19 ms·

I took down my Starlink dish (but haven't cancelled)

213 points by JamesSwift 5y ago

bluedino 5y ago
No built-in ethernet, so WiFi-only? And no WiFi 6? Proprietary $60 cable? Woof.
- NDizzle 5y ago
  That's not correct. I haven't quite got all the way through the article, but yeah - not correct. It has wifi that you use to manage it, but it also has an ethernet port that you can use. I have it as one of 3 internet devices at my home in rural Arkansas. I would turn off the wifi entirely, if they allowed me, for less interference. The cable is kind of a bummer, but at least it's super high quality. I wasn't too happy about having to use a giant step bit to drill holes, as I wasn't about to cut the ethernet jack off the end of it when I ran the cable in the attic.
  - geerlingguy 5y ago
    That's how the first version router was (the one I have). The new 2nd gen router has WiFi (ac), but Ethernet is not built in. You have to buy an extra dongle that costs $20 and goes inline to the dish. The new router does have a bypass mode, so you can get around using it at all (though it still needs to be plugged in as it's the PoE source through the proprietary cable). The reset method is a bit weird, since it doesn't seem there's a button. I think you have to plug and unplug it three times within a certain time period.
    - NDizzle 5y ago
      I had no idea they launched a v2. I wonder why they would regress so much. The obvious answer is cost... but they have to know how much people want good internet service in remote areas, right? I'll pay for it and I know I'm not the only one.
      - ncallaway 5y ago
        As mentioned in the article, though, how much could the added cost of an Ethernet connector be? That can’t increase the BOM that much, right?
        stickfigure 5y ago
        Taking a wild guess here: Standard PoE+ is 30w, and even the newest PoH maxes out at 90w. The new hardware draws more than that, so Starlink made up their own PoEish standard with proprietary cable/connectors. The $20 dongle is probably a custom PoE adapter. The good thing about this setup is you only need a single cable run up to your roof. Adding an RJ45 jack directly to dishy might actually complicate the construction. For one thing, it's a weatherproofing issue. But now you have two ethernet ports and need a switch, which needs software management. It's not just a few pennies on the BOM.
        geerlingguy 5y ago
        We're talking about a typical 1 Gbps (non-PoE) LAN port on the router, so you could plug in another computer hardwired (or a switch). The jack is pennies, and the rest of the chips to support the extra Ethernet interface are still readily available. Version 1 of the router had a LAN port (labeled AUX).
        ncallaway 5y ago
        > Adding an RJ45 jack directly to dishy might actually complicate the construction It wasn't an additional jack on dishy. It was an additional jack on the router. See here for an example of the router: https://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/styles/large_wm_brw/public/article_images/2021/05/starlink-router-lifestyle-02.jpg https://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/file... One of those ports connects to the Starlink (through another box which provides the POE), and the other is labeled `aux` and is available for LAN. My understanding for the newer routers is there is now only the single port. The router itself doesn't appear to be weatherproof'ed in any way, and already needs to be installed indoors, so I think it'd just be the cost of the RJ45 jack (and whatever internal differences for the router). It just...seems like it cannot be much of a cost savings.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
fastaguy88 5y ago
I get it. If you already have internet, then Starlink is not for you. There are lots of questionable design choices (particularly in version 2), it's picky about placement, etc. etc. But if your other choice is HughesNet or its competitors, that throttles you after 15 GB (2 days of non-streaming usage for me), or 50 GB, the Starlink "shortcomings" are irrelevant. With Starlink, if you can get it, and if you can site it without blockages, you have "real" internet. Reasonable speeds and no caps/throttling. The massive over-subscription (presumably by people who have no functional alternative) suggests it serves a need. Just not a need for people who have a non-DSL wired alternative, like Jeff Geerling.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Starlink is a game changer if you don't have decent wired broadband. We had about 1 Mbps download and were the last house on the road who could get it. Then we didn't even have that. Verizon hotspot was "ok" but data was expensive so you had to watch your usage. Starlink isn't perfect--had a couple of days downtime over Christmas--but basically it works fine with 20+ Mbps bandwidth. With the prior DSL, I couldn't have worked from the house in a meaningful way. (My AT&T wireless is also very marginal.) Now I mostly could.
