#185

Post by [deleted] »

shaklee3 wrote: post #180
wmf wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink is limited by the FCC to only use one satellite at a time (technically called Nco=1).

no, the antenna is cheap and cannot receive from more than one at a time. nothing to do with fcc.

[deleted]

Re: Starlink Premium

#186

Post by shaklee3 »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #184
shaklee3 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because they have no users yet. once the satellites are filled you're back to the status quo.

That's not true. The biggest problem with other satellite internet is ping, which has nothing to do with # of users (it's just that geostationary is really far away). Starlink satellites are 100x closer (so 10000x stronger signal), and there are well over 100x as many starlink satellites, so Starlink has roughly 1 million times the capacity as the other satellite internet providers.

no, it's not. streaming media is the vast majority of internet traffic, and it doesn't care at all about your latency.

your capacity math is so far off it's just crazy. if they had a million times the capacity of current satellites they would have around 250 petabits per second.

Re: Starlink Premium

#187

Post by shaklee3 »

wmf wrote: post #183
shaklee3 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, the antenna is cheap and cannot receive from more than one at a time. nothing to do with fcc.

Yeah, no. Legally, each cell can only be covered by one satellite beam because otherwise it might cause interference [with non-Starlink systems]. Given that the terminal only has one beam hitting it, there's no point in designing the terminal to support multiple beams.

that's not how modern satellites work. there are overlapping frequency bands and polarizations in the same location that do not interfere. there's also tdma to prevent interference.

Re: Starlink Premium

#188

Post by adhesive_wombat »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #184
shaklee3 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because they have no users yet. once the satellites are filled you're back to the status quo.

That's not true. The biggest problem with other satellite internet is ping, which has nothing to do with # of users (it's just that geostationary is really far away). Starlink satellites are 100x closer (so 10000x stronger signal), and there are well over 100x as many starlink satellites, so Starlink has roughly 1 million times the capacity as the other satellite internet providers.

Signal strength and channel bandwidth are only partially related.

You could blast out a 100Hz-BW CW signal at 1MW, but you will not be able to send much on it, even if you can receive it from the Moon.

There are other limits too, like channel concurrency, which you can see in action in places like busy stations or stadia where your phone can't connect and your Bluetooth headphones become unreliable. I don't know how many simultaneous connections a single Starlink transceiver can handle, though.

Re: Starlink Premium

#189

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #188
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. The biggest problem with other satellite internet is ping, which has nothing to do with # of users (it's just that geostationary is really far away). Starlink satellites are 100x closer (so 10000x stronger signal), and there are well over 100x as many starlink satellites, so Starlink has roughly 1 million times the capacity as the other satellite internet providers.

Signal strength and channel bandwidth are only partially related. You could blast out a 100Hz-BW CW signal at 1MW, but you will not be able to send much on it, even if you can receive it from the Moon. There are other limits too, like channel concurrency, which you can see in action in places like busy stations or stadia where your phone can't connect and your Bluetooth headphones become unreliable. I don't know how…

it looks like their previous satellites (v1.0) were 18Gbps. I haven't found anything for v1.5 which is currently deployed, or v2.0 which theoretically are starting to launch this year.

Re: Starlink Premium

#190

Post by fastball »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #161
TbobbyZ wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work with gigabytes of data daily at my job. I want those upload speeds to increase. Plus, I want to start getting into gaming again and none of my friends will play with me with that internet speed LOL

Are there games that take multiple Mbps to play? I thought they usually took 10s of Kbps or less, and latency was the metric to watch.

At 20-40ms this almost certainly has better latency than his existing rural internet.
Post reply on HN