5 ms·

Regardless of these quarrels among competitors, Starlink is doing impressive things. From the website[1]: Starlink is now delivering initial beta service bot

Regardless of these quarrels among competitors, Starlink is doing impressive things. From the website[1]: Starlink is now delivering initial beta service both domestically and internationally, and will continue expansion to near global coverage of the populated world in 2021. They're also going to minimize their contribution to space junk: At end of life, the satellites will utilize their on-board propulsion system to deorbit over the course of a few months. In the unlikely event the propulsion system becomes inoperable, the satellites will burn up in Earth’s atmosphere within 1-5 years, significantly less than the hundreds or thousands of years required at higher altitudes. Also interesting is that they're using "ion thrusters powered by krypton" and claim this is the first spacecraft to use this propulsion method. If they can boost data transfer speed from 40-60Mb/s currently to N gigabits/second, perhaps will provide stiff competition to conventional cell carriers. These are exciting times. 1. https://www.starlink.com/ https://www.starlink.com/

cozzyd 6y ago
The satellites are much farther away than cell towers and operating at a much higher frequency, meaning your link budget tens of dB worse. So short answer, is no, it's impractical for cell phones.
mdasen 6y ago
It probably won't provide competition to cell carriers for a few reasons. Starlink's equipment is large and needs a direct view of the sky. Their app needs to take photos of where you're positioning the receiver/transmitter to make sure there are no obstructions. The fact that they're using satellites means that they can get very broad coverage, but between the fact that it's satellite and the fact that they're using very high frequency spectrum means that it requires line-of-sight. From what I can see, Starlink is using a lot more power to transmit than cell phones are really capable of given the battery constraints. I think the more likely possibility is Starlink offering backhaul for rural cell sites where it might be cost prohibitive to run fiber. However, I'm not sure it would be more cost effective to use satellite backhaul than terrestrial microwave or fiber. Satellites aren't cheap, but who knows. In terms of boosting the data transfer speed, that won't be simple. Terrestrial wireless (like cell carriers) can offer good speeds because each cell tower is covering a very limited area. If you're 20 miles away from me, we'll be connecting to different cell towers and therefore can use the same radio spectrum without interfering with each other. With satellites, a lot more people will be sharing the same radio spectrum. Now, I'm sure Starlink is operating under the idea that they can launch lots of satellites and get decent spectrum re-use. However, cell carriers have around 80,000 cell sites each. Starlink is only planning on launching 10,000-15,000 and hoping to get permission to get up to 30,000. That still means a lot more sharing of the same spectrum. You can get higher speed by using more spectrum. However, that spectrum needs to be licensed, it isn't always cheap, and other people want to license it too. The way that the gigabit speeds from wireless carriers work is by using many hundreds of MHz of spectrum that can't go very far (because it gets disrupted by things like buildings, trees, etc.). Lower frequency spectrum can go further (since it penetrates objects better), but there's a pretty limited amount of it and most of it is already spoken for (whether that's TV, FM radio, current wireless service, etc.). I think Starlink will provide a good option for many people who don't live in areas well-served by current internet options. It's a huge jump to believe that it will offer competition to cell carriers. It just isn't that type of technology and you run into limits that you can't really get around. That's not to say that Starlink isn't important. It is important for many people who don't have access to good internet in the US and around the world, but it isn't going to provide competition for your cell phone provider.
- m463 6y ago
  What about vehicle links currently using cellular? I'm just waiting for tesla cars to all have starlink instead of (or in addition to LTE).
  - dzhiurgis 6y ago
    95% of miles are urban where you 90% of time you've got LTE. What's the use case for Starlink in cars?
    - m463 6y ago
      Cost savings for tesla. It's cellular service for lots of cars. Or put another way, they don't pay global telecom providers, and instead they pay themselves, which helps fund space travel. It's also possible they could do some fancy multicast updates of software/maps or some other fancy thing.
      - dzhiurgis 6y ago
        Not right now at 1.5k per device && -2% of range, but at some point it's no brainer, especially for trucks or special purpose vehicles.
        m463 6y ago
        That's a good point. Trucks would be a great use case. They have the space on the roof, they have plenty of power and are less cost sensitive. Real time logistics is a big deal. I've driven across the US and even on major highways cellular coverage is spotty. There might be a self-driving or emergency response angle too. As for costs, I suspect it will all get cost-reduced like their self-driving computer (or cellular or wifi, ...)