  - clvx 5y ago
    Similar situation but I switched to T-Mobile. I have a Starlink order but it got delayed 6 months. At this point, I'll just cancel it because T-Mobile Home Internet is a game changer.
    - alexktz 5y ago
      How "unlimited" is the T-Mobile Home Internet package?
      - AshleyGrant 5y ago
        In my experience it's been totally unlimited. I try not to abuse it, but when I re-image my desktop, Backblaze will end up uploading multiple terabytes (even though I've inherited the backup state and the drive/directory structure is identical). I've never had a single issue. The Home Internet service is 100% deprioritized compared to postpaid cell phone data, so they really are selling "excess" capacity.
perydell 5y ago
Article looks and sounds like clickbait. One of the fundamental aspects of starlink is the internet access and speed you will get. That doesn't seem to be covered here. You took down your starlink because you couldn't transfer it to someone else, are afraid of the damage starlink is doing to astronomy, and you don't like the design decisions about the new dish that you don't even have? Sorry, this doesn't make any sense.
- geerlingguy 5y ago
  I covered that last year in my 4 month review (and linked to that post in the article as well): https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2021/spacexs-starlink-review-four-months https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2021/spacexs-starlink-revi...
- mikestew 5y ago
  TFA doesn’t talk about what you think it should talk about, so it’s “clickbait”? Granted, “YouTube Face” never helps bolster one’s legitimacy, but what part of the headline did not meet expectations? By your own description, the article delivered.
- fasteddie31003 5y ago
- i_am_proteus 5y ago
  Another tell is that the performer in the video assumes an exaggerated facial expression for the thumbnail image, a common practice in click bait videos.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    Exaggerated emotions are just a way of marketing your video to viewers. It's good marketing.
    - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
      Isn't clickbait good marketing? I don't like it, but I'd say it is good marketing.
woudsma 5y ago
$240 per month for internet, wow. I didn't realise things were that expensive for people living in remote areas. I'm currently paying ~$40 (converted from EUR) per month for a 100Mb/s fiber connection.
- adventured 5y ago
  That's because it's not. The cost isn't $240 by necessity. They're knowingly overpaying for Internet access (they have multiple connections, they're not even using Starlink for example). I'm paying $34 / month in a small city in the middle of nowhere for 200mbps in the US.
  - geerlingguy 5y ago
    $140/month to get the most upload bandwidth possible at my house (35 Mbps through Spectrum). Then $99/month for Starlink (for now, at least). Meanwhile a few blocks away a friend has 500 Mbps symmetric access for $50/month.
    - iptrans 5y ago
      Time to build a wireless link to your friend :)
      - anderspitman 5y ago
        Seriously though this is achievable with consumer hardware[0], as long as you have line-of-sight or close enough to it. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-300Mbps-dual-polarized-directional-CPE510/dp/B00N2RO63U https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-300Mbps-dual-polarized-direct...
        BenjiWiebe 5y ago
        And check out Ubiquiti and Mikrotik for more hardware that does this sort of thing.
NDizzle 5y ago
I've had Starlink in Rural AR for 10 months now. I have it currently set to "failover only" on my Ubiquiti device, as it's snowing sideways and there is a tremendous (read: 30%) amount of packet loss at the moment. I don't yet know how to do automatic failover due to packet loss on a UBNT device, but that's what I'm looking up this afternoon. Anyways - I have 3 ISPs, with two of them being LTE. One is the unlimited ATT iPad plan, since I have a router that currently identifies as an iPad (so modern) with the other being TMobile home internet. Up until this snow storm, I had both of the LTE connections in failover only mode, using Starlink exclusively since about November, when there was an update that stopped the "disconnect all active sessions every ~45 minutes when I lose physical sight of the satellite I was connected to" problem. I guess that was when sat to sat communication came online in my longitude. I will also note that my IP has been static on Starlink for about 2 weeks now, which is the longest it's ever been. It's still CGNAT, so multiplayer game hosting is mostly out, unless the game handles it. Most don't. Overall it's a decent thing, but I would recommend at least one backup ISP for those rural or thinking of going rural. LTE Hacks group on Facebook can help you tremendously if you are considering buying a place outside the range of normal wired connections. It's kind of funny that snow took it down 1 day after I started looking at the premium option, which I'm considering if I can get my workplace to pay $300 per month, with me covering the other $200. Kind of dulls the excitement for that...
