# Starlink opens to 'First Come First Served'



## 1948GG

Title says it all, semi-closed beta kind of ends, rush to buy any loose systems begins. One has to wonder how many of these first gen dishes were built and how quickly any cheaper 2nd gen can roll off the line.


----------



## NYDutch

When you enter your order info, you'll be told whether Starlink is available in your area yet, and if not, you can reserve your order with a $99 refundable deposit.


----------



## James Long

SpaceX Starlink opens preorders but slots are limited in each region
"SpaceX this week began accepting preorders for Starlink broadband, asking for $99 deposits for service that would be available in the second half of this year.

To start the process, you can go to Starlink's website and enter your email and service address. The overall cost is $499 for hardware, $50 for shipping and handling, and $99 for monthly service, plus tax. These are the same prices charged in the ongoing beta, which is limited to parts of the northern United States and southern Canada."


----------



## P Smith

When it will open for people locating abroad ?


----------



## James Long

You can sign up on their website. International addresses accepted.
Starlink


----------



## P Smith

Damn ! Only local capitol is avail  eg is not for me; plus it could be set in 2022 ...


----------



## OneMarcilV

I read this.

‘’Musk’s comment raises the prospect users can stay connected to SpaceX’s high-speed internet network no matter where they are—even if they're in a car—so long as their Starlink satellite dish remains with them. The dish will also need power, and a clear view of the sky. But the technology could be a gamechanger for people living in remote areas, who often lack access to stable high-speed internet. ‘’

So if this is internet service is obtained using a dish sort if like out different satellite providers use. How would the the above work? 

How would one attach this dish to their vehicle?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG

There have been many vehicle (auto, truck, boat, ship) dish mounted systems over the years, some of them even phased array like the starlink 'dish'. I'm sure that as dish move/movement becomes available with the system, mounting hardware of various types will come out of the woodwork. But I wouldn't expect it for at least another 6-12 months, if (and it may be a big if) the launch schedule can ramp up to 2 launches per month minimum, which so far in 2021 has not been achievable. 

And, laser equipped sats will be almost nessesary, and so far they have been unable to equip all of those launched at a price point to make it doable.


----------



## OneMarcilV

Never saw a vehicle with a satellite dish attached to it ever. That is why I asked


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Look at RVs from up - see the dome ?


----------



## 1948GG

There have been simple hardware that mount small dbs dishes (much smaller than even the original 18" types, I had one that was 14"), both for directv and dish, that attach to the rear view mirrors on big rigs (18 wheelers) that long haul truckers use for when they take a rest. 

But the phased array dbs types that have been made for vehicles are in the $5-6k range, which is why the cost of the starlink systems, especially as they both transmit and recieve, are figured to be many times the $500 they charge for it. I'm sure a lot of re-engineering is currently taking place in trying to get the cost of the terminal systems down; and I wonder exactly what the antenna systems in those large domes they are placing around to connect to the fiber look like 'under the dome'. I suspect larger variations of the phased array or since there are multiple units in every one of the pictures I've seen, maybe each unit is a parabolic dish tracking an individual sat.


----------



## NYDutch

Most domes on RV's are for stationary satellite TV, but then some domes are for in-motion TV use. Here's one from Winegard:

RoadTrip T4 | Winegard Company

And for in-motion satellite Internet service, there's these pricey products among others:

High Speed Satellite Internet While In Motion


----------



## James Long

Development costs are usually high ... mass production should bring the actual cost of each dish and other equipment down below what customers are paying for the equipment and allow for a markup instead of a subsidy.

Looking for a picture of the dish I found this article of interest claiming Starlink will interfere with DBS services.

SpaceX's Confidential Starlink Data Used By DISH To Show Severe Assumed Interference Risk


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> claiming Starlink will interfere with DBS services.


it COULD on certain conditions
we should see Musk's response (actually his engineers)


----------



## OneMarcilV

I believe I will stay with my Verizon Hot Spot device.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## NYDutch

It appears the DISH argument is based on an assumption of facts not in evidence...


----------



## James Long

The assumption that Starlink will have more than a handful of customers in each area and will need a second beam?

The evidence is in the linked story. Rebuttal from Starlink would be appropriate.


----------



## NYDutch

James Long said:


> The assumption that Starlink will have more than a handful of customers in each area and will need a second beam?
> 
> The evidence is in the linked story. Rebuttal from Starlink would be appropriate.


I'll be interested in Starlink's rebuttal as well, but the complaint is based on the assumption that Starlink will deviate from its previously submitted plans. Dish does make a valid case why they think that will be necessary, but until we hear from Starlink, we don't know whether that's a valid assumption or not. I find it hard to believe that Starlink engineers didn't foresee a need for more than the single frequency beam per channel and come up with a technology to accommodate that need without interfering with DBS, just as technology improvements conquered the MVDDS and NGSO FSS interference potential in the same frequency band. In any event, it will be interesting to see the Starlink response...


----------



## OneMarcilV

I received this neat offer for Starlink.

The only thing wrong is STARLINK does not offer to install this. Other wise I would purchase.









Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## NYDutch

You or a friend/relative can't unfold a tripod and plug in a couple of wires? Or do you need a roof or eve mount that a local handyman could easily do at minimal expense if no free help is available...


----------



## OneMarcilV

Yes this would be on a roof. Then have to figure out where the correct satellite is. That is why I have the DISH installers do my installations for me. 

Hard to pass up a great deal like this.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RichardL

As far as I know, these are not geostationary satellites, they are low earth orbit. So you don't point the dish at a specific satellite, it looks up and the satellites pass overhead - I don't think special aiming is required


----------



## OneMarcilV

Now that makes things simpler. There should be away to connect to the satellite signal from ones home dish ones WIFI device when traveling.

I still think it would look weird to have ones dish attached to their vehicle driving down the road.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Precision aiming is not required. "Up" works. I'f be cautous with a mobile mount of any antenna not designed for mobile mounting. Wind loading and aerodynamics could cause problems.


----------



## NYDutch

OneMarcilV said:


> Yes this would be on a roof. Then have to figure out where the correct satellite is. That is why I have the DISH installers do my installations for me.
> 
> Hard to pass up a great deal like this.