cozzyd 6y ago

The satellites are much farther away than cell towers and operating at a much higher frequency, meaning your link budget tens of dB worse. So short answer, is no, it's impractical for cell phones.

mdasen 6y ago

It probably won't provide competition to cell carriers for a few reasons. Starlink's equipment is large and needs a direct view of the sky. Their app needs to take photos of where you're positioning the receiver/transmitter to make sure there are no obstructions. The fact that they're using satellites means that they can get very broad coverage, but between the fact that it's satellite and the fact that they're using very high frequency spectrum means that it requires line-of-sight. From what I can see, Starlink is using a lot more power to transmit than cell phones are really capable of given the battery constraints. I think the more likely possibility is Starlink offering backhaul for rural cell sites where it might be cost prohibitive to run fiber. However, I'm not sure it would be more cost effective to use satellite backhaul than terrestrial microwave or fiber. Satellites aren't cheap, but who knows. In terms of boosting the data transfer speed, that won't be simple. Terrestrial wireless (like cell carriers) can offer good speeds because each cell tower is covering a very limited area. If you're 20 miles away from me, we'll be connecting to different cell towers and therefore can use the same radio spectrum without interfering with each other. With satellites, a lot more people will be sharing the same radio spectrum. Now, I'm sure Starlink is operating under the idea that they can launch lots of satellites and get decent spectrum re-use. However, cell carriers have around 80,000 cell sites each. Starlink is only planning on launching 10,000-15,000 and hoping to get permission to get up to 30,000. That still means a lot more sharing of the same spectrum. You can get higher speed by using more spectrum. However, that spectrum needs to be licensed, it isn't always cheap, and other people want to license it too. The way that the gigabit speeds from wireless carriers work is by using many hundreds of MHz of spectrum that can't go very far (because it gets disrupted by things like buildings, trees, etc.). Lower frequency spectrum can go further (since it penetrates objects better), but there's a pretty limited amount of it and most of it is already spoken for (whether that's TV, FM radio, current wireless service, etc.). I think Starlink will provide a good option for many people who don't live in areas well-served by current internet options. It's a huge jump to believe that it will offer competition to cell carriers. It just isn't that type of technology and you run into limits that you can't really get around. That's not to say that Starlink isn't important. It is important for many people who don't have access to good internet in the US and around the world, but it isn't going to provide competition for your cell phone provider.

m463 6y ago
What about vehicle links currently using cellular? I'm just waiting for tesla cars to all have starlink instead of (or in addition to LTE).
- dzhiurgis 6y ago
  95% of miles are urban where you 90% of time you've got LTE. What's the use case for Starlink in cars?
  - m463 6y ago
    Cost savings for tesla. It's cellular service for lots of cars. Or put another way, they don't pay global telecom providers, and instead they pay themselves, which helps fund space travel. It's also possible they could do some fancy multicast updates of software/maps or some other fancy thing.
    - dzhiurgis 6y ago
      Not right now at 1.5k per device && -2% of range, but at some point it's no brainer, especially for trucks or special purpose vehicles.
      - m463 6y ago
        That's a good point. Trucks would be a great use case. They have the space on the roof, they have plenty of power and are less cost sensitive. Real time logistics is a big deal. I've driven across the US and even on major highways cellular coverage is spotty. There might be a self-driving or emergency response angle too. As for costs, I suspect it will all get cost-reduced like their self-driving computer (or cellular or wifi, ...)