Beta users of Starlink get downloads of 11 to 60 Mbps

Post by sjy » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 7:53 AM UTC

quink wrote: post #166

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.

I am with one of the world’s biggest telcos, Telstra, on a fully owned and operated fibre-to-the-premises network. I live in a decade old estate half an hour from the centres of the third and sixth largest cities in the country. The maximum upload speed currently on sale on that network is 1 Mbps. And it’s a monopoly. Inequality in Internet access aside, that maximum is below the average fixed upload speed of 170 out…

Post by kalleboo » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 7:57 AM UTC

shaklee3 wrote: post #458

ekianjo wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article says the beta testers are seeing 30-90ms. That's actually pretty impressive.

Why is that impressive if the original press announcement said it would be < 20ms?

Post by pmlnr » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 8:06 AM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #351

busterarm wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Light moves significantly (47%) slower through optical fiber than through space The what? As far as I know c is a constant.

Post by oneeyedpigeon » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 8:33 AM UTC

bremensaki wrote: post #419

choeger wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

From an Australian perspective, the USA can look like a place where the earth might suddenly turn to jelly and knock your city down, or giant wind vortexes could descend from the sky and carry you away - things which seem more terrifying to me than a few animals I can easily avoid. I kind of assume those things are blown out of proportion in media much the same way our wildlife is.

Post by taneq » Sat, Aug 15, 2020, 8:46 AM UTC

Too wrote: post #519

kickopotomus wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Games have always had this dilemma. Content creators and level makers will simply try to push in as much as they possibly can until something says stop. Historically this has been the size of one CD but nowadays there are no such clearly defined limits. If the engine starts compressing better then the map creators will just use that newly gained savings to add even more content.