The "dish" is self aiming. A pair of small motors do the initial alignment and then the flat solid state phased array takes over for the actual satellite communications and seamless transfers from satellite to satellite as they pass overhead. Units suited to mobile use are not yet available.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> it COULD on certain conditions


If it uses adjacent or harmonics of DISH frequencies, how could it not interfere?


----------



## OneMarcilV

NYDutch said:


> The "dish" is self aiming. A pair of small motors do the initial alignment and then the flat solid state phased array takes over for the actual satellite communications and seamless transfers from satellite to satellite as they pass overhead. Units suited to mobile use are not yet available.


That will be great. Should be the same when installing a DISH network satellite dish.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## NYDutch

OneMarcilV said:


> That will be great. Should be the same when installing a DISH network satellite dish.


There are self-aiming dishes for Dish. Lots of RV'ers and OTR truckers use them. Some only tune one satellite at a time and only work with single tuner receivers like the Wally and VIP 211's. There's also a couple of self-aiming multiple satellite dishes designed for RV roof mounting, but at ~$3-400 or so for the single sat dishes and ~$2,000 or so for the multi-satellite dishes, they're not practical for one time stationary installations. For stationary dish installations, aiming is typically the easiest part of the job. Mounting and wire routing are usually the harder parts. I set up my portable tripod mounted multi-satellite dish as often as daily, and the actual aiming part usually takes less than 5 minutes using a good signal meter.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> If it uses adjacent or harmonics of DISH frequencies, how could it not interfere?


SpaceX requested 10.7-12.7 GHz (among other bands). DISH 118 is 11.7-12.2 and all the DBS satellites are 12.2-12.7. No problem there.


----------



## 1948GG

I started out my engineering life in microwave (line of sight, troposcatter, and eventually satellite) and in looking over the fcc extracts on starlinks use of these ku/Dbs frequencies (which I might add Dish was told over 10 years ago to seriously think about vacating that band, which DirecTV did btw), the modulation scheme and power levels are such that the possibility of any interference from starlink to the dbs operator is extremely low. This was one of the things that was tested with the first two leo sats, tintin A and B. The power output of the geo Dbs sats are, by comparison to the starlink sats, huge. There's where any interference is a possibility, but it appears the reciever design of the starlink reciever is such to pretty much rule it out.


----------



## OneMarcilV

I am surprised the hardware is free. I guess that way that gets more peeps to sign up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

OneMarcilV said:


> I am surprised the hardware is free. I guess that way that gets more peeps to sign up.


Starlink hardware will not be free. As previously posted "The hardware required to use Starlink will cost $499, while internet service costs $99 a month."


----------



## OneMarcilV

In the photograph I have in this forum. My cost will be 99.00. The price of the hardware is 499. 

But my total comes to 99.00.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

1948GG said:


> ... starlinks use of these ku/Dbs frequencies (which I might add Dish was told over 10 years ago to seriously think about vacating that band, which DirecTV did btw)


Are you suggesting that DISH needs to leave the DBS band (12.2-12.7 GHz) that nearly all of their satellites operate on? DISH has mostly left the BSS band (11.7-12.2 GHz) - currently used by the satellite at 118.

The FCC is allowing three services to use the DBS band. The oldest (and still licensed with no sunset date) is DBS. There is also a ground based broadcast system where the signal was to be focused southward with northward facing antennas - the concept being that DBS dishes face (generally) south and would not receive interference from transmitters to the north (apparently not understanding how signals reflect off of objects?). Starlink is the third service.

If I understand correctly they plan on using the DBS band (and adjacent lower frequencies) for ground to space communications. Signals pointed up, not from the south or north. If Starlink isn't using Ku for space to ground I would not expect a lot of interference. But I don't fault DISH for protecting their LICENSED use of frequencies. DIRECTV continues to use the DBS band as well (101 being a primary satellite).


----------



## James Long

OneMarcilV said:


> In the photograph I have in this forum. My cost will be 99.00. The price of the hardware is 499.
> 
> But my total comes to 99.00.


"Due Today" is $99. The remainder will be due when the hardware is available and ships. Starlink is charging people a deposit when they sign up for service.


----------



## 1948GG

DirecTV moved all the sd signals over to ka years ago; at 99.2 and 103. Exactly why they (directv) wasted money building and launching T16 is one of the biggest head scratchers of recent years, since there is more than ample national and spot beam ka bandwidth in the two orbital slots to either side of 101. But all this happened right at the point at which at&t was about to drop the $48.5B, so go figure. They had stopped accepting sd installs about two years ago, and the number of local channels on T16 or T9s spot beams was, at last count, down to <20. Again, the money spent makes no sense as they were installing ka equipment exclusively, but who knows what the thinking was at corporate. Maybe it was simply to get reverse band assets into orbit..? Just how many sd customers on very old equipment were (or are) out there, now or a handful of years ago...? 

I think a lot of this shows the lack of forward thinking at directv going back a decade, and just how addle-brained at&t was to drop that kind of cash where such decisions were being made. Latest reports have them selling a chunk at fire sale prices. Seems like the wall street types are pointing at streaming as the culprit as to the devaluation, but I see a lot of directv bad decisions in the last few years as the beginning of the rot. The almost wholesale move to ka was the brilliant decision in the 2000's, one that dish was unable to replicate after dropping their cash buying up cellular frequencies.


----------



## b4pjoe

James Long said:


> "Due Today" is $99. The remainder will be due when the hardware is available and ships. Starlink is charging people a deposit when they sign up for service.


That is why I couldn't figure out why it was thought to be such a great deal.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

What’s the speed of this $99 a month internet service?


----------



## b4pjoe

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/22/elo...-starlink-internet-speed-later-this-year.html



> "Speed will double to ~300Mb/s & latency will drop to ~20ms later this year," Musk said in a tweet on Monday.


----------



## P Smith

TheRatPatrol said:


> What's the speed of this $99 a month internet service?


SpaceX Starlink opens preorders, but slots are limited in each region | Ars Technica


----------



## OneMarcilV

James Long said:


> "Due Today" is $99. The remainder will be due when the hardware is available and ships. Starlink is charging people a deposit when they sign up for service.


Now that makes more sense. Much appreciated.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## OneMarcilV

Just rest this. Exactly what I want. Maybe. I write maybe because I used to have XM satellite radio. Every tine I drove is locations that had a many trees the signal was lost.

