7 ms·

Regardless of latency, I’m signing up. Anything’s better than Comcast!

by johndubchak 7y ago

keyle 7y ago
This right here is what they're banking on :)
- avmich 7y ago
  And they have plenty of reasons to bank of that ;) .
  - what_ever 7y ago
    Comcast being slow hasn't been a problem for the majority, Comcast being expensive may have been.
    - willio58 7y ago
      Comcast having terrible customer support is another big problem.
      - what_ever 7y ago
        How often do you need to call the customer support? I have had Comcast for 6 years now and I call them once a year to renegotiate the deal or move the connection.
        keyle 7y ago
        That's a terrible excuse for having bad customer support.
umvi 7y ago
High latency satellite internet already exists (re: HughesNet)
- avmich 7y ago
  I'm genuinely curious, can you have it without your landlord (if you rent) approval and also install the ground transciever without HughesNet technicians? Sometimes they refuse to install in particular locations on the grounds of perceived landlords disapproval (?)
  - casefields 7y ago
    Yes you can. More here: https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Not a lawyer but there is definitely a law in the US which prevents landlords from not allowing tenants to install satellites for television. I'd imagine that the same law might cover generally any consumer telecommunications equipment
- unityByFreedom 7y ago
  Interesting, I see reports of latency of 60ms on average [1]. Starlink claims it will offer as low as 25ms [2] Is 35ms a significant value proposition, considering 5G is on the horizon? > As of March 2019, HughesNet's average download speed is 11.04 Mbps. Throughout their coverage area, the average latency on HughesNet Internet speed tests is 61.87ms. For context, wired terrestrial Internet connections usually output latency results in the 5–70ms range. [1] [1] https://broadbandnow.com/HughesNet-speed-test https://broadbandnow.com/HughesNet-speed-test [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/spacexs-starlink-takes-a-big-step-forward-in-delivering-internet-from-the-sky/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/spacexs-starlink-takes-a-big-s...
  - umvi 7y ago
    That doesn't seem right. Napkin math: GEO Satellite is 22,236 miles above sea level[1]. Speed of light is 186,282 miles per second[2]. Therefore the absolute fastest information could travel on a GEO network is 22236/186282 = 119 milliseconds (one way at the speed of light), which is 238 ms round trip. In reality there are going to be internal and network latencies so I would expect something more like ~300-500ms RTT. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
unityByFreedom 7y ago
The solution to that problem is to get municipalities to exit their monopoly agreements with broadband providers. Spending more tax dollars on satellites isn't helpful. That just gives your representatives an easy way out in the near-term, and probably results in everyone getting upset over wasted money in the long term.
- m0zg 7y ago
  What "tax dollars" are we talking about here? It's a private system.
m0zg 7y ago
Heck, I already have FIOS, but if it's reasonably priced I'll subscribe just to support it (and to have a backup). Musk is basically the closest thing we have to Tony Stark. If that's not worth supporting, then I don't know what is.
dzhiurgis 7y ago
Everyone is super excited about this and I am sure its going to capture a significant market, but you have to realise what are alternatives and how much they cost. I expect them to be utterly unaffordable at least for first half of decade. Their biggest competitor is Iridium which offer similar service at $150 per 2kbps. I will let you extrapolate real life prices from here.
- breakyerself 7y ago
  SpaceX should be able to undercut that some since they can launch their satellites at cost and using a booster that's already been up once or twice really brings that cost down.
  - dzhiurgis 7y ago
    Sure, but why would they undercut them by 6-7 orders of magnitude in price? Seems silly to just leave money on the table.
    - breakyerself 7y ago
      Bigger less profitable userbase vs larger more profitable user base. The question is if the bigger userbase option is big enough to make overall profits larger than they would have been with the smaller one. I have no idea.
- vermontdevil 7y ago
  Iridium is not their competitor. Different market. Even the CEO of the company said so.
  - dzhiurgis 7y ago
    Sure, terminals are likely to be different, but service is the same. I don't see enough differences between two.

