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

71–80 of 607 posts

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

#71

Post by bargl »

rconti wrote: post #66
bargl wrote: post #45

Starlink internet is not meant to replace hard line internet. There is no getting around the physics of cable being so much cheaper/easier. Even terrestrial cell towers are more efficient and cheaper than satellites. This is 100% meant to supplement existing infrastructure not to replace it. You will almost always get cheaper and faster internet (for both you and the company providing internet) over a cable to your h…

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.

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

#72

Post by LinuxBender »

Alupis wrote: post #36
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…

And even in remote areas, building out VDSL2 networks with relatively decent speeds (200Mbps down and 100Mbps up[1]) would be better, honestly. Most homes already have a phone line and can support a DSL network... and in some countries a phone line is mandated by law, so the infrastructure already exists. But, DSL is not nearly as "sexy" as thousands of satellites... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDSL#:~:text=VDS…

True, but their first customer is the U.S. Army which tells me this networks primary purpose is the same as the original intent of the internet itself. A mobile network that is available and reliable anywhere. Civilians usually get to do all the beta testing and provide feedback that improves the technology.

Also many of the places I have been looking at moving to don't even have POTS lines. This would fill the gap where POTS and VDSL is not available. I would certainly use VDSL if that were an option and use Starlink as a fallback in a very remote area.

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

#73

Post by jedberg »

Alupis wrote: post #36
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…

And even in remote areas, building out VDSL2 networks with relatively decent speeds (200Mbps down and 100Mbps up[1]) would be better, honestly. Most homes already have a phone line and can support a DSL network... and in some countries a phone line is mandated by law, so the infrastructure already exists. But, DSL is not nearly as "sexy" as thousands of satellites... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VDSL#:~:text=VDS…

I think they serve different purposes. Satellites serve areas where they can't run wires or it's insanely expensive for too few people. Think very rural areas and war torn areas. Imagine being able to get unblocked internet in China by using satellites? Or in Belarus. Or the middle of Amazon (rainforest)?

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

#74

Post by mc32 »

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.

It’s better than the DSL AT&T provides in some parts of SF where “you’re too far from the CO, you’re maxed out at 12”.

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

#75

Post by duskwuff »

awesomeideas wrote: post #31
bryanlarsen wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shotwell has said that it will be competitive with existing Internet pricing at $80. She didn't say it would be $80, but competitive with that pricing. Read that as you will. I'm sure that's only the starting price, that you'll be able to pay a lot more for more bandwidth.

I wonder if it will have location-modulated pricing; $80 wouldn't be competitive where I am.

If anything, I can imagine them ramping up prices in higher-density areas (where other more competitive broadband providers are available) to avoid oversubscription.

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

#76

Post by Alupis »

grahamburger wrote: post #68
Alupis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about VDSL2 Vectoring (G.vector)? Seems like it mitigates most of the crosstalk problems - but I admit I'm not an expert on DSL deployments. It seems VDSL2 can achieve maximum throughput at run lengths under 1000ft from the DSLAM, with maximum performance beginning to degrade after. That sounds sufficient for most of the people currently stuck with slow access right now in the US (more rural areas outside major…

> It seems VDSL2 can achieve maximum throughput at run lengths under 1000ft from the DSLAM, and maximum performance degrades after that over distance. That sounds sufficient for most of the people complaining of slow access right now in the US I would guess that this isn't right, but honestly I don't have the data either. My rough guess would be that only around 5-15% of people have very quickly after the max length,…

Part of the reason this type of network isn't already built, is likely most folks living in very remote places simply don't need or want 1Gbps internet (or even DSL) - or at least don't know they want it.

There are folks with dial-up connections still, unfortunately, and not always because they have no other option. The more technically-inclined people here on HN wanting to work remotely and stream multiple 4k videos at once - they aren't majority of, say, AT&T's customer base. AT&T won't build this out if they think 1 in 100 potential customers will actually upgrade.

This will change over time, as a generation of folks that grew up with technology age and move into more rural areas. Hopefully demand will drive these network upgrades over time, and make it make financial sense to run new fiber in rural areas.

This could even be expedited with some sort of National Infrastructure Bill to fund it today, subsidized by tax payers since the benefits are ultimately so great.

I still think that's ultimately the better (and long term, cheaper) option verse thousands of satellites being launched every few years.

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

#78

Post by jedberg »

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.

> 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.

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

#79

Post by bargl »

alwaysdoit wrote: post #64
bargl wrote: post #45

Starlink internet is not meant to replace hard line internet. There is no getting around the physics of cable being so much cheaper/easier. Even terrestrial cell towers are more efficient and cheaper than satellites. This is 100% meant to supplement existing infrastructure not to replace it. You will almost always get cheaper and faster internet (for both you and the company providing internet) over a cable to your h…

It also raises the baseline across the board by injecting a new competitor to every ISP and wireless service in the world

This is 1000% my point. There is now a baseline amount of signal per KM. That signal is now the same everywhere. It will be (about) the same speed everywhere.

This is really great for more rural areas and over the ocean.

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

#80

Post by stingraycharles »

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.

Post reply on HN