‘’SpaceX wants to connect its Starlink satellite internet network to moving vehicles
PUBLISHED MON, MAR 8 202112:06 PM EST
Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
SHARE
KEY POINTS
SpaceX wants to begin connecting moving vehicles – from cars and trucks to jets and ships – to its Starlink satellite internet network.
Starlink is the company’s capital-intensive project to build an interconnected internet network with thousands of satellites, designed to deliver high-speed internet to consumers anywhere on the planet.
“This application takes the next step by seeking authority for ESIMs that will enable the extension of that network from homes and offices to vehicles, vessels, and aircraft,” SpaceX director of satellite policy David Goldman wrote in a letter to the FCC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## 1948GG

I've had Sirius sat radio from a month after they went live in 2002, and they used to have sats in tundra orbit up until they merged with xm and the reception was very superior since the sats were virtually straight overhead +- 30 deg or so (and moving of course) vr xm sats which were geosats like sat tv.

But as the next generation of radio geo sats were launched in the 2013+ or so the power was improved so much that the tundra sats were abandoned and all subscribers were moved over to the east/west geos where they are today.

The latest gen of sxm sats, the first one was launched by spacex a month ago for the east US and immediately ran into problems; they haven't released much info so far, the west sat is still on the ground not finished build, but will be SpaceX launched around end of summer, unless they figure out what's wrong with the east sat, build or design problems they need to change.

The reception since they moved off the tundra sats has been pretty good, but the auto radios have improved as well since the early days. 
Add: I currently have fair reception IN my single story garage. That's how strong the rf is currently. 

I' m on my third 'integrated' set in my 2017 Lincoln and it takes a pretty large overhead trees/structure for several seconds to cause a dropout; these new sats being launched jump the eirp up a fair amount vr the sats from 10+ years ago, it'll be interesting to see any improvement (signal be solid in my garage?) once the west sat gets up and turned on.

But when they start turning on starlink ability to track the sats while moving, either car/motorhome, boat, airplane, you name it, that will be interesting. It's possible that advanced phased array antennas will be nessesary esp for high speed vehicles like aircraft. Boats/ships should be the easiest as they are much slower and have usually extreme views to the sky like aircraft.

I used to drag a sat tv rig around the country from when directv went live, and the biggest problem was getting set up without trees in the way, and I'll suspect that with starlink that will be even harder, esp in the early days with small sat count, as one will need more than just a small angle shooting a stationary bird instead of multiple fast moving sats. It will be interesting.


----------



## OneMarcilV

Well my plan will be to use the SIM card plan on all my devices.

Just install the SIM card in my unlocked JetPack.

Won’t need the dish installed

I am glad that STARLINK is offering this option.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## NYDutch

OneMarcilV said:


> Well my plan will be to use the SIM card plan on all my devices.
> 
> Just install the SIM card in my unlocked JetPack.
> 
> Won't need the dish installed
> 
> I am glad that STARLINK is offering this option.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Starlink does not use removable SIM cards the way cell services do if they use them at all. Without the Starlink user terminal/flat faced dish, the service will not work...


----------



## OneMarcilV

NYDutch said:


> Starlink does not use removable SIM cards the way cell services do if they use them at all. Without the Starlink user terminal/flat faced dish, the service will not work...


Hopefully soon.

This application takes the next step by seeking authority for ESIMs that will enable the extension of that network from homes and offices to vehicles, vessels, and aircraft," SpaceX director of satellite policy David Goldman wrote in a letter to the FCC.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## NYDutch

OneMarcilV said:


> Hopefully soon.
> 
> This application takes the next step by seeking authority for ESIMs that will enable the extension of that network from homes and offices to vehicles, vessels, and aircraft," SpaceX director of satellite policy David Goldman wrote in a letter to the FCC.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Ok, I see your basic misunderstanding now... The "ESIM" authorizations mention by Goldman are "Earth Station In Motion" authorizations, not the "SIMs" or "ESIMs" used in cell phone communications.


----------



## OneMarcilV

So using this in vehicles would not be a good option? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## NYDutch

OneMarcilV said:


> So using this in vehicles would not be a good option?
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Starlink is developing mobile transceivers and antennas designed for large truck, bus, ship, and RV use. They've said the antennas will be too large for car use though. The phased array antennas Starlink uses are electronically aimed, so no physical movement is required. The only physical movement the current residential antennas make is just for initial alignment.


----------



## OneMarcilV

NYDutch said:


> Starlink is developing mobile transceivers and antennas designed for large truck, bus, ship, and RV use. They've said the antennas will be too large for car use though. The phased array antennas Starlink uses are electronically aimed, so no physical movement is required. The only physical movement the current residential antennas make is just for initial alignment.


In the initial news about this regular automobiles were also mentioned.

''SpaceX wants to begin connecting moving vehicles - from cars and trucks to jets and ships - to its Starlink satellite internet network.''

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/elon-musk-connecting-rvs-and-trucks-through-starlink-satellites.html
* SpaceX is working on an antenna that will connect vehicles like semi-trucks and RVs to its satellite internet network, CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet on Monday.
* Musk clarified that the antenna will not be for "connecting Tesla cars to Starlink," saying that the user "terminal is much too big."
* "This is for aircraft, ships, large trucks & RVs," Musk said.

The earlier article that included the line you quoted:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/spa...nk-satellite-internet-to-moving-vehicles.html
The increasing demand for data from the automotive sector is one area that Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas has highlighted as a target market for Starlink. During a Tesla investor conference call last year, Jonas asked Musk whether the CEO was considering adding Starlink terminals to Tesla vehicles. While Musk said there were "no plans for it" in 2020, he acknowledged that "it's certainly something that could be happening in the coming years."

Musk, in a tweet on Monday, clarified that SpaceX is "not connecting Tesla cars to Starlink" with the ESIM terminals, noting that the "terminal is much too big."

"This is for aircraft, ships, large trucks & RVs," Musk said.

It looks like the media misunderstood and Musk has corrected that misunderstanding.

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369051431903268865
Consider it fully clarified ... the vehicles SpaceX intends to serve (if they get FCC permission) will not be automobiles.


----------



## OneMarcilV

This was also 8n the article.