Regardless of latency, I’m signing up. Anything’s better than Comcast!

keyle 7y ago

This right here is what they're banking on :)

avmich 7y ago
And they have plenty of reasons to bank of that ;) .
- what_ever 7y ago
  Comcast being slow hasn't been a problem for the majority, Comcast being expensive may have been.
  - willio58 7y ago
    Comcast having terrible customer support is another big problem.
    - what_ever 7y ago
      How often do you need to call the customer support? I have had Comcast for 6 years now and I call them once a year to renegotiate the deal or move the connection.
      - keyle 7y ago
        That's a terrible excuse for having bad customer support.

umvi 7y ago

High latency satellite internet already exists (re: HughesNet)

avmich 7y ago
I'm genuinely curious, can you have it without your landlord (if you rent) approval and also install the ground transciever without HughesNet technicians? Sometimes they refuse to install in particular locations on the grounds of perceived landlords disapproval (?)
- casefields 7y ago
  Yes you can. More here: https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Not a lawyer but there is definitely a law in the US which prevents landlords from not allowing tenants to install satellites for television. I'd imagine that the same law might cover generally any consumer telecommunications equipment
unityByFreedom 7y ago
Interesting, I see reports of latency of 60ms on average [1]. Starlink claims it will offer as low as 25ms [2] Is 35ms a significant value proposition, considering 5G is on the horizon? > As of March 2019, HughesNet's average download speed is 11.04 Mbps. Throughout their coverage area, the average latency on HughesNet Internet speed tests is 61.87ms. For context, wired terrestrial Internet connections usually output latency results in the 5–70ms range. [1] [1] https://broadbandnow.com/HughesNet-speed-test https://broadbandnow.com/HughesNet-speed-test [2] https://www.zdnet.com/article/spacexs-starlink-takes-a-big-step-forward-in-delivering-internet-from-the-sky/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/spacexs-starlink-takes-a-big-s...
- umvi 7y ago
  That doesn't seem right. Napkin math: GEO Satellite is 22,236 miles above sea level[1]. Speed of light is 186,282 miles per second[2]. Therefore the absolute fastest information could travel on a GEO network is 22236/186282 = 119 milliseconds (one way at the speed of light), which is 238 ms round trip. In reality there are going to be internal and network latencies so I would expect something more like ~300-500ms RTT. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

unityByFreedom 7y ago

The solution to that problem is to get municipalities to exit their monopoly agreements with broadband providers. Spending more tax dollars on satellites isn't helpful. That just gives your representatives an easy way out in the near-term, and probably results in everyone getting upset over wasted money in the long term.

m0zg 7y ago
What "tax dollars" are we talking about here? It's a private system.

m0zg 7y ago

Heck, I already have FIOS, but if it's reasonably priced I'll subscribe just to support it (and to have a backup). Musk is basically the closest thing we have to Tony Stark. If that's not worth supporting, then I don't know what is.

dzhiurgis 7y ago

Everyone is super excited about this and I am sure its going to capture a significant market, but you have to realise what are alternatives and how much they cost. I expect them to be utterly unaffordable at least for first half of decade. Their biggest competitor is Iridium which offer similar service at $150 per 2kbps. I will let you extrapolate real life prices from here.

breakyerself 7y ago
SpaceX should be able to undercut that some since they can launch their satellites at cost and using a booster that's already been up once or twice really brings that cost down.
- dzhiurgis 7y ago
  Sure, but why would they undercut them by 6-7 orders of magnitude in price? Seems silly to just leave money on the table.
  - breakyerself 7y ago
    Bigger less profitable userbase vs larger more profitable user base. The question is if the bigger userbase option is big enough to make overall profits larger than they would have been with the smaller one. I have no idea.
vermontdevil 7y ago
Iridium is not their competitor. Different market. Even the CEO of the company said so.
- dzhiurgis 7y ago
  Sure, terminals are likely to be different, but service is the same. I don't see enough differences between two.