4 ms·

Has SpaceX indicated that this network is meant to cover every home and business directly or connect to a hub to distribute locally? In terms of democratizatio

Has SpaceX indicated that this network is meant to cover every home and business directly or connect to a hub to distribute locally? In terms of democratization, space to the home with commodity hardware is such a game changer it's not even funny. My napkin math says that latencies across the Earth (like NYC to Melbourne) would beat existing fiber.

walrus01 9y ago
Both, I think. I would be surprised if there is not a higher-bandwidth, larger, more expensive high gain rooftop CPE which can be used by a small ISP/WISP in a remote area. They would use that for their uplink to the internet and then distribute access locally via point to multipoint 5 GHz radio systems, GPON fiber, whatever is feasible.
- kbaker 9y ago
  Also, remote LTE towers could provide cellular connectivity anywhere.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - walrus01 9y ago
    yes, fixed wireless LTE (baicells, other competing LTE based products for WISPs), or traditionalmobile wireless... Whatever local methods are possible to distribute service from an islanded ISP's local 'core' routers. As an example an ISP in a town in Nunavut that was previously dependent on C-band geostationary satellite capacity. When I say 'islanded' ISP I mean an ISP that has no access to terrestrial point to point microwave, or fiber, to reach any sort of upstreams or major IX points. Either physically islanded (such as an ISP on the island of Nauru) or somewhere in a terestrial location, but logically islanded because it would cost at minimum several million dollars to build PTP microwave or fiber to the nearest medium sized city. One example might be any of the communities on Hudson Bay which are fly-in access only. In previous discussions of the spaceX system, I have mentioned o3b as an example of a new, clean sheet of paper design satellite network that people should familiarize themselves with. The ordinary internet user will rarely if ever see an o3b terminal, since it is at minimum about $45,000 in hardware costs and is a pair of 1.8 meter motorized, multiple axis tracking antennas, modems, BUC + SSPA, etc. o3b is intended for high capacity trunk links to replace a setup like a 6.3 meter Ku-band antenna and dedicated geostationary transponder KHz. Satellite architecture wise one of the interesting things of the spaceX plan is that the satellites will be in polar orbits (orbital inclinations anywhere from 82 to 105 degrees, not sure exactly). Whereas o3b orbits its satellites at low inclinations around the equator, meaning that their effective coverage area reaches from +/- 45 degrees latitude only.
- shaklee3 9y ago
  I doubt it's for home. As many articles point out, it needs a phased array antennas attract the satellites. The current technology for those is far too expensive to recoup the cost for residential service.
wongarsu 9y ago
From what I remember he implied direct connection from home to satellite. Latency could beat fiber, but I am sceptical about bandwith in high population areas (and bandwith of the satellite mesh network). It will be a game-changer for low density areas, but most of us will probably still want a fiber connection.
- csdreamer7 9y ago
  > Latency could beat fiber Where did you get that information? The last article I read (I believe TechCrunch) said the latency would be somewhat slower then cable (which isn't bad).
  - wongarsu 9y ago
    Both is kind of correct. I can't find the interview right now, but to paraphrase Elon's math: you have ~2 ms from earth to satellite + ~2 ms from satellite to earth + travel time throught the satellite network (which happens at speed of light in vacuum + routing delays). Normal fiber travels at the speed of light in fiber (which is significantly lower than speed of light in vacuum), and usually takes a route signifiantly longer than a straight line. In the end satellite could be faster, but in reality typical performance will be slighty slower than fiber (for example the datacenter is probably not directly connected to the satellite network, so you have the network route to the nearest uplink to account for)
    - banachtarski 9y ago
      Does the math account for packet loss though... satellite internet has historically been awful for this reason.
      - Robotbeat 9y ago
        LEO satellites will have the ability to adjust faster to changing conditions than GSO will. Packet loss need not be any worse than any other wireless system. There will be some rain fade, but can power through that by increasing power and/or temporarily reducing bandwidth to prevent packet loss.

walrus01 9y ago

Both, I think. I would be surprised if there is not a higher-bandwidth, larger, more expensive high gain rooftop CPE which can be used by a small ISP/WISP in a remote area. They would use that for their uplink to the internet and then distribute access locally via point to multipoint 5 GHz radio systems, GPON fiber, whatever is feasible.

kbaker 9y ago
Also, remote LTE towers could provide cellular connectivity anywhere.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- walrus01 9y ago
  yes, fixed wireless LTE (baicells, other competing LTE based products for WISPs), or traditionalmobile wireless... Whatever local methods are possible to distribute service from an islanded ISP's local 'core' routers. As an example an ISP in a town in Nunavut that was previously dependent on C-band geostationary satellite capacity. When I say 'islanded' ISP I mean an ISP that has no access to terrestrial point to point microwave, or fiber, to reach any sort of upstreams or major IX points. Either physically islanded (such as an ISP on the island of Nauru) or somewhere in a terestrial location, but logically islanded because it would cost at minimum several million dollars to build PTP microwave or fiber to the nearest medium sized city. One example might be any of the communities on Hudson Bay which are fly-in access only. In previous discussions of the spaceX system, I have mentioned o3b as an example of a new, clean sheet of paper design satellite network that people should familiarize themselves with. The ordinary internet user will rarely if ever see an o3b terminal, since it is at minimum about $45,000 in hardware costs and is a pair of 1.8 meter motorized, multiple axis tracking antennas, modems, BUC + SSPA, etc. o3b is intended for high capacity trunk links to replace a setup like a 6.3 meter Ku-band antenna and dedicated geostationary transponder KHz. Satellite architecture wise one of the interesting things of the spaceX plan is that the satellites will be in polar orbits (orbital inclinations anywhere from 82 to 105 degrees, not sure exactly). Whereas o3b orbits its satellites at low inclinations around the equator, meaning that their effective coverage area reaches from +/- 45 degrees latitude only.
shaklee3 9y ago
I doubt it's for home. As many articles point out, it needs a phased array antennas attract the satellites. The current technology for those is far too expensive to recoup the cost for residential service.

wongarsu 9y ago

From what I remember he implied direct connection from home to satellite. Latency could beat fiber, but I am sceptical about bandwith in high population areas (and bandwith of the satellite mesh network). It will be a game-changer for low density areas, but most of us will probably still want a fiber connection.

csdreamer7 9y ago
> Latency could beat fiber Where did you get that information? The last article I read (I believe TechCrunch) said the latency would be somewhat slower then cable (which isn't bad).
- wongarsu 9y ago
  Both is kind of correct. I can't find the interview right now, but to paraphrase Elon's math: you have ~2 ms from earth to satellite + ~2 ms from satellite to earth + travel time throught the satellite network (which happens at speed of light in vacuum + routing delays). Normal fiber travels at the speed of light in fiber (which is significantly lower than speed of light in vacuum), and usually takes a route signifiantly longer than a straight line. In the end satellite could be faster, but in reality typical performance will be slighty slower than fiber (for example the datacenter is probably not directly connected to the satellite network, so you have the network route to the nearest uplink to account for)
  - banachtarski 9y ago
    Does the math account for packet loss though... satellite internet has historically been awful for this reason.
    - Robotbeat 9y ago
      LEO satellites will have the ability to adjust faster to changing conditions than GSO will. Packet loss need not be any worse than any other wireless system. There will be some rain fade, but can power through that by increasing power and/or temporarily reducing bandwidth to prevent packet loss.