# SpaceX will have to demonstrate Starlink internet's low latency within the next month to qualify for



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/spacex-starlink-internets-low-latency-155902605.html

this should be interesting. as iv'e herd the speeds will be as fast as a 6G network. all though it's all just speculation now..


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

doing some research on starlink. it looks to be no better than viasat or huesnet with a latency of 30 ms with 100 mbps down and only 40 mbps up. and it also looks like it's not good for urban areas since the bird won't be able to handle all of the bandwith.. all speculation now still..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It’s designed for less urban areas in the first place imho.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

krel said:


> doing some research on starlink. it looks to be no better than viasat or huesnet with a latency of 30 ms with 100 mbps down and only 40 mbps up. and it also looks like it's not good for urban areas since the bird won't be able to handle all of the bandwith.. all speculation now still..


Last October Starlink was tested by the US Air Force at 610 Mbps to a flying aircraft.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

NYDutch said:


> Last October Starlink was tested by the US Air Force at 610 Mbps to a flying aircraft.


any idea on upload speeds and latency


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> It's designed for less urban areas in the first place imho.


your not in my head imho... i was thinking that everyone's looking to dump there current ISP you know everyone and there mother is going to sign up for it.. but i do agree with you


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)




----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

krel said:


> any idea on upload speeds and latency


I've seen ~20 ms pings mentioned, but I don't know how official it was. I haven't seen an upload figure mentioned from that test. Given the limited number of Starlink sats in orbit and available ground stations at that time, latency may not have been a significant test result.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

i have to say it's gonna be interesting how the providers are gonna play the rate game once things like starlink and amazon's kuiper project and 5G becomes full blown,, i was told to switch over to 5G because the price and speeds i would get with it would bankrupt spectrum...


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

First SpaceX Starlink Satellite Broadband Speeds Revealed - Telecompetitor

speeds look like crap to me


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

krel said:


> First SpaceX Starlink Satellite Broadband Speeds Revealed - Telecompetitor
> 
> speeds look like crap to me


The Starlink system is only partly in place with about 2% of the total satellite count currently in orbit so far. Many of the needed ground stations are still under construction and the next generation of interlinked satellites are still in the design and testing stage. The current Beta testing should probably be more correctly labeled as "Alpha Plus" testing.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

krel said:


> First SpaceX Starlink Satellite Broadband Speeds Revealed - Telecompetitor
> 
> speeds look like crap to me


If you're thinking it was ever going to compete with speed with DOCSIS or fiber you were sadly misinformed. Those speeds would look very good to someone who is stuck with GSO satellite internet, or is on the extreme edge of DSL or cellular deployment and gets single digit Mbps currently. That's what it has to beat to be successful. It was never going to compete in urban/suburban areas for multiple reasons.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> If you're thinking it was ever going to compete with speed with DOCSIS or fiber you were sadly misinformed. Those speeds would look very good to someone who is stuck with GSO satellite internet, or is on the extreme edge of DSL or cellular deployment and gets single digit Mbps currently. That's what it has to beat to be successful. It was never going to compete in urban/suburban areas for multiple reasons.


I was just going to say, but Krel beat me to it. 60Mbps on the best case absolutely sucks. Maybe not for rural folks who get internet via telegraph . Starlink on more then one occasion said they would be competitive with Docsis/Fiber. 1Gbps speeds and low latency .

"According to SpaceX, Starlink will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second at latencies from 25 milliseconds to 35 milliseconds."


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

krel said:


> First SpaceX Starlink Satellite Broadband Speeds Revealed - Telecompetitor
> 
> speeds look like crap to me


Those speeds are actually pretty good for this initial phase and for the target market. Think rural folks who only currently have access to DSL as an example. And those speeds are only going to improve as the project progresses.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

mjwagner said:


> And those speeds are only going to improve as the project progresses.


While the speeds _may_ improve, it seems likely that latency will increase with the number of users. I reason that systems such as this that need to switch between satellites as they enter and exit line of sight likely have a pretty significant overhead.

As we know, there's always the hopeful person that has a relatively tiny hole where they can see the sky. If you can't get a GPS fix, Starlink probably won't work for you.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> Those speeds are actually pretty good for this initial phase and for the target market. Think rural folks who only currently have access to DSL as an example. And those speeds are only going to improve as the project progresses.