‘’Michael Sheetz
@THESHEETZTWEETZ
SHARE
KEY POINTS
SpaceX wants to begin connecting moving vehicles – from cars and trucks to jets and ships – to its Starlink satellite internet network.’’

I don’t worry about this Tesla idea not being included.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## OneMarcilV

James Long said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/elon-musk-connecting-rvs-and-trucks-through-starlink-satellites.html
> * SpaceX is working on an antenna that will connect vehicles like semi-trucks and RVs to its satellite internet network, CEO Elon Musk said in a tweet on Monday.
> * Musk clarified that the antenna will not be for "connecting Tesla cars to Starlink," saying that the user "terminal is much too big."
> * "This is for aircraft, ships, large trucks & RVs," Musk said.
> 
> The earlier article that included the line you quoted:
> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/spa...nk-satellite-internet-to-moving-vehicles.html
> The increasing demand for data from the automotive sector is one area that Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas has highlighted as a target market for Starlink. During a Tesla investor conference call last year, Jonas asked Musk whether the CEO was considering adding Starlink terminals to Tesla vehicles. While Musk said there were "no plans for it" in 2020, he acknowledged that "it's certainly something that could be happening in the coming years."
> 
> Musk, in a tweet on Monday, clarified that SpaceX is "not connecting Tesla cars to Starlink" with the ESIM terminals, noting that the "terminal is much too big."
> 
> "This is for aircraft, ships, large trucks & RVs," Musk said.
> 
> It looks like the media misunderstood and Musk has corrected that misunderstanding.
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1369051431903268865
> Consider it fully clarified ... the vehicles SpaceX intends to serve (if they get FCC permission) will not be automobiles.


Cars are automobiles.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

OneMarcilV said:


> Cars are automobiles.


The error has been corrected. Please do not continue to repeat incorrect information.

_*"This is for aircraft, ships, large trucks & RVs," Musk said.*_


----------



## OneMarcilV

K. Makes sence. Some news sources are not reliable. Appreciate the help.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## NYDutch

OneMarcilV said:


> K. Makes sence. Some news sources are not reliable. Appreciate the help.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I don't doubt that cars could be included at some future date, but that's not what the current application is for, as Musk's direct quotes have made quite clear...


----------



## harsh

I think it should also be noted that in comparisons with satellite radio, satellite radio uses a lot of buffering to try to address drop-outs. This isn't practical with two-way Internet conversations.


----------



## OneMarcilV

NYDutch said:


> I don't doubt that cars could be included at some future date, but that's not what the current application is for, as Musk's direct quotes have made quite clear...


See that wasn't a quote. So are are right.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Is the dead horse not beaten enough?


----------



## 1948GG

harsh said:


> I think it should also be noted that in comparisons with satellite radio, satellite radio uses a lot of buffering to try to address drop-outs. This isn't practical with two-way Internet conversations.


Actually, the 3-5 seconds of adaptive buffering on siriusxm is enough to keep things running for the occasional tree and overpasses; there are extensive overhead city parks, convention centers, hotels and the like in cities but terrestrial repeaters seem to take care of those monstrosities.

But that system is one way only. If you watch the transmission of any of the internet video streaming services, you'll note that the 'terminal' (your roku or user device) is buffering ahead upwards of 15-30 seconds. And since the transmission path is inherently 2 way, the service transmission is constantly 'talking' to the customer terminal, making sure the connection is 'live' and trying to correct any transmitted blocks that the user terminal sees as mangled, or any changes the end user has made in that time the transmission is either trying to catch up or any other wackiness going on.

There's a tremendous amount of 'jumping through hoops' going on with these internet transmissions, live or recorded playback. 30+ years worth of folks burning brain cells, including a lot of reengineering of ip transmission protocols to make high bandwidth video as solid as it is today. So there's a lot of things going on, from forward and backward error correction, audio/video synchronization, every day I watch this, its amazing it works so well, looking back to the very early days circa late 80's. But the linch pin to much of it is 2way transmission and the ability to correct on the fly, using only a few milliseconds to do so. Even the extreme lag with hughesnet and the like (which was what I was dealing with in the late 80s) works pretty well.


----------



## OneMarcilV

James Long said:


> Is the dead horse not beaten enough?


Have to ask the horse. The horse would defiantly say yes.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

the thread already derailed to XM-Sirius


----------



## James Long

1948GG said:


> There's a tremendous amount of 'jumping through hoops' going on with these internet transmissions, live or recorded playback. 30+ years worth of folks burning brain cells, including a lot of reengineering of ip transmission protocols to make high bandwidth video as solid as it is today. So there's a lot of things going on, from forward and backward error correction, audio/video synchronization, every day I watch this, its amazing it works so well, looking back to the very early days circa late 80's. But the linch pin to much of it is 2way transmission and the ability to correct on the fly, using only a few milliseconds to do so. Even the extreme lag with hughesnet and the like (which was what I was dealing with in the late 80s) works pretty well.


Perhaps it is the nature of DBSTalk ... and this is the Streaming Services forum, not an ISP forum, but I believe expectations need to be set by Starlink as to what their system is designed for and what it is capable of doing. Starlink is not a MVPD or vMVPD ... they are an ISP. Expecting Starlink plus a streaming service to replace a DBS subscription or service over a land based connection is optimistic. Overly optimistic in my opinion.


----------



## 1948GG

I would tend to agree if..... those much older and stuck in the mud 'services', from dbs (now going on 27+ years) to wireline (twisted pair at 180+ years), coaxial transmission (70+ years) weren't in serious need of basic competition.

Just look at POTS (plain old telephone service), it has been almost totally decimated by wireless in some 20 years (1980-2000). Another bit of basic infrastructure needs to be yanked into the future.

LEO satellite was first proposed by well financed companies (Microsoft for one) over 20 years ago; I commented at the time that they needed a launch company with cheap rockets FIRST and then the other parts would come together. Will starlink put enough pressure on the incumbent internet providers? I think they, plus the wireless folks with 5g, already have. In fact, I don't think it, I know they have as my rural cable bill has been reduced by a third just in the last 6 months, although its still double that of the same service in the big cities, 2 of which are 100 miles in opposite directions from me.

