7 ms·

AT&T's been so slow in getting fiber laid in the north and west suburbs of Chicago that I know more than a dozen homes in line for Starlink. Family's been putte

AT&T's been so slow in getting fiber laid in the north and west suburbs of Chicago that I know more than a dozen homes in line for Starlink. Family's been puttering along on 25 down/5 up for the last 4 years with an annual angry phone call to keep it under $80. AT&T's done a half dozen neighborhoods that Comcast, RCA or Verizon haven't, but none their in.

zamadatix 6y ago
Starlink isn't really a solution for dense areas like suburbs at the moment, maybe in future versions. Well, at least except for the few that can get it quick.
- leetrout 6y ago
  Interesting- I didn’t realize there was a limitation by density of transceivers. Do you have a link with more info?
  - coryrc 6y ago
    Each satellite has a bandwidth limit and can cover a certain area (more satellites per area close to the poles). It's not that they "can't" it's that they won't be able to be competitive in most suburbs, at least not at this time.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      Basically, fixed wireless should win every time over satellite when fixed wireless is possible. Less path loss means more bits per Hz of bandwidth. Less exotic equipment (no beam-steering). More opportunity for densification to increase capacity. The possibility of wired backhaul. It's only when population density is low, or fill-in for areas where towers don't quite reach, or for specialized uses (military, redundancy in access, some mobile use cases, some financial use cases with reduced latency) --- that satellite is a clear win. Starlink can have a plenty big business addressing the most rural and fill-in, though.
      - zamadatix 6y ago
        Fixed wireless is plagued by line of site. The other problems haven't really been an issue for Starlink, even for being in the early phases, it's really just the density issue that bites it.
        mlyle 6y ago
        Line of sight is a bit of a pain. So is needing sky in all directions to 10-20 degrees of elevation. Satellite is great for A) where it's not worth putting up towers to reach just a few residents, and B) filling in where there's little holes in tower coverage. (This is what I tried to say in the comment you're replying to). > The other problems haven't really been an issue for Starlink, even for being in the early phases, it's really just the density issue that bites it. Capital costs are high per simultaneous user served in an area. Densification is hard. Spectral efficiency is the key figure of merit (how many bits you get to users per limited bit of radio spectrum). That is, the things I mention *are* the reasons for the "density issue".
        Retric 6y ago
        Spectrum is different with satellites as it’s using directional antenna. In theory you can have nearly arbitrary satellite density depending on efficiency. The only effective limit is the user density you’re aiming to support.
        mlyle 6y ago
        Fixed wireless uses directional antennas, too. Towers can have sector antennae, and you can have multiple towers servicing an area, too. (Indeed, small LEO satellites' ability to spot beam is limited, but sectors on fixed wireless can provide a -lot- of densification).
        Retric 6y ago
        Directional antennas on the ground are a much higher risk from obstructions. Multipath propagation is essential for large wireless networks without building giant towers everywhere.
  - zamadatix 6y ago
    I don't have a link to reference but without getting into the specific details I was shared it's not really any different than any other wireless just the problem is larger. E.g. a good AP can handle 20 clients spread 360 at different distances with pretty decent bandwidth. Put all 20 clients within 1 degree and all the same distance away and it becomes a problem trying to serve that spot.
    - CameronNemo 6y ago
      So add neighborhood wireless networks for last mile. Lay pipe later once the city is forced to cough up a license to dig.
      - zamadatix 6y ago
        Whether you serve 20 clients in one spot or 1 client 20x the size in one spot the problem is still allocating the same amount of frequency to that spot. You could get away with a single much higher end receiver which would help if you designed the satellites for it but there is still a lot of low hanging fruit Starlink needs to grab before that makes more sense than finishing adding additional frequencies and shells in the first place.
m463 6y ago
I don't know how many people can share a satellite. They're 340 miles up, and traveling 17,000mph (I think?) wonder how many satellites will be in view, for how long.
- Retric 6y ago
  1,400 satellites is enough for global coverage but their aim is 42,000. Which suggests ~40+ are going to be in range at one time.
  - m463 6y ago
    I think this is an important puzzle piece in "distributed living". Pretty soon we'll be "off-grid" with good connectivity plus the other parts like power for living and transportation without being super-expensive or super-low quality of life.
js2 6y ago
When AT&T thought Google Fiber was coming to Raleigh, NC, they magically managed to lay fiber to my subdivision on the outskirts of town. $70/mo for unlimited symmetric 1Gbps service. When they're motivated, they can apparently move quite quickly. That was over two years ago. Google Fiber still isn't available anywhere near me.
wil421 6y ago
AT&T laid fiber in my neighborhood and stopped 10 houses away in each direction. They left 20-30 houses in my neighborhood with crappy DSL. The reps I talked to said I can pay for it but I probably wouldn’t want to know the cost. Thankfully Comcast has Gigabit service but the upstream is capped at 25mbps. I enjoyed the symmetrical gigabit at my last place. For $2000 and $300 a month Comcast will give you 2.5 gigabit connection with SFP+ and a 1 gig failover.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  > For $2000 and $300 a month Comcast will give you 2.5 gigabit connection with SFP+ and a 1 gig failover. Time to make some friends with your neighbours.

