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

Setting up Starlink

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 340 posts

Re: Setting up Starlink

#311

Post by Taniwha »

ggm wrote: post #302

Not here to disrespect anyone using it or seeking it, just commenting that with many cities worldwide mid way through fiber upgrades I worry this will be used to deprecate in ground investment in optical. I know a lot of people can legit say "fiber is never coming to me" but the NBN debacle in Australia comes to mind as a politicised capital investment failure (they dropped FTTP for a mixture of copper, optical, wifi…

A friend here in NZ just installed starlink, has roughly the same experience as others - most of us here have gigabit fibre to the home, he lives just enough out of town that he's replacing marginal VDSL

Re: Setting up Starlink

#312

Post by shaklee3 »

walrus01 wrote: post #154
poisonborz wrote: post #31

> It's powered through PoE++ (using around 100W of power continuously) Not familiar with Sat gear, but this number seems extremely high to me for just powering an antenna (and some motors occasionally)

100W is actually really low in the class of two way satellite equipment that's capable of 100 x 15 Mbps speeds or greater. I am not talking about ordinary cheap consumer grade hughesnet or viasat stuff, but if you were to do the power budget for an idirect x3 modem and a traditional geostationary ku-band VSAT setup with a 20W BUC, the actual AC wall power consumed would be quite a lot more. Just the BUC is going to b…

Hughes and viasat idle at about 30W and peak at 70W. Both are capable of 100/15 speeds.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#313

Post by eximius »

stingraycharles wrote: post #248
rubatuga wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are a managed service meaning you can sign up, download the WireGuard configuration, and forget about it. For a few extra dollars, you get reliability (we use BGP so we can failover to different datacenters), and clean IP addresses that aren't associated with spam or other cloud providers.

FWIW and since this is HN, I don’t think it’s pricey at all, it seems to very much match what I would expect a service like this to cost. I wonder if I somehow can set up my Mikrotik routers to tunnel through you and transparently provide IPv6 for my whole LAN, that would be swell.

The Mikrotik RouterOS v7 beta does include Wireguard support, though I haven't tested it yet.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#314

Post by eximius »

hattmall wrote: post #280
rubatuga wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We lease IPv4 /24 and IPv6 /48 blocks from a reputable IP address broker, check it against spam blacklists, and finally announce the clean IP addresses at a datacenter of our choice. We are not tied down to any hosting company. We tested a datacenter failover scenario and switched the BGP route from Chicago to Toronto, while a YouTube video was playing, and it didn't even stutter!

Do streaming services work? Anyway to make the IP appear residential?

For most services that distinguish between residential and commercial IPs, your traffic is outbound so CGNAT shouldn't be much of a problem to route normally.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#315

Post by pugworthy »

eigenschwarz wrote: post #193

I have Starlink and am in a wooded part of New England. I mostly agree with freedomben's points. All I will add is I still use my cell phone hotspot (Verizon -- only carrier that gets a modicum of service where I am) for Zoom calls or similar. Starlink is definitely fast but too many hiccups for video calls. Edit: More musings. There is a push to get broadband in our area within the year. If that happens and Starlink…

"Rural" and East Coast is basically the metropolis some other areas of the world. Not surprising you'll have something better than Starlink sooner or later. Lots of other places? Not gonna happen.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#316

Post by walrus01 »

shaklee3 wrote: post #312
walrus01 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100W is actually really low in the class of two way satellite equipment that's capable of 100 x 15 Mbps speeds or greater. I am not talking about ordinary cheap consumer grade hughesnet or viasat stuff, but if you were to do the power budget for an idirect x3 modem and a traditional geostationary ku-band VSAT setup with a 20W BUC, the actual AC wall power consumed would be quite a lot more. Just the BUC is going to b…

Hughes and viasat idle at about 30W and peak at 70W. Both are capable of 100/15 speeds.

but in real world use, often much, much less. The average screenshot of speed tests I see from unhappy viasat and hughesnet customer is like 2 to 5 Mbps down and 0.9 Mbps up. Maybe at 0300 in the morning.

What I was referring to is the class of VSAT equipment much more costly than a proprietary viasat or hughesnet terminal, which the ordinary consumer will never see, that's capable of doing a dedicated 100/15.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#317

Post by glitchcrab »

mvanbaak wrote: post #288
glitchcrab wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTTH seems to be fairly prevalent in new builds in the UK now; my house is 5 years old and FTTH is the only option here. This does rather limit your ISP choices somewhat, but you can get pretty decent speeds. BT upgraded me to 950/140 just last week.

FTTH with asynchronous speeds? Thats bullshit. The only reason for that is that they use cable or dsl somewhere in the path from you into their core network

As another user commented, it's about market segmentation and not equipment limitations. I can get near-symmetric speeds from other FTTH ISPs but it was significantly more expensive than I was willing to pay, and I don't really need it anyway.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#319

Post by nucleardog »

rubatuga wrote: post #245
coolpanda0 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can by pass Chinese GFW reliably?

We would be glad to test it out with you, no contacts in China unfortunately.

FWIW, from my limited experience with the firewall there--they do less banning protocols, and more banning specific endpoints people are using to bypass the firewall.

I never tested WireGuard, but, for instance, I had no issue connecting via OpenVPN to personal and work VPNs from China (on standard ports with no effort to hide). If you try and use OpenVPN to connect to any of the well-known VPN providers with it though, it will be blocked.

Even if you find it works initially, as soon as someone catches wind of it being used to bypass the firewall and/or they see a surge of traffic to your services, you're likely to end up blackholed.

Especially for a paid service, it's probably more of a support headache than it's worth.

Unless you're looking to make a stand, I'd probably just steer clear of the whole situation. It's illegal in China to operate an internet services without a license and it could come back to bite you in the ass down the road if you ever intend to do business there or travel there.

Re: Setting up Starlink

#320

Post by kalleboo »

walrus01 wrote: post #157
7e wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you compare with T-Mobile’s 5G home Internet plan? Similar numbers advertised, $60 a month, no caps.

"no caps" - but watch what happens if you move 200 or 300GB downstream on a LTE based last mile residential connection in a month. you'll either get shut off, throttled to a few Mbps, or billed extra. Look at the fine print in the terms of service. If you have a household with multiple people that watch netflix, download movies, or even want to download a single xbox one or PS4/PS5 game (they can be 120-180GB now), w…

T-mobile doesn’t apply a traditional throttle but instead they deprioritize you on the towers. So as long as you're on a tower that doesn't typically get congested (typical in residential areas since people use their home Wi-Fi instead) you're fine.
Post reply on HN