4 ms·

I work for a wisp as a software engineer. I'm knowledgeable enough about our network/prices. None of the network engineers believe the numbers spacex is claimin

by twiclo 5y ago

I work for a wisp as a software engineer. I'm knowledgeable enough about our network/prices. None of the network engineers believe the numbers spacex is claiming they can do yet they can see it right in front of their eyes. The main argument is, "Well once this network actually gets any load it'll crumble." Or, "The latency is going to be through the roof." But people who live where a WISP is their only option already don't care about latency all that much. I can't definitively say this is going to be disruptive but I can tell they're nervous. From my perspective the future of rural internet is in space.

foobiekr 5y ago
I work in networking but not for an ISP. I have worked in networking for a long time. To me, Starlink looks like a very typical Musk venture - vastly, vastly overhyped. As someone who would like to move to a more rural area, it appeals to me, but the numbers don't work. The _total planned switching capacity_ of the starlink constellation, and I emphasize planned because the current capacity is kind of a joke, is approximately that of a single current generation multi-linecard network switch. And that's assuming they do in-space switching, which at the moment they do not, and to my knowledge none of the current satellites are even capable of doing so in a non-experimental production capacity. They also have very significant routing challenges if they ever do that (and even if they don't). Worse, the skinny end of the pipe is on the wrong side of the satellites, so even things like caches are not really going to help them. It just isn't even remotely possible that Starlink is going to provide the current level of service once they get any kind of significant user uptake. The bandwidth per spot is too low and the spots are too large. I personally think that half the Starlink story (inter-satellite switching) is going to be SpaceX's "full self driving." Unlike FSD, SpaceX has an easy out - they will build out enough ground station coverage that they don't need to do inter-satellite switching except for the air/sea cases and those markets they may simply abandon. The true innovation of Starlink is that their ground stations are dirt cheap, but that's not a sexy story.

by twiclo 5y ago

foobiekr 5y ago

I work in networking but not for an ISP. I have worked in networking for a long time. To me, Starlink looks like a very typical Musk venture - vastly, vastly overhyped. As someone who would like to move to a more rural area, it appeals to me, but the numbers don't work. The _total planned switching capacity_ of the starlink constellation, and I emphasize planned because the current capacity is kind of a joke, is approximately that of a single current generation multi-linecard network switch. And that's assuming they do in-space switching, which at the moment they do not, and to my knowledge none of the current satellites are even capable of doing so in a non-experimental production capacity. They also have very significant routing challenges if they ever do that (and even if they don't). Worse, the skinny end of the pipe is on the wrong side of the satellites, so even things like caches are not really going to help them. It just isn't even remotely possible that Starlink is going to provide the current level of service once they get any kind of significant user uptake. The bandwidth per spot is too low and the spots are too large. I personally think that half the Starlink story (inter-satellite switching) is going to be SpaceX's "full self driving." Unlike FSD, SpaceX has an easy out - they will build out enough ground station coverage that they don't need to do inter-satellite switching except for the air/sea cases and those markets they may simply abandon. The true innovation of Starlink is that their ground stations are dirt cheap, but that's not a sexy story.