- LegitShady 5y ago
  starlink radomes to keep snow and cats off the dish next?
- jeffbee 5y ago
  It sounds like you have a nifty setup, but I’m surprised you would consider such a high price for your third connection. Why is it worth so much in your case? For the price, you’re approaching the amortized cost of burying miles of cable, which could be an option for people who are only a short distance from wired infrastructure.
  - NDizzle 5y ago
    Well, if I can get my cost for the premium Starlink to $200, I would drop the TMO home internet. Right now I'm paying $99 for Starlink, $23/mo ATT, $50/mo TMO. Hardware costs were $450 for the router and LTE modem (EM160g) and roughly the same for (what I know know to be the gen 1) Starlink. I had no idea they rolled out a gen 2 Starlink that's even more restricted than the first one. Ah well. When I was in NORCAL and wired, I was on business internet that was $190/mo, so that's about what I'm accustomed to. I have no idea what it would cost to wire my house. I'm miles from any infrastructure.
krisoft 5y ago
So he says that he wanted to give the dish to his cousin. Then he describes all the bureaucratic barriers he faced in that plan. But what happens if he just places the dish there? Does it immediately give an error on first connection, or doest it get banned later? I understand that the limit is because Starlink is oversubscribed in the cousin's area, I'm just wondering where the limitation is enforced.
- qayxc 5y ago
  > But what happens if he just places the dish there? That's exactly what he tried a few months back. It didn't work (no connection was possible IIRC). The service was basically geo-fenced back then and still might be.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Did he say that in the video? He never said so in the article, and its absence is conspicuous.
    - geerlingguy 5y ago
      I mentioned it in the previous review (just linked from the article). If only it were that easy :(
- sschueller 5y ago
  From what I gathered from the video is that it doesn't work there because there is no converge. Those 70 miles might be just outside the coverage area. I guess if you are right outside one of these circles https://starlink.sx/ https://starlink.sx/ it won't work
sschueller 5y ago
I don't understand why cable connections are so bad when there is DOCSIS 3.1. Is it that the cable provider just has such a limited link on their end that people are getting speeds sub 100mbit? Are they vastly over provisioning their networks?
- geerlingguy 5y ago
  In my case, Spectrum has decided that they want a flashy "gigabit tier", so they provision everything as download bandwidth (940 Mbps), and then only assign 35 Mbps upload. I'd pay extra for business class service, but it doesn't even help, it's the same speed just with some more guarantees and a stable IP.
  - sidewndr46 5y ago
    It's the same in my area. I have 200/10 now for about $78 month. I don't need more than 100 Mbps down under any circumstance. I would pay nearly $200/month to get on the 940/30 plan here. I don't really feel like paying more than double to get internet that is still painfully slow. Also the DOCSIS network in my area is such low quality it isn't reliable anyways.
    - geerlingguy 5y ago
      Yeah ever since the pandemic started, speeds average closer to 700 Mbps down (which is still about 3x more than I've ever really needed...). I would gladly pay the same amount for like 100 down/100 up, but then Spectrum couldn't call their service "Gigafast".
  - Stephen304 5y ago
    Upload speed shenanigans is what pushed me to pursue Comcast's "business tier" gigabit pro fiber and the last 3 or so years have been pure bliss. Unfortunately it's limited to locations right around the corner from fiber so yet another reason I might live in the same place forever, or at least until cheap symmetric 5 gig or more starts becoming the norm.
