3 ms·

Source? I'm not from US but I googled around and Viasat offer 30/3 mbps with a soft speed cap after 100GB for 150usd/month [1] Hughes offers 25/3 mbps priced p

Source? I'm not from US but I googled around and Viasat offer 30/3 mbps with a soft speed cap after 100GB for 150usd/month [1] Hughes offers 25/3 mbps priced per data cap 50GB is 140 usd + equipment lease of 15usd /month.[2] Neither of which is even remotely close to Starlink's offering. 1 - https://promo.viasat.com/plans/standard-30-715T5-11796UC.html https://promo.viasat.com/plans/standard-30-715T5-11796UC.htm... 2 - https://www.hughesnet.com/get-started https://www.hughesnet.com/get-started

shaklee3 6y ago
OP said "where people couldn't get more than 10/2 or so for any price." Your response directly refutes that, so I don't know why you are asking for a source. I didn't say either of those are competitive with a non-existent service offering from starlink. Wait until they have a real service that is oversubscribed, then we can discuss what plans they'll offer.
- lazide 6y ago
  Hughesnet and other geostationary providers have 400+ Latency that are rather terrible.
  - shaklee3 6y ago
    Again, OP was talking about speeds, not latency. Nobody is going to refute geo has higher latency than Leo.
    - lazide 6y ago
      400+ms pings make the connection useless for anything resembling interactive use, which is pertinent. If my internet provider had 100mbs symmetric but I got that kind of ping I wouldn't even consider it a functioning internet connection, let alone 100 mbs, even if in some theoretical tuned workload I could actually move data that fast (UUCP with tuned TCP window sizes? UDP with some sort of custom packet loss recovery algo?)
      - shaklee3 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you keep going down this rabbit hole, but OP was talking about bandwidth, not latency. Bandwidth on current generation satellites is just as high, or higher than Starlink. Satellite does not use TCP over the air. They have technologies for higher-latency links that make latency appear lower by controlling the window at the gateway side.

shaklee3 6y ago

OP said "where people couldn't get more than 10/2 or so for any price." Your response directly refutes that, so I don't know why you are asking for a source. I didn't say either of those are competitive with a non-existent service offering from starlink. Wait until they have a real service that is oversubscribed, then we can discuss what plans they'll offer.

lazide 6y ago
Hughesnet and other geostationary providers have 400+ Latency that are rather terrible.
- shaklee3 6y ago
  Again, OP was talking about speeds, not latency. Nobody is going to refute geo has higher latency than Leo.
  - lazide 6y ago
    400+ms pings make the connection useless for anything resembling interactive use, which is pertinent. If my internet provider had 100mbs symmetric but I got that kind of ping I wouldn't even consider it a functioning internet connection, let alone 100 mbs, even if in some theoretical tuned workload I could actually move data that fast (UUCP with tuned TCP window sizes? UDP with some sort of custom packet loss recovery algo?)
    - shaklee3 6y ago
      I'm not sure why you keep going down this rabbit hole, but OP was talking about bandwidth, not latency. Bandwidth on current generation satellites is just as high, or higher than Starlink. Satellite does not use TCP over the air. They have technologies for higher-latency links that make latency appear lower by controlling the window at the gateway side.