18 ms·
Anyone complaining about this has never experienced the frustration of rural living when it comes to internet. This is absolutely amazing, and it will just get
by hesdeadjim 6y ago
Anyone complaining about this has never experienced the frustration of rural living when it comes to internet. This is absolutely amazing, and it will just get better.
Even a reliable 10mbps would be a godsend in many places.
- CarelessExpert 6y agoHonestly, one of the barriers to my moving to a more rural area and working remotely was broadband access, but Starlink could very well solve that problem...
- Maximus9000 6y agoYou're not alone there. I wonder if starlink will increase property values in rural areas.
- trothamel 6y agoEspecially with COVID showing the downsides to living in urban areas.
- jonny_eh 6y agoI'd rather live in an urban area during a pandemic. It's counter-intuitive but the access to testing and hospitals is very important. https://theconversation.com/rural-america-is-more-vulnerable-to-covid-19-than-cities-are-and-its-starting-to-show-140532 https://theconversation.com/rural-america-is-more-vulnerable...
- badloginagain 6y agoLarger amounts of people mean more chances of exposure. Being in urban environment means higher dependence on fragile supply chains- food security is totally dependent on JIT grocery store inventories. Rural homes, by virtue of being isolated, are easier to self isolate.
- macintux 6y agoHowever, if you’re able to work from home, you can self-isolate pretty much anywhere, and drive wherever you need to get food. If urban environments start seriously breaking down due to a food supply chain problem, rural areas won’t be safe from desperate people. Anyway, both approaches have their pros and cons, but as someone who has a fairly severe back problem and not much inclination to try to live off the grid, I’d rather be in an urban area.
- shiftpgdn 6y agoA friend of mine who served in Afghanistan said that the Afghanis living in the mountains had no idea America had invaded and no idea about a war or 9/11. At first they had thought the Americans were Russians. I think you over estimate how big America is and how remote some places can be.
- Frondo 6y agoI've traveled through some pretty remote places in both hemispheres, and the US has nothing on isolation compared to the mountains in Central Asia. Remoteness won't really protect people here, not like it would there.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago> rural areas won't be safe from desperate people At least for America, most city folk don't seem to understand just how armed their rural counterparts are. They'd be pretty darn safe.
- thewebcount 6y agoYes, this is so true. My spouse has a rare chronic condition and moving anywhere rural is a non-starter. Even with great doctors in a big city, it's still a struggle getting the care she needs. I can't imagine if we lived somewhere with less than stellar healthcare.
- medion 6y agoI guess it depends on whether you are vulnerable health-wise. If you're fit and healthy and not of retirement age I really can't understand this kind of thinking.
- reaperducer 6y agoI'd rather live in an urban area during a pandemic. Consider yourself an outlier. I subscribe to several regional real estate newsletters, and for the last five months they've been all about people moving out of the cities and into small towns. It's counter-intuitive but the access to testing and hospitals is very important. As with any disease, the best treatment is prevention. Which is what being rural gives you.
- fuzxi 6y agoI'd argue that there's less need for testing in the first place when your nearest neighbors live a mile away.
- ekianjo 6y ago> I'd rather live in an urban area during a pandemic. Depends what kind of pandemic. If being in a city increased your exposure and infection rates 10 fold, and the disease is a killer without treatment, it's a lot worse to live in a city.
- Retric 6y agoRural areas have often had higher rates of covid 19 infections than cities in the area. Look here for some examples: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/county-map.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/coun... Some of this is simple variance, but rural areas are surprisingly dangerous over time where cities simply show up sooner.
- ekianjo 6y ago> have often had higher rates of covid 19 infections than cities in the area Several factors at play: - people thought COVID19 was not a thing outside of cities so people were more careless in rural areas - wearing of masks is much less in rural areas than cities - more local communities in rural areas (religious services for example) But if you NEED to isolate yourself it's much easier to do it in the countryside than in a city.