  - 5y ago
shortformblog 5y ago
A year or two ago I stayed in an Airbnb with the literal worst DSL connection I’ve ever run into, just dog slow, took literal minutes to load a modern website. I have to imagine the benefit of Starlink is when your alternatives are so bad that it’s like having no internet access at all, it looks pretty good. But many people aren’t dealing with that, meaning that when you have better options, something like Starlink no longer looks all that necessary. But users who are in a position where real internet is a real luxury due to location, Starlink still has value, even if it’s obviously not perfect. Especially when compared to satellite internet options that are comically slow even compared to cable modem connections that were common more than a decade ago. Good critique, Jeff.
mprev 5y ago
If you can get high speed, low latency, affordable internet access another way then Starlink probably isn't for you. We've just moved to a place where our only other option was a £400 a month leased line delivering synchronous 100Mbps. For less than a quarter of that, Starlink gives us roughly 120-150Mbps down, around 7Mbps up, and pings around the 30 ms mark. Upload is slow but workable for now. It's easy to complain for clout when you don't actually need the service. But if you don't have another affordable option, Starlink is remarkable. I keep having to remind myself that I'm running a business from my rural home via space. And, sure, there are elements that aren't perfect (the cable on our dish isn't replaceable unless you want to manually splice wires, but reports on the Starlink subreddit say that Starlink will send you a new dish if the cable gets damaged). The power draw is around the same as a fairly typical lightbulb from 20 years ago, so I can totally live with that. I know it's frustrating for people who can't get Starlink, especially if they know someone who wants transfer their dish to them, but that's the price of avoiding oversubscription. If you can take the Starlink dish off your roof and still post your videos complaining about Starlink then you were never the target customer anyway.
- pirate787 5y ago
  Agree 100%. My community is in the DC metro area and despite our relatively ex-urban setting, the corrupt local and state government has failed us. Subsidies badly misspent and monopoly policies that stifle land-based competition. Probably 25-30% (thousands of households) have no access to true broadband, just unreliable DSL from a bankrupt provider that once put our state representative on payroll. We're all clamoring for Starlink.
  - reportingsjr 5y ago
    Starlink won't work well for the sort of sprawling exurbs you live in, fyi. It can't support a very high density of dishes due to RF bandwidth limitations. Starlink's key markets are fairly spread out rural areas, not infrastructure expensive exurbs and suburbs.
    - cozzyd 5y ago
hanklazard 5y ago
“Then there are other people reading who think he's the commensurate con-man” Does anyone actually think this about Elon? Think what you will about the guy’s persona, but it seems undeniable that he is doing big things in the world (and outside of it).
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Elon isn't a con man because he actually delivers but there is a streak running through him that doesn't seem to care if he deceives people as long as he reaches his higher goals. He's not a 'nice guy' in my book.
- osipov 5y ago
- geoffeg 5y ago
  I think "con man" is a bit too strong, but he does have a history of making promises that either slip significantly (misses deadlines by years) or end up not playing out at all. There are various reasons I can imagine for that, from naive optimism, to marketing or wanting to motivate people.
- jandrese 5y ago
  There is no doubt Elon has haters that will loudly proclaim that everything he does is a scam. Just read any Youtube comment section where he appears. Are they as prevalent as the people who think his feet can't touch the ground because they are too holy? I don't know, but I do know they exist.
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  Well, it did seem to be the popular perception before the first Tesla came out and the first SpaceX rocket landed again...
- reportingsjr 5y ago
  There are definitely a lot of people who think this. Go on twitter and search for "TSLAQ". There are people deluding themselves that Tesla isn't actually shipping the number of cars they claim. Maybe 7+ years ago you could try to make that claim and not be a laughing stock, but it's very odd at this point.
0x0000000 5y ago
Funny, I cancelled but haven't taken it down. Anyone looking to buy a useless Starlink terminal?
Kon-Peki 5y ago
Starlink is definitely demonstrating that there is demand and a willingness to pay. Part of me wonders if it will suffer the same fate as Iridium - terrestrial service came in and took the market away. Especially if the rollout continues to be so slow.
- darknavi 5y ago
  Well if that happens that's great. I think there will always be some sort of market for it if they can get ships/planes onboarded.