It would be a lot better than DSL. It would solve the problem rural folks have. Gotta wonder if that will be another nail in the coffin for sat services. And cable.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> It would be a lot better than DSL. It would solve the problem rural folks have. Gotta wonder if that will be another nail in the coffin for sat services. And cable.


"_Starlink beta users found speeds as high as 60 Mbps downstream and 17.7 Mbps upstream. Latency was as low as 31 milliseconds.
Speeds ranged from 36 Mbps to 60 Mbps on the download and 5 Mbps to 17.7 Mbps on the upload._"

"Better than DSL" does not take much in rural areas. One stream of OTT TV (if the speeds hold up when the service is saturated with users)? It might be tempting for some to dump satellite TV for low quality OTT (especially as prices rise) but the OTT companies seem to be reaching for higher prices as well. When StarLink charges more that the $1 billing fee price will factor in to the value of StarLink plus OTT providers as a satellite/cable replacement.

I can see the use in the RV/camping market for people who want to see some TV but not watch multiple overlaping hours of content every day. A lot easier to find an open patch of sky in any direction than lining up a satellite dish and hoping there is not an obstruction.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

James Long said:


> "_Starlink beta users found speeds as high as 60 Mbps downstream and 17.7 Mbps upstream. Latency was as low as 31 milliseconds.
> Speeds ranged from 36 Mbps to 60 Mbps on the download and 5 Mbps to 17.7 Mbps on the upload._"
> 
> "Better than DSL" does not take much in rural areas. One stream of OTT TV (if the speeds hold up when the service is saturated with users)? It might be tempting for some to dump satellite TV for low quality OTT (especially as prices rise) but the OTT companies seem to be reaching for higher prices as well. When StarLink charges more that the $1 billing fee price will factor in to the value of StarLink plus OTT providers as a satellite/cable replacement.
> ...


Except in many cases that is not how it plays out. Folks would get StarLink for faster internet. At that point the economics is StarLink + sat or StarLink + an OTT service. So the cost of StarLink comes out of the equation when comparing sat to OTT service in that scenario.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

mjwagner said:


> Except in many cases that is not how it plays out. Folks would get StarLink for faster internet. At that point the economics is StarLink + sat or StarLink + an OTT service. So the cost of StarLink comes out of the equation when comparing sat to OTT service in that scenario.


I think the key point there is just as it is now. Do we count the cost of our Internet service as part of our OTT service cost if like most, we would have the same Internet service even without the OTT service?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> I think the key point there is just as it is now. Do we count the cost of our Internet service as part of our OTT service cost if like most, we would have the same Internet service even without the OTT service?


If one cannot use the Internet while streaming or cannot stream while otherwise using the Internet I'd count the cost of Internet against the streaming.

There have been times where my PC has been pulling Windows Updates while I have attempted to stream (on a streaming device). My streaming dropped to less than SD quality due to the peak use of bandwidth. If you're going to tell me to increase my service plan then you have identified a cost that should go toward streaming.

My service plan also has a data cap. If streaming forces me over the cap that is a cost that should go toward streaming (either the lost data for browsing, any overage charge or the cost of an unlimited plan.

Not counting the cost of Internet when streaming is fine if streaming only uses excess speed and bandwidth. But when streaming interferes or raises the cost it has to be part of the equation.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> If one cannot use the Internet while streaming or cannot stream while otherwise using the Internet I'd count the cost of Internet against the streaming.
> 
> There have been times where my PC has been pulling Windows Updates while I have attempted to stream (on a streaming device). My streaming dropped to less than SD quality due to the peak use of bandwidth. If you're going to tell me to increase my service plan then you have identified a cost that should go toward streaming.
> 
> ...


I do agree that the cost of upgrading the Internet service to better support streaming would certainly be a part of the OTT cost. On the other hand, if the existing service supports streaming as well as the normal use of the service for other purposes, then it should not be included. For instance, I currently have three Internet providers with unlimited data plans that I would still have even if I weren't using them for streaming. Those costs are not included in my OTT budget.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> I do agree that the cost of upgrading the Internet service to better support streaming would certainly be a part of the OTT cost. On the other hand, if the existing service supports streaming as well as the normal use of the service for other purposes, then it should not be included. For instance, *I currently have three Internet providers* with unlimited data plans that I would still have even if I weren't using them for streaming. Those costs are not included in my OTT budget.