I smile every time Elon says starlink is only meant for rural deployment. Does he not understand that even in the big cities those incumbent providers skip and hop over neighborhoods and even individual streets because of bizarre, and potentially illegal reasons if the state would tighten up their laws? I lived for 15 years in a community that was chosen by verizon to be one of the first FIOS plants built in the Pacific Northwest. Since I had been one of the first engineers, working for a fiber equipment manufacturer in the late 90s, to have helped design two of the original fios pilot plants, I was stoked to say the least. But I never got service, from either verizon or from frontier who later bought big red out (and it has since been bought out yet again, but I've moved).

All the streets surrounding me had FIOS. But both companies refused to come down my cul-de-sac. They couldn't give me a reason, until one verizon manager in 2005 admitted that 'lines were drawn' by them and comcast, streets where Verizon would not protrude into comcasts 'territory'. And that's the way it remains up until today.

So if one goes through the comments on message boards like reddit, you'll find tons of 'urban' folks who have been bypassed for one reason or another, known or unknown, who have been told by the phone or cable folks, that extending their lines 50 or 100 feet will cost tens of thousands, and they want that money up front, they don't care what the city charter they agreed to 20 or 30 years (or last year) says. You're screwed.

The throughput of a system like starlink is limited only by the number of satellites in orbit above the customers. Right now, it's a bit minimal at 1100 or so total spread across a small slice of the planet. 10 years from now, I think 40k will be the low end. But maybe the terrestrial wire folks will get off their rear ends, the cell folks sure look like it.


----------



## James Long

1948GG said:


> I smile every time Elon says starlink is only meant for rural deployment.


Satellite services tend to work better where one can see the sky. "Only" may be a simplification, since many people think satellite TV only works in the suburbs and rural areas for the same reason - LOS. But in the right place a dish can see the sky.

Where Starlink would fail in larger cities is with bandwidth. Population density puts more potential customers on each beam. 20 Gbps per satellite divided by ... how many customers sharing that satellite at that moment? 150 Mbps beta should double to 300 Mbps production ... with the promise of 1 Gbps or 10 Gbps throughput? That might be possible in "rural" areas where fewer people are sharing the satellites.

40K satellites with 20Gbps max throughput per satellite is a system limit of 800Gbps. How many of those will be over each customer at a particular moment? The more successful the service becomes the less bandwidth available to each subscriber. Just like poorly designed cable and DSL systems where each neighborhood has a limit and not every home can download full speed simultaneously.

I believe Starlink will do fine for browsing and downloading. Transmissions where speed changes and buffering is acceptable. Transmissions where being handed off from one satellite to another may pause the download for a moment but no glitch will be seen. Also low bandwidth communications such as telemetry. Use to watch streaming services? I expect the usefulness will fade as the bandwidth becomes more cluttered with users. The success of Starlink could be its downfall.


----------



## 1948GG

James Long said:


> 40K satellites with 20Gbps max throughput per satellite is a system limit of 800Gbps


Uh, check your arithmetic, you misplaced your decimal point. 40,000 x 20gbps = 800Tbs total system throughput.

The next question is how many 'cells' are there on the surface of the planet, figuring each cell is 300 miles across. Earth is 197 million sq miles (according to mr. Google); let's see if I have any part of my injured brain working in spec, the 300 mile across cell is pi * radius squared, so 3.14 * 22,500 (150*150) gives us 70,650 sq miles per cell. 197 million divided by 70,650 gives us 2789 (okay I rounded up 1) cells for the entire planet.

Okay what the **** were we talking about? Oh. I'm sure the big young brains at spacex rattled this off in a couple seconds to musk who had already thought it out years previous, as had the folks who first were serious proposing this 20+ years ago. Is my arithmetic correct? At 2789 cells and 40,000 sats, that means a bit over 14 sats per cell. Almost crowded, but space is, well, spacious. If the sats throughput is 20gbps each, then that *14 is 280gbps. I think folks generally over figure the amount each user will be consuming, not everybody is going to be downloading the latest linux distro all at the same time, but 100mbps sounds okay to me, I use less than half that with a half dozen roku's and assorted pc's plus smartphones. But 280gbps / 100mbps is 2800 users per cell.

Now one gets where musk is coming from, but we can get a bit more realistic in the number crunching. My usage is way above 'normal', at 4.5TB a month (yes, I pay comcast for unlimited, and wonder why that cost for using 4 times the base 1.2TB is the same as someone using 10 or even 100 times more, but I digress), normally around 30mbps, and so triple that 2800 to 8400 and it's still a bit lean if that 300 mile across cell includes a large city.

There is where the rubber meets the road. How many city dwellers subscribe to satellite tv, when cable is ubiquitous? And ota coverage is the same? Quite a lot, more so in the early days (90's) before cable systems invented docsis, and went digital before the broadcasters.

But all these calculations show that the number of sats per cell over heavily populated areas is going to greatly exceed that of over the huge expanse of the pacific, for example. The distribution is not going to be equal, that is something the calculations dont show, and I'm no orbital mechanics person by a long shot. By as I pointed out before, the sats will be concentrated over the earth's population centers, if they have any idea as to what they are doing.

We shall see, but recent articles have shown a huge dislike of the current broadband choices, and there is a large number of urban and suburban folks who may indeed swamp the system. Will it affect those rural folks who have little to no choice? Probably not, the sticks are, by definition, the sticks, and cells outside of big cities will remain lightly loaded.

Too much of this is conjecture, we don't know how they are going to operate the system, or how the biggest unknown, those pesky humans, are really going to react as things ramp up. The 20gbps per sat, I hadn't seen that but I'll try and track it down, and what if ver. 3 or 4 bumps that up to several times that? I'm an old microwave engineer, I'll track down the fcc frequency allocations and run it by the latest throughput analysis and see what falls out. But its sure going to be interesting, I'm betting my cable bill will continue its downward trend.


----------



## NYDutch

I'll just jump in to note in reference to the sat to sat hand off affecting streaming, that my wife routinely streams TV programming via cell service while we're underway in our motorhome. Sure, the occasional large overpass or tunnel will disrupt service briefly, and weak signal areas may cause buffering, but overall the tower to tower hand offs are virtually seamless. If Starlink's hand off's work anywhere near as well as the cell towers, I don't think it will be an issue for streaming.