- rdsnsca 5y ago
  Already happening here in Nova Scotia.....https://internet.developns.ca https://internet.developns.ca will serve 1.5GB fibre to 95 % of homes and business by 2025. They want to do another plan after to reach the last 5 %.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  Terrestial roll out will also be slow because there is little financial incentive to do it.
mrlonglong 5y ago
Why? Were cats sleeping on it? There were recent reports that cats just liked to sleep on the dish in very cold weather as they are self heating.
driverdan 5y ago
In many areas cell data is a better choice. When I lived in a bus I traveled to almost 30 states and spent most of my time in rural areas like national forests. Finding a good signal was a lot easier than you might expect. Get the right hardware with an external antenna and high speed coverage is good in most of the country. Finding a good plan can be tough. If you can get a good T-Mobile signal they have unlimited plans for a reasonable price. AT&T has data plans that are $1/GB. There are grey market resellers that offer unlimited SIMs at an inflated price.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I've had starlink for probably a year and a half now. It has steadily improved, gotten more reliable, and is more able to avoid trees (I alas am not in an open plain). I used to have 10 seconds of blockage every 5 minutes. Now I get some blockage every... 5 hours? I also have a 5G modem appliance that I used to use for stuff like Zoom. It actually is LESS reliable than the Starlink now. Do I do massive bandwidth downloads or serve websites? No. I am the typical consumer usage. Is the expense worth giving the finger to the cable company? Oh yes. If I got around to getting rooftop solar and storage or a backup generator, then I'd be protected from a grid failure. That appeals to me, but then again going off-grid is an obsession of the typical aging male techie in America. I think it's the new "going republican when you were liberal young": instead you go pseudo-libertarian.
- Karsteski 5y ago
  Why inject worthless politics talk into your otherwise fine comment...
  - MrStonedOne 5y ago
modeless 5y ago
A lot of this is poorly informed. The reason many places can't get service isn't the number of satellites, it's the number of ground stations. The satellites don't communicate with each other, only ground stations, so there have to be some near you that the satellites can see for the entire time they're over you (either one very close to you or several farther away but surrounding you), or your signals don't have anywhere to go. The next generation of satellites will be able to communicate with each other, but they haven't really started launching in earnest yet. It may have to wait for Starship. The proprietary connector is annoying but the antenna needs 100+ watts. Power over Ethernet doesn't support that, so the antenna connector can't use standard Ethernet. If the router additionally had a standard Ethernet port then it wouldn't be weatherproof, which was clearly a design goal. They should really have done some kind of weatherproof housing for an Ethernet connector. I expect they will on the next version. Kessler syndrome is not going to happen because unlike their competitors SpaceX intentionally put all their satellites in very low orbit where the atmosphere naturally cleans up any debris within a couple of years. That's something uniquely enabled by SpaceX's low launch costs because it limits the useful life of the satellites, requiring frequent replacement. But it's worth it.
- rpdillon 5y ago
  > Kessler syndrome is not going to happen because unlike their competitors SpaceX intentionally put all their satellites in very low orbit where the atmosphere naturally cleans up any debris within a couple of years. That's something uniquely enabled by SpaceX's low launch costs because it limits the useful life of the satellites, requiring frequent replacement. I haven't researched Starlink much before, but if the target satellite count is 10k (some say 30k?) and replacements are needed every 24 months, this suggests that to keep Starlink running they need to deploy an average of ~415 satellites every month, forever. Some quick searching suggests a cost of $250k/satellite[0], for a total monthly bill of over $100M. I must be misunderstanding, because that seems pretty pricey, and it excludes launch costs, which they say are ~$30M. Maybe everything will be cheaper by the time the constellation reaches 10k satellites. [0]: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-launch-second-announcement/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-launch-s...
footlose_3815 5y ago
[dead]
zimbatm 5y ago
The pre-order queue might not be a thing anymore. At least for me, I ordered the antenna in January 2022 and got it the same month.
AcerbicZero 5y ago
I ran our satellite internet service out of Iraq when I was deployed there* - I think it was HughesNet or Bently Walker. It was one of the only ways to get unfiltered open source internet at the time, which was a requirement for our mission, and a nice bonus for us in general. Compared to no internet, satellite internet is pretty good. Compared to anything else? Take anything else. *To be fair this was also like, 10 years ago now, and Iraq sucked anyway - but I'm pretty sure bandwidth needs for general internet usage haven't gotten any lighter since then so I suspect the performance is just as atrocious as I remember.