Could you explain why you do this? I've never considered or heard of anyone doing this.

Rich


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

probably running server's farm and hosting many web sites...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

He's a traveling man ... it is good to have backups.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Rich said:


> Could you explain why you do this? I've never considered or heard of anyone doing this.
> 
> Rich


James nailed it, Rich... We are full time RV'ers, and multiple carriers insure we have coverage pretty much everywhere we travel. I will add though, that one of our services is a $15/mo Spectrum/TWC grandfathered seniors unlimited plan that we use primarily for monitoring security and temperatures at our upstate NY family cottage, so it's not mobile of course. Our other two services are cell based, a $23/mo grandfathered AT&T unlimited Connected Car unlimited hotspot plan and a $25/mo Visible (Verizon) unlimited talk/text/data plan that we use with a hotspot for data only. As you can see, our total Internet cost is on a par with what many people pay for a single service.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> James nailed it, Rich... We are full time RV'ers, and multiple carriers insure we have coverage pretty much everywhere we travel. I will add though, that one of our services is a $15/mo Spectrum/TWC grandfathered seniors unlimited plan that we use primarily for monitoring security and temperatures at our upstate NY family cottage, so it's not mobile of course. Our other two services are cell based, a $23/mo grandfathered AT&T unlimited Connected Car unlimited hotspot plan and a $25/mo Visible (Verizon) unlimited talk/text/data plan that we use with a hotspot for data only. As you can see, our total Internet cost is on a par with what many people pay for a single service.


Thanks. Hadn't considered RVs. I should have looked closer at your avatar.

Rich


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Rich said:


> Thanks. Hadn't considered RVs. I should have looked closer at your avatar.
> 
> Rich


Yep, that's our home in my avatar. But the ground under it changes whenever we feel like it. Well, currently whenever the COVID rules let us anyway...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> Yep, that's our home in my avatar. But the ground under it changes whenever we feel like it. Well, currently whenever the COVID rules let us anyway...


If I read this post right, your primary home is the RV? No actual house?

Rich


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

Rich said:


> If I read this post right, your primary home is the RV? No actual house?
> 
> Rich


Correct... We do share ownership of a small lakeside cottage in the Adirondacks with our two daughters, but we seldom stay in it. We have a full hookup RV site (water, electric, sewer) there for our motorhome that we're using currently due to the Covid travel restrictions and risks. We sometimes stay in the cottage for a few days while we're doing maintenance or interior mods to the motorhome that are easier done without us living in it. The cottage will also be our residence when we eventually reach the "hang up the keys" stage of our lives. We're both in our mid-70's, so that may not be all that far away.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> We are full time RV'ers


My parents RV'd for 20+ years during the hot summers here. But my dads health deteriorated so they had to stop. They loved it though.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

My parents bought a few retirement toys including a camper they paid to park at a lake and a used RV (from the estate of a couple killed together in a car accident). Unfortunately they only took one vacation in the RV. Cancer came, slowed them down and took them out 11 years apart. Live every moment you can while you're healthy enough to enjoy it.

(The retirement toys they did get to enjoy were grandchildren ... and a few great grandchildren. No regrets.)


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> My parents bought a few retirement toys including a camper they paid to park at a lake and a used RV (from the estate of a couple killed together in a car accident). Unfortunately they only took one vacation in the RV. Cancer came, slowed them down and took them out 11 years apart. Live every moment you can while you're healthy enough to enjoy it.
> 
> (The retirement toys they did get to enjoy were grandchildren ... and a few great grandchildren. No regrets.)


It's sad that they didn't get more opportunities to travel with their RV, but I'm glad they at least got to enjoy the grand and great grandkids. One of our regular stops is a state park just a few minutes away from our granddaughter and great granddaughter's home. It's always a fun visit. Our grandson and great grandson live near the NY cottage, so we get to see them a lot as well.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Perhaps now time to travel by Ilon Mask space ships ? Tourist season is coming soon. You could see his Starlink's sats in space near your flight then.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NYDutch said:


> Correct... We do share ownership of a small lakeside cottage in the Adirondacks with our two daughters, but we seldom stay in it. We have a full hookup RV site (water, electric, sewer) there for our motorhome that we're using currently due to the Covid travel restrictions and risks. We sometimes stay in the cottage for a few days while we're doing maintenance or interior mods to the motorhome that are easier done without us living in it. The cottage will also be our residence when we eventually reach the "hang up the keys" stage of our lives. We're both in our mid-70's, so that may not be all that far away.


