3 ms·

Won't these speeds dramatically reduce once there are a lot of users saturating the connections?

by bananaface 6y ago

augusto-moura 6y ago
If the network keep up in this state probably. But the plans are to launch some thousand more satellites
- garblegarble 6y ago
  >the plans are to launch some thousand more satellites 1000 more in that shell, but overall 11,578 more satellites (most of them lower than the current shell). Their target number is 12,000 satellites, with possible expansion to 42,000 (!!) The sheer scale boggles the mind
topkai22 6y ago
I suspect it will be really serving areas where that is unlikely to happen (rural areas and over ocean transportation).
- BitwiseFool 6y ago
  I'd switch to Starlink JUST to spite Comcast.
  - joezydeco 6y ago
    If you have comcast you're probably in range of a T-Mobile tower. Maybe consider their fixed 5G instead. It's coming to my area and Comcast started launching a flurry of deals to try and lock existing customers into a two year contract.
  - jsperson 6y ago
    While I totally agree with your sentiments, there is a large section of the population that don’t even have the bad option of Comcast. I hope they put some curbs on adoption by those who have alternatives. Source: farm owner in the middle of nowhere KS. We have fixed wireless, but if it was hilly here we’d be stuck with Hughes and their geosynchronous satellites. The latency is huge - the speed of light isn’t fast enough.
    - BenjiWiebe 6y ago
      Fellow middle of Kansas guy here. Check for fixed wireless in the area. We just got KwiKom which handily beats CenturyLink DSL on price, speed, and latency. And our neighbors couldn't even get DSL.
    - BenjiWiebe 6y ago
      Oh I see you already mentioned fixed wireless. You aren't me, by any chance?
atlgator 6y ago
It's just a limited satellite network right now. I suspect bandwidth limitations may be due to limited ground station exposure.
zaroth 6y ago
There’s no way to know how much per-user throttling is currently in place. E.g. a single connection might be limited to 0.1% of a given bird’s total throughout. There could also be artificial limits for the ground station‘s uplink. Current belief is that each satellite can forward 20Gbps max. But I’m doubtful that a single client could ever access a significant fraction of that total.
shaklee3 6y ago
Yes, they will.

Won't these speeds dramatically reduce once there are a lot of users saturating the connections?

augusto-moura 6y ago

If the network keep up in this state probably. But the plans are to launch some thousand more satellites

garblegarble 6y ago
>the plans are to launch some thousand more satellites 1000 more in that shell, but overall 11,578 more satellites (most of them lower than the current shell). Their target number is 12,000 satellites, with possible expansion to 42,000 (!!) The sheer scale boggles the mind

topkai22 6y ago

I suspect it will be really serving areas where that is unlikely to happen (rural areas and over ocean transportation).

BitwiseFool 6y ago
I'd switch to Starlink JUST to spite Comcast.
- joezydeco 6y ago
  If you have comcast you're probably in range of a T-Mobile tower. Maybe consider their fixed 5G instead. It's coming to my area and Comcast started launching a flurry of deals to try and lock existing customers into a two year contract.
- jsperson 6y ago
  While I totally agree with your sentiments, there is a large section of the population that don’t even have the bad option of Comcast. I hope they put some curbs on adoption by those who have alternatives. Source: farm owner in the middle of nowhere KS. We have fixed wireless, but if it was hilly here we’d be stuck with Hughes and their geosynchronous satellites. The latency is huge - the speed of light isn’t fast enough.
  - BenjiWiebe 6y ago
    Fellow middle of Kansas guy here. Check for fixed wireless in the area. We just got KwiKom which handily beats CenturyLink DSL on price, speed, and latency. And our neighbors couldn't even get DSL.
  - BenjiWiebe 6y ago
    Oh I see you already mentioned fixed wireless. You aren't me, by any chance?

atlgator 6y ago

It's just a limited satellite network right now. I suspect bandwidth limitations may be due to limited ground station exposure.

zaroth 6y ago

There’s no way to know how much per-user throttling is currently in place. E.g. a single connection might be limited to 0.1% of a given bird’s total throughout. There could also be artificial limits for the ground station‘s uplink. Current belief is that each satellite can forward 20Gbps max. But I’m doubtful that a single client could ever access a significant fraction of that total.

shaklee3 6y ago

Yes, they will.