----------



## 1948GG

I think I commented either here or another thread that all the roku streamers (and I'd wager those that are doing so to handsets as well) forward buffer at least 15-30 seconds so it takes quite a bit of interruption to cause any disruption. The cell data lte signal is perhaps a bit more prone to interruption if the fiber or microwave backhaul to the particular tower you're sucking from has a minimal data pipe. The only time I got involved with cellular engineering was in 2000-2001 and the companies at that time didn't seem to be very interested in providing nice fat pipes to their towers. I'm sure that later on with lte they went back and redid those systems. Those folks now pushing home internet through those facilities had better have a lot of bandwidth flowing to them.

But folks streaming on the current thin starlink system mostly report very minimal dropouts, esp. If they are in the high sat count band and have their dish well positioned to have near total sky coverage.


----------



## NYDutch

Here's a Reddit page featuring Starlink users that's pretty informative about their experiences with current speeds, streaming, etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/


----------



## 1948GG

In going through the publically available specifications and pronouncements from spacex and starlink people, up to and including Musk, the figures are all over the place as far as throughput per sat. The 20gbps was a somewhat good figure in the early days, with the rf and processing capability of vr0.9 to vr1.0 or somewhere in between.

The problem with crunching the numbers on this is many fold. Anyone who has looked at the specs of a wifi router knows what I'm talking about. Sure, the rf spectrum that the 2.4ghz and 5ghz bands are finite and easily calculated throughput; but a lot more goes into the actual usable bits, or there wouldn't be any difference between models. The design of the cpu, memory, antennas, and a host of other parts all play a role, and the same with the starlink sats. Improvements in the design have, according to many close to their design, increased satellite throughput by several times over those initial estimates. 

So where is elon getting the increase in throughput to yank speeds up that they announced and folks are now reporting? Tweak the software? The newer batch if sats have speedier processors? It can't be increased bandwidth, they are using what the fcc and itu have given them. Something somewhere in the system has been improved, so the question is, how much more improvement is possible with the current system, and how much improvement is there in improving that system?

Some people looking at specs not in the public domain are, as if this date, looking at >200gbps per satellite, 10 times the figure musk and others originally put out. Since they have improved the system 3x fold just in the last week, who knows how much more can be wrung out, and again we have no idea what improvements, both satellite version 1.x or 2.x not to forget the ground stations.

However, the actual effect this is all having on existing broadband providers is something everyone can follow. My costs have plummeted by a third since the 'better than nothing' launched; still not as low as the big cities, as I'm very rural, but getting there. Another third and it will be in line with the cities; say about the time starlink gets up to 5-6000 sats and comes out of beta? Yes!


----------



## James Long

1948GG said:


> Uh, check your arithmetic, you misplaced your decimal point. 40,000 x 20gbps = 800Tbs total system throughput.


That helps. There is still an issue of how much of that bandwidth is available at each user's location. The experience of the limited beta users may not hold up when Starlink opens their network to all willing to pay.



1948GG said:


> But its sure going to be interesting, I'm betting my cable bill will continue its downward trend.


Your interest seems to be more focused on reducing your bill for non-Starlink services than actually purchasing the service.
I hope it works out for you.


----------



## 1948GG

I'm focused on competition. When DirecTV launched, I was living in DFW and had a perfect shot at the sats. The local cableco had a fair collection of channels, but even with D* having only one ku sat to start, the cost vr channel count was heavily skewed to D*, particularly with the premium channels like hbo, showtime, on USSB. For what I paid for hbo on sat, I got multiple channels (at the time 6 or so) for the same cost on cable where I got one. Same across the board with other channels, including 'basic cable' channels like cnn international and espn2. No brainer, even after purchasing the dish/reciever for $800. Savings paid for that in 6 months.

I have a perfect shot at the entire sky where I live today. And two cellular companies in addition to starlink vying for my business. Did you read my fight over FIOS where I lived before? That's the kind of nonsense lots of folks have been putting up with for decades, and it shows across the country. I'll tell everyone that the last 20 years on comcast, the service has been near excellent, only the price has been out of bounds, due to no competition. Now there's a hint of it, and for the first time in those 20 years the price drops. Hmmm.


----------



## James Long

Are you willing to switch to Starlink? Are you ready to spend over $500 plus $99 per month for service?


----------



## 1948GG

That's less than what I paid for DirecTV, 27 years ago (that's $2000 in today's money, so...). Yikes.
There's a few things I do on comcast, one of which is still doing some engineering for the company I retired from, and it requires a vpn and such. So I've been following folks trying to get that to work consistently on reddit. Same with the cell folks. Right now, everything works fine on cable, minor wobbles every once in awhile. Biggest problem is the (to me) extremely low upstream bandwidth, which only gets good if I get gigabit service at >$350+. Things have fallen off though in the last 5 years so if I transfer 24/7 I can get it done even with pathetic xfinity. Forget the gigabit.

Again, we shall see who can win the race. I think a year from now it will become clear.


----------



## James Long

I do work at home via Xfinity but use remote desktop for most work. All of the data and processing is done on a computer at the business. The computer I have at home is a glorified terminal. It cuts down on the data usage since my download to home is the screen share but my upload is only command and control. I have been able to use video conferencing (Zoom and Cisco) through the remote desktop with the cameras on the home machine showing up on the work machine just like I was in the office. (The work machine doesn't even have a keyboard, monitor or mouse connected. Just a powered on networked PC.) That should work through the current beta level of Starlink.

Creating monster sized files on a local PC or downloading firmware updates locally then trying to push them via VPN? Not recommended.

And to answer my question - No, I would not be willing to pay over $500 plus $99 per month for Starlink. That is more than I am currently paying and Xfinity installed for free. That is the competition for Internet.

With no other option (last chance Internet) I'd consider Starlink.


----------



## 1948GG

But I'll bet that's in a city. When I first retired I stayed in the city, had business class xfinity at triple the speed + I have now at 1/3rd the price. I kept that tier for a few months after moving to the sticks but it became too painful; comcast finally allowed getting unlimited data on residential accounts, and that was the opening to drop the business class with its unlimited; fees were back to equal to bc in the city, but at one third the speed (both down and up). Then again, the cost of living in Seattle was looking like SF where I had lived previously, home prices are north of $750k with prop. Taxes out of hand (wash state has no income tax so everything from schools to roads are paid by use taxes, which means billionaires like gates and Bezos pay next to nothing while what's left of the middle class get hammered). So pull up stakes and move to the sticks, where some things are cheaper except, if you can get it, internet.