Sounds like a good way to live. Thanks.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Perhaps now time to travel by Ilon Mask space ships ? Tourist season is coming soon. You could see his Starlink's sats in space near your flight then.


One can only wonder...

Rich


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

read that a 100-200 MBPS connection will cost 100 bucks a month and the hardware will be around 500.00 to buy. for the beta testers. that deal would not even intrest me


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Not sure why people thought it would be price competitive with cable/fiber internet. Even if the numbers worked out for that to be possible they couldn't price it competitively with those options because they can't run the risk of people outside rural areas subscribing to it in any numbers. It simply doesn't have the bandwidth to support more than a limited number of subscribers in a given area.

It uses a 2 GHz wide Ku band for subscriber downlinks, with up to 8 beams (from 4 satellites, 2 polarities) as the max per subscriber terminal. I'm sure the terminal can't actually use 8 beams at once, but that tells you the limit in a given "area". Not sure how big the hexagons are it is breaking things up into - but whatever it is we're talking at most about 50 to 60 Gbps of capacity for the entire hexagon.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Not sure why people thought it would be price competitive with cable/fiber internet.


Wishful thinking and probably the result of some tweet that Elon posted a long, long time ago that the faithful carry as a banner.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

There is no such thing as 6G. This won't even be as fast as good 5G. But that's not really the point.



slice1900 said:


> Not sure why people thought it would be price competitive with cable/fiber internet. Even if the numbers worked out for that to be possible they couldn't price it competitively with those options because they can't run the risk of people outside rural areas subscribing to it in any numbers. It simply doesn't have the bandwidth to support more than a limited number of subscribers in a given area.


What's actually amazing is that they're looking at pricing it that close to cable. I'm paying $71/mo for 150mbps cable, and that's typical. Comcast is around $75/mo, many rural fiber systems are in the $100/mo range for a decent speed of 100-300mbps. Current geosynchronous satellite is $150/mo or something with a still puny data cap.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

Bigg said:


> There is no such thing as 6G. This won't even be as fast as good 5G. But that's not really the point.
> 
> What's actually amazing is that they're looking at pricing it that close to cable. I'm paying $71/mo for 150mbps cable, and that's typical. Comcast is around $75/mo, many rural fiber systems are in the $100/mo range for a decent speed of 100-300mbps. Current geosynchronous satellite is $150/mo or something with a still puny data cap.


the modems 600.00 also


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

i am curious as to if there's a contract with it as well. though i heard that customer service is stellar and that they might even be in the us!!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

krel said:


> i am curious as to if there's a contract with it as well.


If they want to defray the cost of the receiving equipment, it seems likely that they'll need some manner of commitment.


> though i heard that customer service is stellar and that they might even be in the us!!!


While support for beta testers is probably pretty closely coupled, I'd imagine consumer support will be an entirely different proposition.

There's so little real information, I'm not surprised that the hopeful have made up their own narratives.


----------



## Marvin (Sep 14, 2003)

I signed up back in february for the Beta and paid roughly $600 for the dish which I just got. Ive seen up to 250 Mbps and 30-50 ms latency. Biggest issue is I need to move the dish up higher to get rid of the hour of obstructions/no signal I have each day caused by 80 ft tall trees to the north. My previous internet for the past 4 years was through ATT and the unlimited 4g hotspot plan they sold very shortly. At most I got like 40 Mbps but that was usually really cut down to like 10-15 if I used it a lot. The ATT plan was only $25 as our 3rd line but we've been tied into ATT and having to pay almost $200/month for 2 cell phone lines and that hotspot. The only benefit now for the 2 cell lines is the $25 credit for Directv and $15 credit for HBO/HBO Max.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Thank you for the report.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Here's a fairly comprehensive, though admittedly not particularly long-term review:

Starlink review: broadband dreams fall to Earth


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

harsh said:


> Here's a fairly comprehensive, though admittedly not particularly long-term review:
> 
> Starlink review: broadband dreams fall to Earth


D*TV Early users have discovered trees a very long time ago :smileycat:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

WestDC said:


> D*TV Early users have discovered trees a very long time ago :smileycat:


Typically not worrying about trees to to the north. But adding satellites will help SpaceX fix that issue as they attempt to always have satellites within the line of sight.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> But adding satellites will help SpaceX fix that issue as they attempt to always have satellites within the line of sight.


