4 ms·
Let's see how well it copes with more users. My guess is it won't cope well. There is only 20gig/sec of capacity per satelite, and I believe that is raw speed,
by martinald 6y ago
Let's see how well it copes with more users. My guess is it won't cope well. There is only 20gig/sec of capacity per satelite, and I believe that is raw speed, which will get hammered in poor weather conditions and more FEC or less efficient QAM is required.
20gig/sec is not a lot of capacity for many thousands of square kms. It's 1-2k users at peak times watching Netflix for example on 1080p or 4K streams, nevermind everything else. It is probably not far off many DOCSIS CMTS allocations, which get horrendously overloaded being only a few city blocks.
My guess is after beta they will get rid of the unlimited aspect pretty sharpish, and probably introduce aggressive traffic shaping.
It is likely to work very well in very rural areas with no major cities or towns in line of sight of the satelite. However, for suburbs/exurbs close to cities and towns which have poor internet I think the experience will be pretty poor once it has more customers (especially in Europe. There are basically no truly remote areas).
- intrasight 6y agoStarlink will be a huge improvement in rural areas.
- jonplackett 6y agoThat's mostly OK though. It makes no sense financially in cities anyway. I would love to get Starlink just because it's awesome, but I'm in a city and can get 350gbps broadband for £50 a month so it would be kinda pointless.
- mleonhard 6y agoCould they add more satellites to increase bandwidth? I can imagine a continuous stream that passes over multiple cities. Urban ground stations would have a choice of 5-10 satellites visible at any time.