----------



## James Long

Outside of the city limits. Xfinity's footprint expands beyond my home and charges the same rates in at least five connected counties. Same rates city or rural.

$99 per month would get me 600 Mbps in my area. Twice what Starlink is proposing post beta and four times the "advertised" better than nothing beta data rate.
New customer installation is listed as $100 but can be $0 with new customer deals.

If I chose to rent their modem I could get 200 Mbps w/unlimited data for $99 per month. I considered that when my data usage went up last October but I am nowhere near the cap now so I'll stay with my owned modem (count that against the install cost if you want). Xfinity data rates are typically higher than the advertised rate - so perhaps that would be the closest to a "break even" if Starlink can match Xfinity's speed and unlimited data. After paying Starlink $500+ for the equipment.

I guess you have to be more rural than me for Starlink to make sense.


----------



## NYDutch

With Starlink operating in 5 countries so far, it'll be interesting to see the subscriber numbers in a year or so.


----------



## mjwagner

The only thing I need StarLink to do is be viable competition...and put downward price pressure on the rest of the ISPs. In my area StarLinks monthly price at their current dl/ul speeds are already close. At 350 for $99 they would be cheaper than my local ISP. That will put downward pressure on prices. That would be a positive development.


----------



## 1948GG

James Long said:


> I guess you have to be more rural than me for Starlink to make sense.


I had to look up the rates at my home in the city, and they are about double yours; I'll bet it's back east, right? Rates in the county where I am now are at least triple plus; the gigabit service is actually an almost great deal, until you add in the modem rental which is required, so the total gets steeper. 600mbps runs $150+ in the city and $300+ in the country. It's been over 5 years since I moved so comparisons are a bit out of wack now.

I do a lot of cadd work, trying to do that as a remote terminal is asking for trouble, I used to do it way back 20+ years ago in SF on a t1 I had at my home, also did a lot of IT work as well on our computer systems. Those were the days.

Very rural, but only 30 miles from state capitol. That isn't saying much for these small states, they usually have the state capitols right on the edge of sasquatch country. But also 120+ miles from any television towers, back in the analog days one could pick up a snowy picture but forget about the digital one now. Satellite or streaming. And anywhere past a mile of my home here in any direction and no cable. Dsl is zero. Folks still have dialup. But property taxes are zero (huge lumber forests, Weyerhaeuser), utility rates are lowest except for counties right on columbia river (which house the big server plants from google, microsoft, and others), <2 cents kwh.

So we all need some good internet. But I moved to this location because they had comcast, many homes still have hughesnet and viasat dishes, in fact we have a viasat uplink station on the very edge of town.


----------



## James Long

Seattle rates are lower than mine. Not much lower, but lower (except the GB plans which are the same cost).


----------



## 1948GG

But seattle has competition for comcast, both by two other docsis cable providers (wave broadband and I can't remember the other company, neither of which have much overlay on their competitors area) but centurylink (the local telco, even covers where I live now) fiber has an extensive footprint across town (mostly on the north side) and is expanding big time (for years). Go further north and you hit the old gte area which of course got bought by Verizon and converted into FIOS. About the same time, circa 2001, Everett Cablevision which had been bought out by at&t in the 90's was scooped up by comcast, setting the stage for the nonsense I was in the middle of. I was there because there are 3 major transpacific and Alaska oceanic fiber systems landing stations there. Plus of course the worlds largest building and washington states longest single runway, Paine field and Boeing 747/767/kc46/787/777/777x assembly plant, plus I was born there. Took me 30 years to get back, after around the planet twice on your tax dollars.


----------



## harsh

NYDutch said:


> With Starlink operating in 5 countries so far, it'll be interesting to see the subscriber numbers in a year or so.


A year from now we should know whether the technology actually supports the hopes/claims (or not).


----------



## NYDutch

harsh said:


> A year from now we should know whether the technology actually supports the hopes/claims (or not).


Yes... I think if the launches continue at a good pace, the results should be pretty good. But we'll have to wait and see of course. On another forum, someone was complaining that Starlink should cover the entire US before they start offering the service to other countries. They seemed not to understand that the same satellites that pass over Podunk USA can also serve East Overshoe Germany with zero impact on Podunk's service.


----------



## CTJon

Article in local Maine paper about experience in remote areas where internet service really is the other older sat stuff. I guess it is pretty fast but a lot of interruptions. Several who have tried it also still use other service since they need reliable service.
Time will tell


----------



## harsh

CTJon said:


> Time will tell


In the meantime, the hopeful/faithful will continue to hang their hats on Elon's optimistic tweets.


----------



## 1948GG

harsh said:


> A year from now we should know whether the technology actually supports the hopes/claims (or not).





harsh said:


> In the meantime, the hopeful/faithful will continue to hang their hats on Elon's optimistic tweets.


Musk is an evangelist, like Jobs was. He has to be, going up against the largest manufacturing sector of the US economy (automobiles), where many attempts over the years ended up on the trash heap (worst in that he was at the same time taking on the oil industry). Good ****** luck!

And now he's taking on one of the most entrenched industries in America, so hated that I'll wager if an average american with an assault rifle had the heads of the broadband companies and Bin Laden in front of them , they'd take out the broadband ceo's first.

So yes, the push gets a bit hyper. More than a bit. Look at another company that tried to take broadband on, google fiber. Lots of hoopla at the start, but those with years in the industry (including myself), saw the major mistakes in their rollout, and saw the handwriting in the wall that it would fairly soon grind to a halt. Same with verizon FIOS, who tried to play games with entrenched cable operators. Both are on the trash heap.

But I'll point to a least one place in the country where early intervention in local laws and regulations have resulted in an actual free market of suppliers and consumer choice.

Austin, Texas, where I went to the university and lived for almost a decade in the 70's and 80's. Where the city council and cable commission decided early on not to assign one company to wire up the community (actually, pretty hard as by 1980 there was already two companies that overlapped each other over half the city).