The article raises the question of whether Starlink should be able to take over the skies just because their promising to cover a bunch of unserved to the exclusion of other important uses of the skies.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> The article raises the question of whether Starlink should be able to take over the skies just because their promising to cover a bunch of unserved to the exclusion of other important uses of the skies.


Space is a very big place... I don't see Starlink as "taking over" much of it. What are these other "important uses" that are clamoring for the same LEO slots as Starlink?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

OneWeb and astronomy


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Just because space (literally) is available does not mean that space should be filled. Everything launched should have a benefit that is greater than its detriment. Cluttering the skies with short life satellites that will need a constant replacement schedule just to maintain service levels is not a good thing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> Space is a very big place... I don't see Starlink as "taking over" much of it. What are these other "important uses" that are clamoring for the same LEO slots as Starlink?


The universe may be a big place but if you completely enclose the Earth in a net of satellites, you will interfere with a surprising number of activities from MEO and further rocket launches and astronomy projects from large scale right down to stargazing. The proposed net is relatively dense and you need to have some space to escape the net. It isn't like these satellites are just driving around and can open up a hole every time someone wants to launch or view something outside the net.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> The universe may be a big place but if you completely enclose the Earth in a net of satellites, you will interfere with a surprising number of activities from MEO and further rocket launches and astronomy projects from large scale right down to stargazing. The proposed net is relatively dense and you need to have some space to escape the net. It isn't like these satellites are just driving around and can open up a hole every time someone wants to launch or view something outside the net.


The Starlink sats are movable enough to avoid space debris...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> The Starlink sats are movable enough to avoid space debris...


Space debris re-entry that has to be dodged probably isn't an every day thing (though I wouldn't be surprised if some of the previously launched Starlink birds have already been taken out by some). A web of thousands of satellites are something to be reckoned with.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

P Smith said:


> OneWeb and astronomy


Yep, I can see where OneWeb would want to make sure there's slots for their proposed thousands of LEO sats despite just exiting bankruptcy 6 months ago. They did reduce their "Phase Two" FCC request from 47,844 sats to 6,372 though. Still having money issues maybe?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> Space debris re-entry that has to be dodged probably isn't an every day thing (though I wouldn't be surprised if some of the previously launched Starlink birds have already been taken out by some). A web of thousands of satellites are something to be reckoned with.


As far as has been publicly reported, I'm not aware of any Starlink sats that have been taken out by space debris. Apparently the built-in avoidance system is working reasonably well.

Consider that the earth has a surface area of nearly 200 million square miles. If SpaceX deploys 40,000 satellites, that's well over 4,000 square miles per satellite at sea level, and of course much more at orbital heights. Please correct my math if I got that wrong...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> Consider that the earth has a surface area of nearly 200 million square miles.


Consider that the Starlink satellites are a moving target and as more satellites are launched, they'll be criss-crossing hither and yon at a mostly predictable but fairly high rate. Just imagine the increased load on tracking the constantly moving mesh. Will Starlink be required to report their programmed movements to USSSN or will USSSN have to figure it out for themselves?

The astronomy (both visual and radio) aspects shouldn't be ignored either. Stargazers are already being vexed by the appearance of new objects in the night sky.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> The Starlink sats are movable enough to avoid space debris...


With respect to Elon, Starlink sats ARE low orbit space debris.


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> Consider that the Starlink satellites are a moving target and as more satellites are launched, they'll be criss-crossing hither and yon at a mostly predictable but fairly high rate. Just imagine the increased load on tracking the constantly moving mesh. Will Starlink be required to report their programmed movements to USSSN or will USSSN have to figure it out for themselves?
> 
> The astronomy (both visual and radio) aspects shouldn't be ignored either. Stargazers are already being vexed by the appearance of new objects in the night sky.


Is your complaint with SpaceX or the controlling authorities that issue the launch permits?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

James Long said:


> With respect to Elon, Starlink sats ARE low orbit space debris.


I suspect the tribal reservations and rural school districts already being served by Starlink don't see it that way.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> I suspect the tribal reservations and rural school districts already being served by Starlink don't see it that way.