- TinkersW 5y ago
  Ya I helped switch someone from Hughes to the v2 Starlink, it is night and day difference, and actually costs less(Hughes was like $140 for the shittiest internet imaginable)
softwarebeware 5y ago
This quote really stands out: "Many countries, including the US, have a lot of inequality when it comes to Internet access and affordability."
phkahler 5y ago
>> These connectors are dumb, and I can't think of a good reason they exist. There are ways SpaceX could improve networking hardware, but proprietary non-standard connectors ain't one of 'em. Did he ever think they might be weather proof? Looks like some rubber seals on those connectors. You know, since the dish is outdoors and has to deal with rain, sleet, or snow. I certainly wouldn't put a standard RJ45 on it. I'd like to have Starlink at my condo, do they care if I split costs with a few neighbors? Do they have group plans? It seems like having higher usage from a single terminal would be better for them vs having multiple terminals.
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  Weatherproof RJ45 fittings are well established and used by most outdoor CPE. I do assume that Starlink figured their connector design was easier to use (the typical weathertight ethernet ferrules are kind of fiddly), but it seems like a poor choice overall considering it's going to make installation a lot more complicated since the cable needs to be fished with connectors on. It seems like a decision that was made to benefit consumer "jammed through the window" install to such a degree that it will make professional installation significantly more difficult, especially that right angle connector is never going to be fishable through smurf tube the way an electrician would install it, and it'd require a huge hole to drill it through the siding the way a cable installer would. That's the big advantage of modular connectors: installers have the tools to terminate cables, so they can run the cable sans connector.
  - garaetjjte 5y ago
    It seems cable is still ordinary twisted pair, so you can just cut it, add extra waterproof connection box and use modular connectors...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
richardfey 5y ago
Why the custom connectors though?
iancmceachern 5y ago
Its interesting to me how the customer service mindset between Elon's companies and a company like Amazon is so opposite. Amazon has a almost militant drive to optimize customer experience, will take anything back, will do just about anything to please their customers. They state so. Tesla, Space X in the form if starlink, solar city all seem to have pretty piss poor customer service and experience. They get away with things you'd never tolerate from your local grocery store, car dealership or ISP. But we hold them up on a pedestal and say it's a necessary evil, part of the process. Why do they need to hold onto millions of dollars in pre-order fees from average people when they have so much investment from the rich that they could use for that purpose. It's because he isn't selling products anymore. He doesn't make his money when the product ships, he makes it when he announces a new vaporware product, collects pre-orders and stock benefits from the hype and press, and then never delivers on the actual product. Its no matter to him, by that time he has already made his money and cashed out. The only difference between Theranos and Elon's ventures is that his ventures hot the bottom 25% of the goals and timeline so its not a total lie. At the same time, it's also not totally honest.
- mprev 5y ago
  Theranos couldn’t deliver reliable tests using other people’s equipment, let alone the magic box they pretended to have invented. Their claims were pretty much impossible to fulfil. There are Teslas driving on the roads. Starlink is serving customers. SpaceX is delivering payloads. Like him or loathe him, Musk has delivered multiple times.
  - iancmceachern 5y ago
    Percentage wise though. How many times has he delivered as promised on time vs. how many times has he not. It's got to be close to 25/75 right? I agree, he has delivered on about the bottom 25% of his promises.
- Rygian 5y ago
  > The only difference between Theranos and Elon's ventures is that Elizabeth Holmes is in jail for fraud and Elon Musk signs and delivers on deals with NASA.
engineer_22 5y ago
Regarding the number of proposed starlink satellites: The constellation is proposed to be approximately 10,000 satellites. I wondered how this compares to the number of US commercial flights per year. The FAA claims it handles 45,000 flights per day [1]. If we assume each aircraft has 5 flights per day and spends half it's time on the ground, then we might guess there are approximately 4,500 aircraft flying above the USA at any given instant. The USA is only a portion of the globe, let's say it's 1/50 of the global surface area, and let's assume starlink satellites are distributed evenly across the sky. From this we can guess, there will be approximately 200 starlink satellites above the CONUS at any instant. So the starlink constellation will be about 5% of the problem that commercial air traffic is. [1] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/ https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/
- resizeitplz 5y ago
  Except they aren't evenly distributed. Stargazing skews to nighttime hours while air traffic skews to daytime hours. Not to mention coastal vs inland densities. That is an interesting comparison though! And it'd be cool to compare with more nuanced assumptions - maybe even factor in how contrails affect things in addition to the 1:1 satellite:plane maths.
