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

301–310 of 607 posts

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

#301

Post by pier25 »

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.

Totally.

A couple of years back we lived in some mountains in Mexico and the best connection around for miles was less than 5Mbps. Most people had less than 1Mbps.

We then moved closer to civilization and I remember being amazed to be able to watch Netflix in 4K with a 20Mbps connection around 2015 or so.

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

#302

Post by yencabulator »

elnik wrote: post #20
jasonpeacock wrote: post #12

Honestly, this is just awesome. It's a working demonstration of high-speed satellite internet, showing this approach is a viable solution for "anywhere on Earth" internet. For all those people who don't have broadband available, this will be life-changing. It'll only get better from here, welcome to the future :) (and remember that perfect is the enemy of good)

I wonder what happens on a cloudy day.. currently the satellite based DTH television displays a cloud and refuses to work. Technically is there a work around to that?

Well, on a rainy day both LTE and point-to-point wifi here go bad anyway, so it's still an improvement (more signal routes = more chance one works).

People keep comparing Starlink to their ideal non-rural internet connection. That's not what it needs to compete with.

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

#303

Post by pier25 »

stingraycharles wrote: post #80
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.

Absolutely! As someone who lived in a third world country for 2.5y (2014-2016), I had to resort to satellite internet for semi-reliable uplink. I have to admit that I’m not too familiar with the differences between Starlink and what’s already available, but what I do know is that I had to settle for 4/0.5mbit and was really happy with it. Reliability of the connection was much more important than the throughout.

Where did you live?

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

#304

Post by rconti »

bargl wrote: post #85
jedberg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're in Silicon Valley then you probably get GREAT cell service You'd think so, but we have the same problems as everyone else. In fact, I get much better reception in Sacramento and Las Vegas than in the Bay Area.

No, you don't have the same problems as everywhere else. You said it took 10 years to get fiber, there are rural places where that's not an option. There are places where there is no sewer and houses must have septic. There are places where there is no water and houses must have wells / rain capture. Those are the target audience for this technology. Not people who are waiting to go from 60 -> 100 -> 1000 Mbps. This…

You seem to be confusing posters and issues.

I'M the one who said it took 10 years to get fiber. I'm not convinced wired infrastructure is cheaper/easier to deploy, when it means digging up millions (billions?) of miles of trenches across the country.

Nobody claimed "having fiber in silicon valley today" is not better than "having crap internet in rural america"

I have good LTE at my house. That doesn't mean I can get terabytes/month of transfer for a reasonable cost.

And by the way, my ENTIRE POINT was that "the physics of wires" is NOT "cheaper and easier".

Reply to my parent if you're looking for an argument as to why wired is better than wireless.

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

#306

Post by mynameisvlad »

gamegod wrote: post #283
labster wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in 10 years, Starship should make it possible to put more space observatories in orbit, so it should get better for the professional astronomers eventually. It'll still suck for amateur astronomers and photographers, though. Although, with the way 2020 is going, we'll probably miss observing the asteroid that kills us all because a Starlink got in the way of the observation.

The reason we don't use space observatories as much anymore is because we have adaptive optics now and don't need them. The concerns of astronomers are real. It's not for Starlink to ruin our ability to observe the sky for all of humanity. Incredible entitlement.

You can easily turn that last part around.

It's not for astronomers to ruin our ability to provide essential (and yes, internet is essential at this point) services for billions of people around the world that otherwise can't get it. Incredible entitlement.

It just depends on what you value more, observing the sky, or providing internet.

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

#307

Post by rconti »

bargl wrote: post #71
rconti wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are the physics of cables cheaper and easier? Took me, what, over a decade to get fiber internet in the middle of Silicon Valley.

Yes. All this beaming technology is available on earth (4g/5g) but we don't use it for our home internet... Why is that? Cost of bandwith per person to infrastructure. If you're in Silicon Valley then you probably get GREAT cell service, why not use a hotspot as your internet. That signal to your phone is orders of magnitude cheaper than space based signal.

I was arguing against the parent post that was claiming wires are cheaper and easier. Not terrestrial wireless vs satellite.

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

#308

Post by pier25 »

SEJeff wrote: post #46
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…

There is absolutely no way a satellite network can clear that kind of downlink bandwidth. Evergreen comment. Encoding and compression software and hardware continue to improve. The only constant in technology is change. Will we be able to do this sort of bandwith to LEO eventually? Yes. Can we do it this very moment? No one has tried.

> Encoding and compression software and hardware continue to improve.

But these would apply to both wired and wireless, no?

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

#309

Post by yencabulator »

Alupis wrote: post #297
loufe wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but at the same time this is the BETA period. Attacks on his claim should wait until the public availability of the service begins.

Fair enough... except everyone here is in awe of 11Mbps satellite service, as-if satellite internet is some brand new thing.

If Hughes had been serving 11-60 Mbps at 31-94 ms ping without caps, Starlink wouldn't need to exist. Starlink is absolutely not the same as the previous generation of satellite internet. This is a brand new thing.

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

#310

Post by csharptwdec19 »

kickopotomus wrote: post #292
curiousllama wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. Also - my frustrations over the last few days compel me to point out that the latest AAA shooter is in fact 227 GB, plus >100GB of updates.

Has anyone come out with a reason for the size? I mean they seem to reuse a lot of the same textures throughout the game so I have a hard time understanding how it managed to swell to that.

IDK if they do this for PC versions...

But a lot of these games not only Reuse textures but also duplicate them. They do this to improve load times for levels/etc (less seeking).

Playstation DOOM is an early example of this pattern. The WAD files were actually 'per-level' and contained all sprites/textures/etc used in said level.

Post reply on HN