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

401–410 of 607 posts

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

#401

Post by Retric »

ekianjo wrote: post #392
jonny_eh wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> I'd rather live in an urban area during a pandemic. Depends what kind of pandemic. If being in a city increased your exposure and infection rates 10 fold, and the disease is a killer without treatment, it's a lot worse to live in a city.

Rural areas have often had higher rates of covid 19 infections than cities in the area. Look here for some examples: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/coun...

Some of this is simple variance, but rural areas are surprisingly dangerous over time where cities simply show up sooner.

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

#402

Post by freemint »

ckdarby wrote: post #372
e12e wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not "all the time", but at any one time - at the same time (eg: watching superbowl - but of course any kind of multicast/broadcast is a little different). At any rate, it's mostly about the bandwidth each satellite has to route. I don't know what the likely number of subscribers for any one LEO sattelite will be? Will it really be on the order of 100 million not also served by 4g cellular, dsl and other broadband? Sa…

Couldn't the satellites themselves cache content that are for world wide events like this? Edit: Even further, if they're launching 12000 of these couldn't that be a CDN network itself?

No, because HTTPS caching is not possible.

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

#403

Post by kalium-xyz »

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.

I can think of two reasons which are purely non-techincal:

- The bigger the game, the less space for other games.

- Much like adding metal to the inside consumer headphone purely to weight it down and give a premium feeling (they do this with other products as well). A larger program may be perceived as more significant.

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

#404

Post by mmm_grayons »

Frondo wrote: post #285
mmm_grayons wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rural areas won't be safe from desperate people At least for America, most city folk don't seem to understand just how armed their rural counterparts are. They'd be pretty darn safe.

I don't know if rural folks may realize how well-armed we are in the cities. Nearly everyone I know has a gun, and none of us is the crowd you'd normally associate with gun owners in cities.

As kortilla mentioned, while you may have a different experience, the statistics are pretty clear. Also, not all firearms are equal, and while I can't back this part up with stats, my general experience has been that rural folk are much more likely to own more effective firearms: many own a semi-automatic rifles chambered in an intermediate cartridge and some own semi-autos chambered for a full rifle cartridge. Both are a lot more deadly than grandad's pump-action shotgun or a 22 lr plinking rifle, which is closer to what most city folk seem to own. All that aside, most rural people use firearms more often rather than keeping them in closets "just in case" and therefore will be much more effective.

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

#405

Post by toast0 »

yencabulator wrote: post #279
xienze wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bandwidth is great and all, but satellite latency is a killer. Been there, done that.

This ain't your grandpa's Hughes. > latencies or ping rates ranging from 31ms to 94ms That's on par or better than what I can get with either point-to-point wifi to small ISP or LTE.

31ms isn't too bad compared to the 20ms I get on bonded vdsl2.

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

#406

Post by CamperBob2 »

maccam94 wrote: post #395
CamperBob2 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like dealing with satellites is a truly trivial application of "adaptive" optics. You can't possibly expect me to believe that you have the processing power and technical know-how to remove the influence of atmospheric distortion, but that you're helpless when confronted with discrete fast-moving objects for which you have ephemerides. Sorry, that dog just don't hunt.

Initial versions of Starlink would reflect so much light that they would overwhelm significant areas of the sensors. If the reflection issue is resolved with the new sun shades, then the satellite trails can be removed during post-processing.

They can also use a shutter, for the cases where postprocessing really isn't an adequate answer.

The more light-sensitive the observation is, the longer they're integrating, ergo the less harm that a fast transient satellite pass will do.

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

#407

Post by ekianjo »

Retric wrote: post #401
ekianjo wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd rather live in an urban area during a pandemic. Depends what kind of pandemic. If being in a city increased your exposure and infection rates 10 fold, and the disease is a killer without treatment, it's a lot worse to live in a city.

Rural areas have often had higher rates of covid 19 infections than cities in the area. Look here for some examples: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/coun... Some of this is simple variance, but rural areas are surprisingly dangerous over time where cities simply show up sooner.

> have often had higher rates of covid 19 infections than cities in the area

Several factors at play:

- people thought COVID19 was not a thing outside of cities so people were more careless in rural areas

- wearing of masks is much less in rural areas than cities

- more local communities in rural areas (religious services for example)

But if you NEED to isolate yourself it's much easier to do it in the countryside than in a city.

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

#408

Post by medion »

choeger wrote: post #284
medion wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia I moved to a very rural place, buying a house based on where I could get wireless broadband as part of our nationwide broadband rollout - I now live in a beautiful remote place overlooking the ocean with 50/20mbps Internet. Before here, I lived in another rural place near the ocean, however there was no broadband and 4G was too expensive. I ended up making friends with someone who had a 1gbps fibrelink 1…

Ok you got me with "overlooking the ocean". I will admit, I was a little bit envious. But then I recalled the great Terry Pratchett quote that you are living on a continent where pretty much every animal, except for maybe some sheep, is equipped with some venom and actively trying to kill you. Plus some of the plants. So I guess it's fair play.

This is part of a global 5G/Soros/Gates conspiracy to keep Australia uninhabited - I've never been bitten by anything - maybe a bee when I was 12? And I spend the majority of my time walking, hiking, surfing, sailing, camping, etc.

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

#409

Post by medion »

insta_anon wrote: post #397
medion wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia I moved to a very rural place, buying a house based on where I could get wireless broadband as part of our nationwide broadband rollout - I now live in a beautiful remote place overlooking the ocean with 50/20mbps Internet. Before here, I lived in another rural place near the ocean, however there was no broadband and 4G was too expensive. I ended up making friends with someone who had a 1gbps fibrelink 1…

That sounds very interesting (I am also in Australia). Would you mind sharing (roughly) where you live?

Let's say, beyond 42deg south.

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

#410

Post by emmelaich »

choeger wrote: post #284
medion wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia I moved to a very rural place, buying a house based on where I could get wireless broadband as part of our nationwide broadband rollout - I now live in a beautiful remote place overlooking the ocean with 50/20mbps Internet. Before here, I lived in another rural place near the ocean, however there was no broadband and 4G was too expensive. I ended up making friends with someone who had a 1gbps fibrelink 1…

Ok you got me with "overlooking the ocean". I will admit, I was a little bit envious. But then I recalled the great Terry Pratchett quote that you are living on a continent where pretty much every animal, except for maybe some sheep, is equipped with some venom and actively trying to kill you. Plus some of the plants. So I guess it's fair play.

It is a very much overdone reputation. I've lived in Aus all my life, much of it rural and I don't know a single person who has been bitten by a snake or shark let alone died. Spider - maybe but most a very shy. But again some bitten, not one died that I know of.

Compare to the USA. Cougars and bears should scare you MUCH more than anything in Australia. And rabies. We have no rabies.

Some rabies-like diseases but you would have to be extremely unlucky to get those (lyssavirus from bats for instance)

Post reply on HN