zamadatix 6y ago

Starlink isn't really a solution for dense areas like suburbs at the moment, maybe in future versions. Well, at least except for the few that can get it quick.

leetrout 6y ago
Interesting- I didn’t realize there was a limitation by density of transceivers. Do you have a link with more info?
- coryrc 6y ago
  Each satellite has a bandwidth limit and can cover a certain area (more satellites per area close to the poles). It's not that they "can't" it's that they won't be able to be competitive in most suburbs, at least not at this time.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    Basically, fixed wireless should win every time over satellite when fixed wireless is possible. Less path loss means more bits per Hz of bandwidth. Less exotic equipment (no beam-steering). More opportunity for densification to increase capacity. The possibility of wired backhaul. It's only when population density is low, or fill-in for areas where towers don't quite reach, or for specialized uses (military, redundancy in access, some mobile use cases, some financial use cases with reduced latency) --- that satellite is a clear win. Starlink can have a plenty big business addressing the most rural and fill-in, though.
    - zamadatix 6y ago
      Fixed wireless is plagued by line of site. The other problems haven't really been an issue for Starlink, even for being in the early phases, it's really just the density issue that bites it.
      - mlyle 6y ago
        Line of sight is a bit of a pain. So is needing sky in all directions to 10-20 degrees of elevation. Satellite is great for A) where it's not worth putting up towers to reach just a few residents, and B) filling in where there's little holes in tower coverage. (This is what I tried to say in the comment you're replying to). > The other problems haven't really been an issue for Starlink, even for being in the early phases, it's really just the density issue that bites it. Capital costs are high per simultaneous user served in an area. Densification is hard. Spectral efficiency is the key figure of merit (how many bits you get to users per limited bit of radio spectrum). That is, the things I mention *are* the reasons for the "density issue".
        Retric 6y ago
        Spectrum is different with satellites as it’s using directional antenna. In theory you can have nearly arbitrary satellite density depending on efficiency. The only effective limit is the user density you’re aiming to support.
        mlyle 6y ago
        Fixed wireless uses directional antennas, too. Towers can have sector antennae, and you can have multiple towers servicing an area, too. (Indeed, small LEO satellites' ability to spot beam is limited, but sectors on fixed wireless can provide a -lot- of densification).
        Retric 6y ago
        Directional antennas on the ground are a much higher risk from obstructions. Multipath propagation is essential for large wireless networks without building giant towers everywhere.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  I don't have a link to reference but without getting into the specific details I was shared it's not really any different than any other wireless just the problem is larger. E.g. a good AP can handle 20 clients spread 360 at different distances with pretty decent bandwidth. Put all 20 clients within 1 degree and all the same distance away and it becomes a problem trying to serve that spot.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    So add neighborhood wireless networks for last mile. Lay pipe later once the city is forced to cough up a license to dig.
    - zamadatix 6y ago
      Whether you serve 20 clients in one spot or 1 client 20x the size in one spot the problem is still allocating the same amount of frequency to that spot. You could get away with a single much higher end receiver which would help if you designed the satellites for it but there is still a lot of low hanging fruit Starlink needs to grab before that makes more sense than finishing adding additional frequencies and shells in the first place.

m463 6y ago

I don't know how many people can share a satellite. They're 340 miles up, and traveling 17,000mph (I think?) wonder how many satellites will be in view, for how long.

Retric 6y ago
1,400 satellites is enough for global coverage but their aim is 42,000. Which suggests ~40+ are going to be in range at one time.
- m463 6y ago
  I think this is an important puzzle piece in "distributed living". Pretty soon we'll be "off-grid" with good connectivity plus the other parts like power for living and transportation without being super-expensive or super-low quality of life.

js2 6y ago

When AT&T thought Google Fiber was coming to Raleigh, NC, they magically managed to lay fiber to my subdivision on the outskirts of town. $70/mo for unlimited symmetric 1Gbps service. When they're motivated, they can apparently move quite quickly. That was over two years ago. Google Fiber still isn't available anywhere near me.

wil421 6y ago

AT&T laid fiber in my neighborhood and stopped 10 houses away in each direction. They left 20-30 houses in my neighborhood with crappy DSL. The reps I talked to said I can pay for it but I probably wouldn’t want to know the cost. Thankfully Comcast has Gigabit service but the upstream is capped at 25mbps. I enjoyed the symmetrical gigabit at my last place. For $2000 and $300 a month Comcast will give you 2.5 gigabit connection with SFP+ and a 1 gig failover.

Scoundreller 6y ago
> For $2000 and $300 a month Comcast will give you 2.5 gigabit connection with SFP+ and a 1 gig failover. Time to make some friends with your neighbours.