  - closetohome 5y ago
    Also most airliners follow fairly standard routes between cities. Starlink satellites, by nature, have to be evenly distributed. Each one is also visible from a larger patch of ground because it's 300 miles farther away than a plane.
zecken 5y ago
Regarding the second LAN port and proprietary cable — standard RJ45 ports are not waterproof, especially if they’re delivering almost 100W (the max load of this new dishy). I expect that plays into the decision making here; also, selling a phase array antenna plus power supply plus WiFi router for $500 is actually pretty cheap.
- freedomben 5y ago
  You're totally correct about RJ45 not being waterproof, but a point made in the video, and one that I whole-heartedly agree with, is that there's no reason this needs to be a proprietary cable. They could still have made a new more waterproof cable/jack, but opened the spec and/or allow other manufacturers to build them.
- Qub3d 5y ago
  There are ways around it: You can put the RJ45 inside a water-tight screw-together housing, or at least use a standard plug design -- the best option being a waterproof variant of an IEC metric screw sized connector like M12: https://www.mcmaster.com/networking-equipment/micro-m12-screw-together-ethernet-connectors/ https://www.mcmaster.com/networking-equipment/micro-m12-scre...
kingcharles 5y ago
If you are in a city, but can't get wired Internet (I'm in downtown Chicago), I would recommend trying T-Mobile's Home Internet before you go for Starlink. T-Mobile's "Trash Can" router is a bit flakey, but the speeds are great and there are no limits. Plus, no installation, just plug in and go. For $50 a month, it's really a steal, IMO.
dzhiurgis 5y ago
100W continuous draw is around $15 a month in power alone - this buys you unlimited 5G in many places around the world.
- BenjiWiebe 5y ago
  Believe me, if I could buy unlimited 5G (or 4G, my phone is old) for $15/mo here in the US I'd be doing it. I'm paying $10/mo for 1GB.
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    Yeah most places charge based on what people can afford, not based on competition. Hence Starlink in South East Asia is priced so high up that it's basically useless for 99.9% of population.
frebord 5y ago
Recently got Starlink. From 10Mbps/0.5Mbps to 150/10 is a god send. I'll gladly pay for the extra power consumption. I have some sympathy for the astronomy crowd, but I wonder if its inevitable. And is world wide broadband more/less important to society than having to correct for light streaks? The router debacle is just ridiculous though. All of the networking tech being used is so ubiquitous, why not include a damn ethernet port. I just received my ethernet adapter 2 months later and... it doesn't work. Tried multiple configurations including straight into a PC - nothing. to top it off my support ticket was closed without any response... so my $300 mesh wifi will just sit on the shelf while half the house gets poor connectivity. Overall its exciting to have decent internet and not live in a city. The future of it is exciting too -especially the space laser links. Imagine a situation where you can hop directly to a ground station on or very nearby a data center. A lot of people saying Starlink is great if you don't have access to something better, but Starlink may end up being the "fastest" internet available.
- oversocialized 5y ago
  Destroying the night sky is only inevitable if people choose to use Starlink and similar services. Considering most people use the internet for cat pics, porn, and mindless entertainment not sure the trade off is worth it.
  - emteycz 5y ago
    While most people use internet for porn, the same people also most likely use internet for work and business. It's not like your browser is locked to Pornhub.com.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
andrewstuart 5y ago
I object to Starlink because it ruins the night sky for astronomers.
sigmonsays 5y ago
hiding cat5e in proprietary connectors is low.
Sophistifunk 5y ago
I live in Australia, which is divided into two regions: those where I can get internet better than modem speeds, and those in which I might ever hope to afford to purchase a home. Starlink will make one of those areas a subset of the other, and for that I remain ever hopeful it works out.
