Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who on earth is telling you that you are a slacker for not buying Wifi on your flights?
My inner voice! As with most people, I'm my own worst critic.
Hence the therapy recommendation. Learn to go easy on yourself.
Starlink Aviation
521–526 of 526 posts
Re: Starlink Aviation
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's how shit wifi Seems like you know a bit about this. Could you indulge my curiosity and elaborate why wifi is shit? I assume some combo of DSP bottleneck (i.e. want to keep hw cheap) and maintaining backwards compatibility with older standards?
Wifi is improving now. Newer standards like Wifi 6 are doing that basically by taking the good ideas from LTE (4G) and applying them to Wifi. The cellular radio community has been much better about evolving standards, coming up with new technology and rolling it out . Maybe they have it easier because everyone gets a new phone every two years, but they've still had fairly good backwards compatibility support. Multipl…
Thanks for this information! Do mesh wifi routers do FDMA now? I think my mesh router uses multiple bands
Re: Starlink Aviation
#523Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wifi is improving now. Newer standards like Wifi 6 are doing that basically by taking the good ideas from LTE (4G) and applying them to Wifi. The cellular radio community has been much better about evolving standards, coming up with new technology and rolling it out . Maybe they have it easier because everyone gets a new phone every two years, but they've still had fairly good backwards compatibility support. Multipl…
Thanks for this information! Do mesh wifi routers do FDMA now? I think my mesh router uses multiple bands
Not as far as I'm aware. I don't know much about Wifi mesh, but I'm guessing that it has two channels - one for being "master" and one for "slave".
I.e. the master channel is used to serve wifi to the nearby devices, and to the next wifi routers in a chain, whereas the slave channel is used to get wifi from any upstream routers.
We wouldn't describe that approach as FDMA - more that it has a separate channel for backhaul.
Re: Starlink Aviation
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
250ms minimum latency (just for the speed of light), once you add switching that's going to be over 400ms. You have to be pretty apologetic to accept this. I live in Australia (118ms round trip), and whenever I'm in SF, I'm amazed at the quality of life increase brought about by decreased latency. It feels like the whole net is on localhost.
so geosynchronous switching adds 150ms, but starlink is only adding 100ms?
Folks are reporting 40ms on Starlink and 638ms for Viasat.
I don’t know what is going on, and I don’t use either service.
Re: Starlink Aviation
#525Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is for general aviation, not airlines.
same thing applies since they share the same airports. they'll give these planes higher priority because of the cost, but it's not enough to make an entire business from. they need the residential service to be profitable.
Certainly there are some shared airports. But private jets at New York fly into Teterboro, and most private jets in Los Angeles fly into Van Nuys.
Re: Starlink Aviation
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
The primary issue is * there isn’t any sort of provider like Openreach where all the ISPs share some portion of the network (in Openreach’s case, the last-mile network) so every ISP has to build every last inch to the home themselves * generally speaking, ISPs have to get permits from localities, which are often cash-strapped and thus looking to scrape as much money as they can from an unsympathetic sector
> where all the ISPs share some portion of the network (in Openreach’s case, the last-mile network) so every ISP has to build every last inch to the home themselves There could be though if US regulators wanted too. In my country (New Zealand) for example the government did a deal during the switch from copper to fiber that regulated the network owners. A network owner would get exclusive rights to install their cabl…
This is where the US federal structure starts getting in the way. The federal government only has jurisdiction over interstate matters and things defined in the constitution; anything not explicitly declared like this is a state-level matter. The monopoly ISP situation is an issue at the local, not federal level, and generally speaking the states either do not care or actively block more amenable regulation. (States also have limited fiscal capacity in that bond investors do not give them the same blank check they do to the feds.)