An emotional example. I'm sure there are other ways to serve such communities.

42,000 satellites (if the ITU approves) with a life span of five to seven years. Six to eight thousand satellites launched each year just to keep up with the constellation. All designed to burn up upon reentry. Less than a couple thousand in orbit and already causing problems for astronomers and those who enjoy the night sky. We have several "dark sky communities" in my area who have taken special efforts not to pollute the sky with light so stargazers can see the stars. Can we get Elon to stop polluting the sky?

Oh well, maybe we will be able to stream 8K recorded video of the sky via Starlink when Starlink blocks out the sky.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

NYDutch said:


> I suspect the tribal reservations and rural school districts already being served by Starlink don't see it that way.


How many such organizations do you suppose Starlink enlisted into their beta test?

Would the bandwidth that Starlink offers come anywhere near serving their needs?


----------



## NYDutch (Dec 28, 2013)

harsh said:


> How many such organizations do you suppose Starlink enlisted into their beta test?
> 
> Would the bandwidth that Starlink offers come anywhere near serving their needs?


I don't know the all number of units involved, but the tribes and school districts served so far seem to be quite pleased according to their public statements. I recall a rural VA school district mentioned getting 45 user terminals for un-served families with students, and a rural Texas school district where 39% of the students had limited or no Internet access was getting 90 terminals for under-served families. Starlink has also equipped pilot programs in NC and OH, and possibly others that I don't recall. Then there's the Hoh tribe in WA that Starlink has brought high speed Internet to, and the Pikangikum First Nation in north-western Ontario. There's probably others, but that's what comes to mind...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Space debris re-entry that has to be dodged probably isn't an every day thing (though I wouldn't be surprised if some of the previously launched Starlink birds have already been taken out by some). A web of thousands of satellites are something to be reckoned with.


You obviously have no idea how much room there is up there. The orbital plane of the satellites is larger than the earth's surface. If you had a few hundred satellites sitting/floating on the earth's surface and threw rocks randomly at the earth, how many rocks do you think you'd have to throw before you hit a satellite?


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

WestDC said:


> D*TV Early users have discovered trees a very long time ago :smileycat:


 remembers when apt dwellers where setting the dish up in front of there windows inside


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The orbital plane of the satellites is larger than the earth's surface.


Orbital sphere? Radius of Earth 3958.8 miles. Altitude of Starlink satellites 180 miles at launch, 341 miles in operation.
Area of Earth surface 197 million square miles (roughly). Area of Starlink orbital sphere 232 million square miles. Not much difference.
Starlink will not be covering their entire sphere, only the portion between 60 degrees south and 60 degrees north.
So, 42k planned satellites in a 154 million square mile area constantly moving. One satellite every 3,682 square miles?
This defines the "rock" ... 42 thousand rocks in constant motion 60 miles apart blanketing the Earth.


----------



## renegade (Jul 28, 2011)

"Dishy McFlatface." LOL. Think I'll pass. Comcrap is bad enough.


----------



## HIgh Order (Jul 12, 2021)

Hello.
Interesting discussion.
1 - A few hundred? There are over twenty thousand catalogued items in the unclassified database larger than a softball orbiting the Earth as we speak:
Space Debris and Human Spacecraft

2 - I find some of the opinions presented... interesting. On one hand, it is like being angry about an interstate being plowed through someone's fields and yards. On the other hand, I am old enough to remember walking on beaches with zero glow from cell phones, video cameras, tablets and other distractive devices. Or a concert where I didn't have to peer between hundreds of upstretched hands clutching large cameraphones, all trying to catch the same 'special moment'.

I don't know what the right answer is; as a former Boy Scout, I spent my fair share in the 70's and 80's peering up at space from mountaintops unobscured by light pollution. I appreciate the beauty. But I also don't have an issue with cell towers, because I appreciate the convenience. Perhaps there is a middle ground, but I've found it always skews towards money, not beauty or common sense.


----------



## krel (Mar 20, 2013)

looks like it's going out of beta testing next month. and should be fully mobile also with the launch of some more birds and software updates.. perfect for rvr's. i also heard this system will hit gig speeds. that has yet to be seen so maybe with more birds in the sky and software updates it will happen...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Spam and replies removed. This thread is for the real life SpaceX product.


----------

