4 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised if their 'incomplete' coverage were limited to areas within range of large metros. Even if the PR is around underserved areas, the money

by aabhay 6y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if their 'incomplete' coverage were limited to areas within range of large metros. Even if the PR is around underserved areas, the money is in suburbs.

kanox 6y ago
Even in the current configuration without inter-satellite links coverage extends for almost 1000km from a gateway. I'm pretty sure they have enough gateways for the entire US landmass.
blhack 6y ago
I think that is fundamentally at odds with how the satellites have been deployed, isn't it? These aren't at high geosync orbits. The satellites aren't in a stationary location relative to a point on the earth, so I don't think you'd be able to limit the coverage to specific geographic locations.
walrus01 6y ago
I have a map (from all public FCC earth station filing data) of the almost two dozen starlink earth stations so far licensed in the 48 states. Many of them are in medium sized cities surrounded by rural areas, or already in fairly sparsely populated areas colocated with long haul fiber ILAs and well positioned to serve very rural areas. For instance there's one in Idaho that's adjacent to some intercity fiber (from where they're almost certainly buying a transport circuit to get to Seattle) which will have simultaneous visibility of satellites serving a vast area that has no WISPs and is presently dependent on consumer grade geostationary VSAT stuff. The problem right now is sufficient density of satellites for seamless handover coverage to a CPE (make-before-break). Which would be the same problem if you were trying to serve a suburb of Seattle or a very rural area in Montana. I rate it as highly unlikely that at the point in time when an ordinary consumer with a visa card can sign up for starlink service, they only offer it in major metro areas. The siting choices for the earth stations say otherwise. Technological and economic limitations in Starlink, at least with the first/second generation of stuff mean that it's not competition for the sort of wireline services you can get in the suburb of a major metro area. If I were in Kirkland, WA and could get 500 to 1000 Mbps Comcast service, or gigabit GPON from Centurylink(Lumen), I'd certainly sign up for that before Starlink. You'd be looking at something that may top out at max speeds of 150-200Mbps down and 40-80 Mbps upstream (Starlink) vs a copper coaxial or fiber last mile setup that can do 800 down, and 300-600 Mbps up.

by aabhay 6y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if their 'incomplete' coverage were limited to areas within range of large metros. Even if the PR is around underserved areas, the money is in suburbs.

kanox 6y ago

Even in the current configuration without inter-satellite links coverage extends for almost 1000km from a gateway. I'm pretty sure they have enough gateways for the entire US landmass.

blhack 6y ago

I think that is fundamentally at odds with how the satellites have been deployed, isn't it? These aren't at high geosync orbits. The satellites aren't in a stationary location relative to a point on the earth, so I don't think you'd be able to limit the coverage to specific geographic locations.

walrus01 6y ago

I have a map (from all public FCC earth station filing data) of the almost two dozen starlink earth stations so far licensed in the 48 states. Many of them are in medium sized cities surrounded by rural areas, or already in fairly sparsely populated areas colocated with long haul fiber ILAs and well positioned to serve very rural areas. For instance there's one in Idaho that's adjacent to some intercity fiber (from where they're almost certainly buying a transport circuit to get to Seattle) which will have simultaneous visibility of satellites serving a vast area that has no WISPs and is presently dependent on consumer grade geostationary VSAT stuff. The problem right now is sufficient density of satellites for seamless handover coverage to a CPE (make-before-break). Which would be the same problem if you were trying to serve a suburb of Seattle or a very rural area in Montana. I rate it as highly unlikely that at the point in time when an ordinary consumer with a visa card can sign up for starlink service, they only offer it in major metro areas. The siting choices for the earth stations say otherwise. Technological and economic limitations in Starlink, at least with the first/second generation of stuff mean that it's not competition for the sort of wireline services you can get in the suburb of a major metro area. If I were in Kirkland, WA and could get 500 to 1000 Mbps Comcast service, or gigabit GPON from Centurylink(Lumen), I'd certainly sign up for that before Starlink. You'd be looking at something that may top out at max speeds of 150-200Mbps down and 40-80 Mbps upstream (Starlink) vs a copper coaxial or fiber last mile setup that can do 800 down, and 300-600 Mbps up.