Today, there are at least 4 companies serving virtually the entire city, one of which is 100% ftth and another which is about half that. Competition is brutal.
Note: just for fun, I thought I'd run a couple of the addresses I lived there back in the day. What I found makes me sick, for what I've had to live with in the last decade. Two fiber to the home, three coaxial providers, all with gigabit (fiber full duplex), all ~$45-48/ month. ****!

So why did it work there, and almost nowhere else? Now we get into politics, and to point out that Austin and Travis county is a deep blue spot surrounded by deep red Texas. It is, after all, the hometown of LBJ, a major university town, so get a clue.

Back to Musk. Hyperbolic, overly optimistic, you bet. But so far, he has accomplished more than Google Fiber and Verizon FIOS in shaking things up when it comes to broadband. Like I said in an earlier comment, decades of rate hikes and his project goes just a little live, and for the first time, rates drop. No correlation? I await more, thank you.


----------



## harsh

1948GG said:


> But so far, he has accomplished more than Google Fiber and Verizon FIOS in shaking things up when it comes to broadband.


If you consider column inches as "shaking things up", yes, he is winning that battle. The question is whether or not Starlink is providing affordable broadband service to those with few options and I believe it is too early to claim that among their accomplishments.


----------



## 1948GG

No, I consider my bill going from $120+/month (where it's been for >3 years creeping up from $105 were it was when I moved to my present location 4+ years ago) to $80/month 4 months ago 'shaking thing up'.

A year ago, US cellular started selling LTE/4g home internet in my area at about twice the price, $250+/month plus equipment charges. Still have the mailer. Got a call from TMobile 6 mos ago asking if I wanted to sign up for their LTE/4g service (original small white box) for $50/month. Looked interesting but passed until they did 5g on midband. They do now with Nokia 'trash can' device, now at $60/month, three months ago or so. Looks more interesting but they are having lots of firmware problems, will wait until they sort them out.

Starlink got hyper sending out invites in my area (including me), installed an uplink about 50 miles down the freeway from me, 4 months ago. Within a month, comcast drops my bill by $40/month. Hmmm.


----------



## harsh

1948GG said:


> Starlink got hyper sending out invites in my area (including me), installed an uplink about 50 miles down the freeway from me, 4 months ago. Within a month, comcast drops my bill by $40/month. Hmmm.


I'd imagine there's pressure from other players in your area as well as I'd doubt Comcast is running scared of Starlink in any cable-served areas.

My local Comcast seems to counter each time CenturyLink (the incumbent telephone Local Exchange Carrier) runs an expansion campaign.


----------



## NYDutch

I suspect at this point, the only folks getting nervous about Starlink are at Hughes and Viasat. The cable/fiber folks have the more populated areas pretty well in hand, competing mainly among themselves. Starlink picking up the under served rural areas is likely ok with them since the potential subscriber density is often too spread out to be profitable for them.


----------



## 1948GG

I, as well as many others it appears, have forgotten that Century Telphone, lately CenturyLink, changed their name yet again a few months ago to Lumen Technologies; I've done way too much work all over America for their divisions, and have been to their hq in Monroe, LA so many times I can't count; I actually lived in Lafayette where they built (unfortunately after I lived there) a great muni owned ftth plant. What? Deep red LA has a bastion of socialism right down the freeway from the state Capitol? Almost as bad as Austin, but they ARE the state Capitol. Geez!

Who knows if it's really the wireless folks or Starlink or neither causing incumbents like comcast to react the way they have, or telcos like Lumen with their ftth. Like FIOS, they seem to have slowed down a bit (or more) lately but it may be covid as much as anything. 

Certainly Hughesnet and Viasat are shaking in their boots. I doubt that they'll be in existence 2-3 years from now. What many don't realize is what I've tried to point out several times here, that many folks even in the big cities, supposedly with large well financed broadband plants, have niches of neighborhoods skipped over, for whatever reason, that are salivating even more so than those out in the boonies. I've read so many comments on reddit and other boards from folks where on side of the street, or a suburb one block away has cable or fiber, but the company refuses to wire just a few feet across the road unless they get paid some rediculous amount to extend their system. 

In fact, I'm fairly certain that folks in that situation may be at least as many as those "out on the sticks". I would think/hope that Starlink won't bar those folks simply because the fcc 'says' their zipcode has broadband. My current zip is a couple hundred miles on a side, but just because my tiny corner of it has cable doesn't mean everyone one mile away from me has it. 

We shall see a year or two from now, how things turn out. The only thing that stays in my mind is that all of this could have happened 20 years ago if the folks back then had the balls to go forward on LEO sats.


----------



## b4pjoe

Old thread but this is relevant...

Starlink US residential customers are getting a limit on their high-speed internet



> Starlink is tweaking its Fair Use Policy for residential customers in the US and Canada, allowing them to use up to 1TB of data a month on its Priority Access service. If users exceed that amount in a month, they may be moved on to Basic Access for the network.


----------



## harsh

They've also revised the speeds downward (though it is still fast enough for most uses).


----------



## OneMarcilV

Well


----------



## harsh

OneMarcilV said:


> I know someone that purchased the mobile starlink setup. Over 2000.00.
> 
> I hope the download speeds are reliable.


As it turns out, the new data plan is different for mobile users. Their "priority" service is counted day and night where stationary users are only counted 7am to 11pm.

Mobile users may burn through their "priority" service much faster than stationary users and they can't save themselves by using the service "off-prime".


----------



## OneMarcilV

harsh said:


> As it turns out, the new data plan is different for mobile users. Their "priority" service is counted day and night where stationary users are only counted 7am to 11pm.
> 
> Mobile users may burn through their "priority" service much faster than stationary users and they can't save themselves by using the service "off-prime".


Makes sence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

OneMarcilV said:


> Makes sence.


I'd be curious to know why you think that nomadic customers should be treated differently than stationary customers.


----------



## P Smith

Hit them hard to stop them from nomading


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Hit them hard to stop them from nomading


Entirely not funny.


----------



## OneMarcilV

harsh said:


> I'd be curious to know why you think that nomadic customers should be treated differently than stationary customers.


Everyone should be treated the same.


----------



## harsh

OneMarcilV said:


> Don't know anything about nomadic customers.


Look up the word "nomadic". It will come to you.

While you're at it, look up the word "sense".


----------