- Retric 6y ago> But if you NEED to isolate yourself it’s much easier to do in the countryside than in a city. In practice there are several flaws in that assumption. The lack of grocery deliveries is one major issue with rural isolation. Keep digging and you find several short vs long term issues. Consider, if you need a car you then need to eventually take it in for repairs etc.
- ekianjo 6y agoIn rural areas you have more space to stock food to live completely off the usual distribution networks for a longer time. In cities if you live in a small apartment you are tributary to shopping very often or having deliveries frequently, which increases the chance of contamination.
- dzhiurgis 6y agoOr yacht prices, once it works on them. Right now tho, with not much to go I'd say they should drop. I have a scraper, but analysing data is pain.
- randomdata 6y agoAs long as you are willing to be somewhat discriminating, you can find rural areas with great internet service. My farm has a fibre connection and the ISP offers 100/100 service. If you travel a few miles down the road, the ISP there will provide gigabit service.
- medion 6y agoIn Australia I moved to a very rural place, buying a house based on where I could get wireless broadband as part of our nationwide broadband rollout - I now live in a beautiful remote place overlooking the ocean with 50/20mbps Internet. Before here, I lived in another rural place near the ocean, however there was no broadband and 4G was too expensive. I ended up making friends with someone who had a 1gbps fibrelink 10km away - we spent weekends building a point to point network, and I ended up with an extremely reliable 20mbps connection for about $300 in parts over Mikrotik routers. As other people have said, you can make it happen if you really want!
- choeger 6y agoOk you got me with "overlooking the ocean". I will admit, I was a little bit envious. But then I recalled the great Terry Pratchett quote that you are living on a continent where pretty much every animal, except for maybe some sheep, is equipped with some venom and actively trying to kill you. Plus some of the plants. So I guess it's fair play.
- dylan604 6y agoMove one more island over to New Zealand. The animal kingdom is much more friendly.
- BigJono 6y agoRubbish. I went to New Zealand once and the fucking mozzies were the size of a golf ball. I'll take the one redback encounter every 5 years in Australia thanks.
- dylan604 6y agoHaha, an Aussie complaining about the insects from other countries. That's rich!! When the mosquitoes are that size, they are easy to see and catch. Here in the southern part of the US, we have to keep our small kids on leashes lest the "mozzies" carry them away.
- 6y ago
- mc32 6y agoIt’s better than the DSL AT&T provides in some parts of SF where “you’re too far from the CO, you’re maxed out at 12”.
- francis_t_catte 6y agoLOL, try Verizon-level of rural infrastructure neglect. I paid for a guaranteed 3,300Kb/s down, 768Kb/s up. I usually got 900Kb/s down, and 150Kb/s up. to quote the linesman who had the shit job of patching together the literal 1930's(!) phone lines," I was told by corporate to absolutely not replace any lines unless they're taken out by a drunk or a tree. the cable on that spool I pull behind my truck is going to go white from sunfade long before I ever get to use it." I non-jokingly asked him which tree I should cut to 'accidentally' nail the worst sections of wire. his response was essentially 'they're all so bad you'd need to cut down a lot of trees'. Verizon DSL was my only choice beside Hughesnet or dial-up. I ended up moving instead.
- nix23 6y agoMan that's bad, here in Switzerland my Line was upgraded to 10Gbs from 1 and i was mad that the router just had four 1Gbs and one 2.5Gbs cable ports...so i had to buy the business model router with fiber LAN (witch i like much more..thinner cables).
- iagovar 6y agoDon't you have unlimited data plans in the US? Or local Wimax ISPs?
- stingraycharles 6y agoAbsolutely! As someone who lived in a third world country for 2.5y (2014-2016), I had to resort to satellite internet for semi-reliable uplink. I have to admit that I’m not too familiar with the differences between Starlink and what’s already available, but what I do know is that I had to settle for 4/0.5mbit and was really happy with it. Reliability of the connection was much more important than the throughout.
