2 ms·
Providing 610 megabits to a moving plane is great and all, but can you provide gigabit internet speeds to literally millions of people at the same time? I find
by t0mbstone 7y ago
Providing 610 megabits to a moving plane is great and all, but can you provide gigabit internet speeds to literally millions of people at the same time? I find it hard to believe that the spacex satellites will be able to handle that kind of load anytime soon.
- mrep 7y ago42,000 satellites × 21 gbps per satellite for first gen satellites × (2,959,064.44 miles squared in continental us ÷ 196,900,000 miles squared on earth) = 13,254 gbps over continental us assuming they are evenly orbiting around the planet (they won't be and instead most will cluster around continents but let's make it easy). 2% of the US population are farmers * 325,000,000 Americans = about 6 million people. At an over subscription ratio of 5:1 (Google search gave many different answers for this so no idea on what wireless networks actually use) gives users 10 mbps which isn't too bad and you can multiple that by 15 if you want to match Bernies planned cost by launching 15 times more satellites.
- danaris 7y agoUsing "farmer" as a proxy for "lives in an area too rural to get non-satellite internet" is going to be an extremely poor estimate. For one thing, the rural population of the US is, depending on your definition, somewhere between 15 and 20%. [1] For another, a lot of farmers and rural areas get perfectly good cable internet and even fiber. [1] https://www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/about-us/definition/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/rural-health/about-us/definition/index....