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

211–220 of 607 posts

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

#211

Post by gamblor956 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #176
wlesieutre wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've provided financials?

They've indicated that each satellite costs about $250K to build, and launch costs per satellite are about $500K. Each satellite lasts 5 years. Each satellite gets 50Gbps (25Gbps actual since you have to go up & down). They haven't released base station costs, but there are some estimates that it'll be about $2K per. The other big unknown is the utilization factor. It's pretty hard to punch those numbers into a model…

It's pretty hard to punch those numbers into a model and not show SpaceX making money hand over fist, but there are bears out there that have come up with some really contrived models.

At $2000 just to buy in to the system, they've cut off a huge chunk of their purported market.

Unless they plan on using unicorn accounting again, it's pretty hard to punch those numbers into a model and show SpaceX even making its money back on the first wave of satellite launches unless they dominate the rural ISP market. In order to just break even on fixed and operational costs they'd need to charge at least as much as existing rural ISPs, and if they charge significantly more they won't acquire significant market share because their are faster options available at higher pricepoints that aren't susceptible to the weather. And most of those alternatives have roughly the same buy-in costs if SpaceX actually plans on making customers pay $2000 for a base station.

And then they'd need to do it all over again in 5 years when they have to replace their satellites.

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

#212

Post by zaroth »

bananaface wrote: post #6

Won't these speeds dramatically reduce once there are a lot of users saturating the connections?

There’s no way to know how much per-user throttling is currently in place. E.g. a single connection might be limited to 0.1% of a given bird’s total throughout. There could also be artificial limits for the ground station‘s uplink.

Current belief is that each satellite can forward 20Gbps max. But I’m doubtful that a single client could ever access a significant fraction of that total.

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

#213

Post by chris_va »

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…

A cell tower today is basically a selective directional broadcast of ~2.5GHz backed by a microwave backhaul, conforming to local topography and about ~3 miles away.

An internet satellite is a phased array broadcast of ~20Ghz with a microwave backhaul without regard for local topography and about ~600 miles away.

... I am not sure there is obviously a better choice here, if the launch costs no longer dominate.

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

#214

Post by Reason077 »

bargl wrote: post #188
Reason077 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "You will almost always get cheaper and faster internet (for both you and the company providing internet) over a cable to your house." Not true for me, and I live 10 minutes walk from the financial centre of a major world city. Because there's no fibre installed to my building, unlimited ~300 Mbps 5G wireless internet is both cheaper and faster than any available fixed alternative. Even if fibre was available, the…

>If you can't get that, then maybe a cell tower is better, if that doesn't work, then a land based beaming internet may be better, after that I'd look to space based internet. It is cheaper for a company, to run fiber to your house than to build a cell tower that handles ALL the people within that region given a certain density of houses. It doesn't mean it's cheaper for your building to do it. In the context of spac…

> "companies don't "advertise" hostpots as an alternative to fiber/cable"

They do around here!

http://www.three.co.uk/store/broadband/home-broadband

https://www.vodafone.co.uk/gigacube/

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

#215

Post by buu700 »

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.

Agreed. Maybe it's gotten better, but when I used HughesNet in the middle of the woods in Maine, I would say it was comparable to dial-up except with worse latency and reliability. Anything in the ballpark of a 4G connection would have been phenomenal.

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

#217

Post by bargl »

busterarm wrote: post #210
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…

A lot of what you're saying isn't actually true here. Light moves significantly (47%) slower through optical fiber than through space. This drastically reduces the latency of long distance connections. We're talking NY round trip to Japan in the same time it takes NY roundtrip to the UK now. The cost of backhaul and ongoing maintenance of cables is a lot more than SpaceX launching their own satellites by an entire or…

>A lot of what you're saying isn't actually true here.

You're talking latency not bandwidth. There is only so much spectrum to go around.

My understanding is that there is only a certain amount of bandwidth to go around and there are diminishing returns on adding people beyond a set capacity. I am not arguing that fiber is faster, I'm arguing that fiber has is cheaper at the bandwidth/cost in more dense areas. I don't believe we will see satellite based communication in cities (at a large % of population) for a long time.

Now I'm willing to believe someone who's worked closer to this than I have and to learn, but I've done enough in the satellite industry to not take what you're saying without seeing more evidence.

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

#218

Post by iagovar »

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…

Don't you have unlimited data plans in the US? Or local Wimax ISPs?

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

#219

Post by thewebcount »

jonny_eh wrote: post #169
trothamel wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'd rather live in an urban area during a pandemic. It's counter-intuitive but the access to testing and hospitals is very important. https://theconversation.com/rural-america-is-more-vulnerable...

Yes, this is so true. My spouse has a rare chronic condition and moving anywhere rural is a non-starter. Even with great doctors in a big city, it's still a struggle getting the care she needs. I can't imagine if we lived somewhere with less than stellar healthcare.

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

#220

Post by bargl »

chris_va wrote: post #213
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…

A cell tower today is basically a selective directional broadcast of ~2.5GHz backed by a microwave backhaul, conforming to local topography and about ~3 miles away. An internet satellite is a phased array broadcast of ~20Ghz with a microwave backhaul without regard for local topography and about ~600 miles away. ... I am not sure there is obviously a better choice here, if the launch costs no longer dominate.

>... I am not sure there is obviously a better choice here, if the launch costs no longer dominate.

I'm basing my entire comment on existing costs due to SpaceX efficiency. We'd need (IMO) more cost reduction.

Post reply on HN