- bdamm 6y agoMain advantage of Starlink over existing satellite is a (much) lower latency. Starlink constellation is flying by with a new satellite overhead every 10 minutes or less, and they're operating just above the atmosphere. Musk has claimed 20ms latency, which if true, would be absolutely a smash victory for rural Internet users everywhere.
- stingraycharles 6y agoThat would have been absolutely awesome. If memory serves me right, my latency was around 150ms on average, which was ok-ish but not great.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SNACKeR99 6y agoOn satellite right now. I'm getting ~600ms latency :(
- thinkcontext 6y agoThe article says the beta testers are seeing 30-90ms.
- ekianjo 6y ago> The article says the beta testers are seeing 30-90ms. That's actually pretty impressive.
- puranjay 6y agoIf I can get those kinds of speeds in rural areas, I would legitimately uproot my life and move. I can work from anywhere, and I reckon, there will be more and more people like me in the post-Covid world. This has the potential to reshape our world and turn the tide away from mass urban migration.
- keanebean86 6y agoMy grandma in rural Arkansas would get 26.4 kbps over dialup. Cell service is passable outside so she could get a house mounted antenna but the data caps are so low it's not worth it. Sat internet was crazy expensive last time I checked. Also she refuses to learn computers so I gave up trying to get her internet but that's not related to this conversation.
- ingenium 6y agoThere are ways to get unlimited service still, which is what my parents do. It's just a bit... hacky. Basically you get an LTE modem and SIM swap to it. The ROOTer mod of OpenWRT is specifically for using LTE modems and works quite well. There are some drawbacks, but it's certainly better than the 1.5 Mbps DSL alternative (which they keep as a backup / automatic failover). On AT&T (technically a tablet plan) it gets deprioritized after 22 GB, but that's never been an issue for them, even the one month they did 500 GB. I've never seen their speeds affected. Costs about $20 or $25 / month. This is a riskier plan, in that AT&T could check the IMEI and shut it off at any time if it doesn't match (as they've done in the past). The Sprint plan (hotspot plan with a public routable IP, $41/month effectively, but prepaid for a year at a time) does not get deprioritized, but it's probably not worth it unless you can get band 41. If you do get band 41 you'll see some very nice speeds though, at least download. But T-Mobile is beginning to shut down Sprint's band 41, and to my knowledge this plan is not permitted to roam onto T-Mobile yet. It's keyed in their system as a mobile broadband plan with a 20 or 25 GB bucket of data, however it has unlimited overage. I done hundreds of GB on it no problem. It exists only because of the licensing arrangement for Sprint to use the EBS band 41 spectrum.
- zbrozek 6y agoI know someone on that tablet plan (which, BTW, you can no longer get - go check ebay) who lost it by consistently hitting 1TB every month. What's the Sprint plan?
- pseudosavant 6y agoI'll throw a mention in for OpenWRT too. I tether my iPhone to my OpenWRT router when I've had meaningful internet outages. I've done it using wifi and USB/lightning. Being wired is more reliable obviously. I'm sure my carrier can tell it is tethered data though. Which has its own caps/throttling.
- tetha 6y agoReliable 10mbps is a stable full hd stream and 5ish mbps to spare. Easily one stable video call or two at lower quality. It'll be annoying if you want to download the latest AAA shooter coming in at dozens and dozens of gigabytes, sure. But you can do a lot at 10mbps as 1-2 people needing the uplink. That's really nice.
- gregmac 6y agoIf you're already used to scheduling this overnight, having it done in only one night is going to be a significant improvement.
- curiousllama 6y agoTotally agree. Also - my frustrations over the last few days compel me to point out that the latest AAA shooter is in fact 227 GB, plus >100GB of updates.
- kickopotomus 6y agoHas anyone come out with a reason for the size? I mean they seem to reuse a lot of the same textures throughout the game so I have a hard time understanding how it managed to swell to that.
- felbane 6y agoPeople keep paying for it. That's pretty much it. There's no legitimate reason for a game at the resolutions common to modern consoles to be that big. Then again, I guess you have to store all those textures for the $9.99 exclusive hot pink and baby shit yellow digital camo shotgun skin somewhere...
- csharptwdec19 6y agoIDK if they do this for PC versions... But a lot of these games not only Reuse textures but also duplicate them. They do this to improve load times for levels/etc (less seeking). Playstation DOOM is an early example of this pattern. The WAD files were actually 'per-level' and contained all sprites/textures/etc used in said level.
- rubber_duck 6y agoAnd 30-100 ping is usable as well - wonder what the packet loss rate is.
- quink 6y agoI am with one of the world’s biggest telcos, Telstra, on a fully owned and operated fibre-to-the-premises network. I live in a decade old estate half an hour from the centres of the third and sixth largest cities in the country. The maximum upload speed currently on sale on that network is 1 Mbps. And it’s a monopoly. Inequality in Internet access aside, that maximum is below the average fixed upload speed of 170 out of 170 countries listed by Speedtest.net. 1 Mbps. I did three months of complaining and got 5 Mbps. The local regulator doesn’t care because even though they’re not actively selling it, said monopoly network is “capable of 5 Mbps”. Contention aside, this and 5G will be important for those jailed by infrastructure monopolists. Here an extreme example, but the same is true across North America too, for instance. Rural users sure, but this can extend beyond that.
- SyneRyder 6y ago> I am with one of the world’s biggest telcos, Telstra... You have my condolences :( That's so bizarre to have that kind of low speed on fibre, though. I'm half an hour by car / bus from the 4th biggest city, and I'm reliably getting 10Mbps upload over the copper lines. (I was getting the full 20Mbps of my plan, until NBN recently botched the repair of a temporary line fault - their repair guy even said it was the legal required minimum speed and he wasn't going to try any harder than that.) Is iiNet not available where you are? Though since it's all NBN now, the reseller telco shouldn't make any difference. That 6th biggest city is awesome though - if I didn't live here, I'd move there. 3rd biggest is a nice place too.
- quink 6y agoIt’s “Telstra Velocity”. It just got a special exemption to not make it operate like the NBN renewed because, and I paraphrase the federal government’s words: “because they couldn’t be arsed and if we didn’t renew it they’d turn off the Internet and blame it on us”. I too would like to have regulatory exemptions extended indefinitely with the excuse being that I can’t be arsed, but elected officials can just tell people to use mobile data instead like my local one did. Charging taxpayers more than $30,000 over a year. No other providers are available. Technically OCCOM and probably still Exetel, but they can’t offer faster speeds and have to charge more than even Telstra. My most recent communication with the federal communications department included this wonderful phrase: > “Please note that this legislation applies only to the capabilities of the network. The plans offered to individual consumers may be limited to slower speeds.”
- abledon 6y agoI get ~2 mbps in my rural area (Canada). This is a major upgrade for me. RIP Bell.
- blocked_again 6y ago> Even a reliable 10mbps What are some applications that requires more than 10mbps speed in rural places?
- vinw 6y agoProbably same applications that require more than 10mbps in non-rural places.
- zdragnar 6y agoSame applications as anywhere urban. We folk living out in the sticks may appreciate the outdoors more, but there's still those of us who do use computers. Example: Downloading modern software over anything at 10mbps is a royal pain- VMs, docker containers, bloated IDEs, gigabytes worth of OS updates, tens of gigabytes for games, you name it. Streaming services cap quality, or stutter out horribly. Don't even bother trying to stream over satellite (even at 25mbs with hughsnet, for example), you'll blow your cap out of the water in a hurry and it'll make you resent leaving the 90's.
- abledon 6y agoWINDOWS 10 OS. The amount of updates you have to download weekly is insane. cripples my connection to do anything else for hours at a time. Have to switch to "metered connection" to trick it into thinking im connceted to internet on a smartphone with super expensive$$$ dataplan, so to leave any updates as 'frozen'. (for a non tech saavy person, they would be driven nuts... every day their computer would just grind to a halt doing network stuff and not know why)
- zbrozek 6y agoMy rule of thumb is to budget 3 mbps for every "real computer" to keep itself up to date. By my count, in my home, that's 15. Here that's phones, traditional computers, VMs, and Raspberry Pis. And about 1 mbps for every "kinda computer". So that would include smart speakers and televisions.
- CloudNetworking 6y agoA family.
- buu700 6y agoAgreed. Maybe it's gotten better, but when I used HughesNet in the middle of the woods in Maine, I would say it was comparable to dial-up except with worse latency and reliability. Anything in the ballpark of a 4G connection would have been phenomenal.
- eddieh 6y agoViasat is already available and provides 12-100 Mbps service. Viasat only uses 4 satellites. HughesNet provides up to 25 Mbps service and I think has 5 satellites. Caveat: Of course I've never used either service myself, so I can not speak to the actual download speeds vs advertised speeds.
- AmbientNomad 6y agoI live in a rural area where both of these services are available. They both come with seriously outdated data caps. Hugesnet, if I recall, charges $150/month for their fastest tier, but after 50gb, your speed is reduced to 300kbps. I haven't experienced either service, but I regularly read that they are riddled with disconnects and spotty service. Currently we're paying a ridiculous amount, $200/month, to Unlimitedville for what is literally just a 4G hotspot in our house, but with an actual, usable data limit (1tb/month). I have some serious concerns about Starlink, but until we decide that internet is a utility and rural people need access too, I guess I'm happy to see at least somebody is trying to make rural internets better.
- vardump 6y ago"I have some serious concerns about Starlink..." Curious, what kind?
- itsoktocry 6y ago>Curious, what kind? Maybe that you might be forced into an NDA for a service that never ends up delivering on promises?
- shaklee3 6y agoBoth the speeds and the latency are worse than what was originally promised. there have also been no pricing for the plans, nor have there been pricing for the equipment. This has been the biggest downsides since day one.
- ideals 6y agoI saw someone in this thread mention hacking a 4g tablet plan to work as modem doing a sim swap. You could possibly do something similar by setting up 2 or 3 separate accounts so have individual data caps on each and cycle through them each month. It sounds like a hassle but could save you enough to be worth it
- markholmes 6y agoThis also makes remote work more viable in non-traditional locations.
- xienze 6y agoBandwidth is great and all, but satellite latency is a killer. Been there, done that.
- hackstack 6y agoThis is mentioned on literally every Starlink thread I read, and the response is always that unlike previous satellite internet offerings, Starlink operates in low earth orbit, drastically reducing the ping time. Do you have more to add?
- yencabulator 6y agoThis ain't your grandpa's Hughes. > latencies or ping rates ranging from 31ms to 94ms That's on par or better than what I can get with either point-to-point wifi to small ISP or LTE.
- toast0 6y ago31ms isn't too bad compared to the 20ms I get on bonded vdsl2.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bryanlarsen 6y agoLucky the article includes ping times then.
- yencabulator 6y agoWhat he said. From the article: > While 60Mbps isn't a gigabit, it's on par with some of the lower cable speed tiers and is much higher than speeds offered by many DSL services in the rural areas LOWER?! Cable doesn't even serve non-television use near me. Phone lines can carry 5 Mbps DSL if you're lucky. I happen to have a line-of-sight to a major radio tower so I get wifi from a mom-and-pop ISP, with a 10 Mbps cap. If I was on the other side of a hill, I'd be screwed.
- dzhiurgis 6y agoModern VDSL can reach around 200mbps at distances something around 3-5 km from exchange. DSL obviously lower but possibly similar to Starlink. All that said you can those speeds with Starlink anywhere, for much less than installing a phone line.
- yencabulator 6y agoPossible != commercially available. I talked to the guy doing DSL installs in my area, he says 5 Mbps max if you get lucky. Starlink is leapfrogging the cable/telco industries by not needing the same infrastructure.
- shaklee3 6y agoNo, it's not. So far you don't know anything about the price or the actual speeds that will be offered. So far all we know is that the latency numbers that were promised of sub 20ms are clearly not going to happen.
- Dylan16807 6y ago> So far all we know is that the latency numbers that were promised of sub 20ms are clearly not going to happen. What? How do we 'know' that? This is only a beta, and we don't know how carefully the testing was done, and we don't know how far away the servers were from the ground stations. And some users already managed results of 20ms.
- graham_paul 6y agoTo me that frustration comes from a lack of understanding that living in a sparsely populated area comes with the good (less people around) and the bad (worse infrastructure)
- pier25 6y agoTotally. A couple of years back we lived in some mountains in Mexico and the best connection around for miles was less than 5Mbps. Most people had less than 1Mbps. We then moved closer to civilization and I remember being amazed to be able to watch Netflix in 4K with a 20Mbps connection around 2015 or so.
- actuator 6y agoAgreed. I have travelled to remote places where this speed would have been a godsend, not just for internet but for telephony as well with VoIP. Imagine the kids living in such places finally getting access to all the stuff internet has to offer. The only thing to watch out would be pricing. I hope there is more competition so the price remains competitive.
- wyldfire 6y ago> and it will just get better. Won't it get worse when it's generally available? More congestion on the same channel means less per-user throughput right?
- Traster 6y agoAnd when it's at scale it'll actually have to make a profit.
- shaklee3 6y agoIt's going to get worse. Right now it's completely uncongested. The terminals are not built to handle two satellites at the same time, so the throughput they are getting now is likely close to the maximum that they will be seeing.
- serf 6y ago>Even a reliable 10mbps would be a godsend in many places. my first foray into 'rural' internet was during the late 90s, using a satellite+modem setup. The bandwidth was fairly decent -- equivalent to a fast ISDN line -- but the reliability was horrendous. Drops constantly, only to wait for a whole new modem negotiation and reconnect. Think about the idea of an analogue phone modem but over an unreliable aerial connection. My point in this anecdote : don't take the upstream/downstream values at face value -- there are more things that go into a connection that's actually worth using. That said , I have nothing but hope for Starlink. I still frequent rural areas that , if broadband is available, it's severely limited bandwidth. I'm glad there will soon exist an alternative -- let's hope that efforts are made to keep the astronomers happy so that this network can be a real boon to humanity.
- ExtremisAndy 6y agoYou’ve got that right! I taught remotely all summer long on 6mpbs down/ 0.3 up. Dreadful. Just enough upload speed for PowerPoint + my voice. I’d love for something like Starlink to work.
- jobu 6y agoMy Xfinity "Up to 1Gbps" plan never tests above 60Gbps on any speed test other than their own. If nothing else Starlink should light a fire under Comcast, CenturyLink and others to start providing actual fast internet.
- burtonator 6y agoI'm living in a canyon about 30 minutes from down. Our fastest internet is about 5Mbit... I used to live in downtown SF where I had a gigabit. As soon as I can get Starlink I'm on it.
- dylan604 6y agoWhen I was growing up, 56.6kbps was the hotness. However, in the boonies where I lived, the best I could do was 33.6kbps. Most of the time, I was lucky to get 28.8, but would never get less than 14.4. Turned out, that the central switch for our town was so old and we were so far from it that there was no way for it to provide a clean enough signal for >33.6. When HughesNet came out, we tried it. It was horrible. Only if we were lucky would we get a signal better than our dial-up's download speed. The thing about Hughes is that we still connected with a dial-up for Tx. Only Rx came from space. All of that to say HELL YES, those are amazing speeds. However, as an adult, I became cityfolk, and have full 1Gbps up/down via fiber.
- war1025 6y agoI remember as a teen I'd go on Digg and open all the articles in separate tabs so that by the time I was done reading the text ones some of the images would be loaded on the ones with pictures. We've come a long way.
- myself248 6y agoOh, you had tabs! We had to use new browser instances! Uphill, in the snow! Seriously though, I still do this out of habit, as it's just how I like to read. Skim a front page, open all the articles in tabs, and then go back and peruse them.
- IntelMiner 6y agoI remember when Internet Explorer 7 released with tab support. I'd been using Firefox since 1.0 (something like 5 years at that point?) He whisked me over to his laptop and started opening tabs, before looking at me like he was the first man to discover fire When I responded "oh, I've had that for years" he looked genuinely shattered at my reaction
- Marsymars 6y agoTabs in 2000 with Opera v4, before it even had a freeware option!
- api 6y agoHell for some 'holler down in West Virginia or Kentucky a reliable 3mbps would be amazing. Many of those sorts of places have 384kbps-768kbps DSL or even dialup... in 2020. They just don't have the infrastructure and it costs way too much to build out last mile over vast stretches of land with few customers, and it's compounded in some areas by a lack of even stable right-of-way where you can easily run cable. The market for this is huge. It's probably not going to displace high-end broadband in medium sized to larger metro areas, but it can clean up when it comes to anything outside of that. The only possible competitor is fixed wireless using next-generation modulations that provide incredible range, but that's hard to deploy over a wide area if the land is not really really flat. I guess 4G could compete too if they radically cut their prices, but I'm not sure the backhaul networks out in them 'thar hills would even be up to the traffic.
- crdotson 6y agoOur holler in Kentucky has fiber to the premises through a federal grant a few years back, but I’ll admit that’s unusual. :)
- chemmail 6y agoI had 5mbps at work. Then finally 5 years later they are able to get me 12mbps. A block down can get 200mbps from same company. My friend a mile away can get 2gbps fiber. And i have joyous 0.2mbps uploads WTFFFFF
- dexterdog 6y agoHow does it scale though? If want 20mbps do I just get two antennas? At which point does it max out for a single location?
- jv22222 6y ago"and it will just get better." is proven with any Musk co (that I know of).
- dpweb 6y agoIt's about expectations. Yes, 10-50 Mbps is pretty acceptable. Today. It won't be in 5-10 years. 5G will make 1000 Mbps at 1ms, pretty much the expectation, and the apps of tomorrow will need it. In 10 years people will be talking about 50MBps like they do 3G today. I cannot operate hardly a single app on my phone on 3G. It's worthless in 2020.
- shaklee3 6y agoSatellite internet well above 10M has been available for many years already. This isn't anything new.
- PopeDotNinja 6y agoI've been a digital nomad for almost a year now. If I can get 5 Mbps down/up, I can do my work without interruption. In a couple places where I could only get 1 Mbps down/up, I could still do my work w/ a bit of patience on transfer speeds & good enough audio, as long as I didn't need to do much screen sharing & video uploading, and I could usually compensate when I really had to by tethering/hotpotting to my mobile phone. !0 Mbps would be fine for one person for most things. Might feel slow for a family during peak times.
- J0_k3r 6y agothis has been done with radio-based meshnets like the puget sound data ring for years, the government hasn't updated the legislation to allow encryption and commercial data on said meshnets, making them useless. we could already be providing free internet to millions if it weren't for the government and their dumb regulations.
- ac29 6y agoI know encryption is controversial, but I cant say I've ever heard someone say that ham radio bands should be allowed to carry commercial traffic (other than people who want to just get rid of those bands all together and auction them off).
- J0_k3r 6y agoyou misunderstand. I was saying that a special exception should be made for meshnets and only meshnets, and for no other application on the ham bands.