oxplot 5y ago
The whole point of the new dish is to cut cost: - They integrated the power supply into the router. Cuts the cost. - An ethernet port and a physical switch with all its required component costs money. If SpaceX determines that only one digit percent (very likely) of its customers use the Ethernet port on the router (or don't use the router, both of which is detectable from SpaceX PoV), then the ethernet port becomes a good target to remove. - Same story with the cable from the dish. It's most likely that the cable, plugs and connectors for that cable costs less overall. Also note that there is not PoE standard that allows 180 watts, so they essentially had a non-compliant port that could potentially cause issues in some scenarios. For instance, the ethernet inductor module on the PSU board for the first version is rated for lower current than the dish needs at its maximum power usage so the components are essentially running on the edge of their spec, probably why some PSUs were failing (see reddit). In addition, by making the cable non-standard ethernet, they've eliminated a potentially large number of support requests of people adding extensions to the already at-the-limit cable and wondering why it doesn't work. As for why you can't transfer your account: you have a service that's in high demand and low supply. It'd be irresponsible of SpaceX to allow one person to sign up for 10 services, then sell the equipment at higher price to a 3rd party and transfer the service, while those who really need the service have to wait longer. It's good to sit down and think why certain product decisions are made, instead of assume "user hostility" right off the bat.
completelylegit 5y ago
This article was from the perspective of someone who doesn’t need Starlink. They already have (pricey) fast internet. Starlink isn’t for them. It’s for idiots like me who live far enough out of town that nobody wants to run cable or fiber to me. I’ve literally offered to pay for “whatever it takes” to AT&T and Comcast on several occasions only to be told it’s just never going to happen. I don’t like Elon Musk, what he stands for, how he manages companies, staff or social media. But I’ll throw fists with anyone who wants to talk poorly of Starlink. My only option for internet was 5mbit/768k. Now I can play FPS and stream 4k video to multiple screens simultaneously. Until we as a nation (USA) start investing in telecomm infrastructure Starlink is going to be as good as it gets for me.
atdrummond 5y ago
My biggest complaints were: 1. Used more power than all my other appliances/devices combined. 2. I dropped signal every few minutes. Didn't impact streaming/downloads but did make calls basically untenable. Given my work, this made StarLink a step back despite the dramatic increase in speeds.
zackmorris 5y ago
Good article, ones like these need to become the canonical reviews. Lots of stuff for the Starlink engineers to be embarrassed about. But the real embarrassment is the satellites. They should been covered in an antireflective coating, the kind you can get for $20 at any hardware store. But the engineers didn't bother, even though they knew about Iridium flares: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare Why would they make such a simple, obvious mistake? Let's look at some options: A) They didn't know (casts doubt on the competence of the engineers and the adequacy of their engineering process) B) They couldn't solve it (I just did, this is a red herring) C) They didn't care (casts doubt on their relationship with science, environmentalists and members of the public who don't want to see satellites when they look at the stars) D) They wanted people to see the satellites in the sky as free advertising (ding ding) Corporate greed runs the show now. And other countries will copy this bad behavior because once again, a US corporation didn't lead by setting a good example. If we want to see real change in the world, we need to start by NOT supporting bad actors. Don't buy Starlink. Tell your friends why.
- zackmorris 5y ago
  With the recent loss of the 40 SpaceX satellites due to the solar storm, I'm thinking now that I may have written my comment in haste. I grew up in a region with exceptionally low light pollution, staring at the stars and Milky Way in awe, and feel great sorrow for people who don't get to see them. The idea that there will always be a satellite glaring somewhere in the sky now, diminishing that sense of natural wonder, is one of the great tragedies of the modern world IMHO. But I'm not going to sit here and tell people what to buy. Starlink has great tech, and I do want everyone in the world to have affordable internet access. It's up to each of us to do our own research and vote with our dollars for products that are sustainable, equitable, etc. I think we all want to do better and fix our mistakes, rather than live in the shame of any dishonorable behavior we may have had in the past.

213 points by JamesSwift 5y ago

bluedino 5y ago

No built-in ethernet, so WiFi-only? And no WiFi 6? Proprietary $60 cable? Woof.

NDizzle 5y ago
That's not correct. I haven't quite got all the way through the article, but yeah - not correct. It has wifi that you use to manage it, but it also has an ethernet port that you can use. I have it as one of 3 internet devices at my home in rural Arkansas. I would turn off the wifi entirely, if they allowed me, for less interference. The cable is kind of a bummer, but at least it's super high quality. I wasn't too happy about having to use a giant step bit to drill holes, as I wasn't about to cut the ethernet jack off the end of it when I ran the cable in the attic.
- geerlingguy 5y ago
  That's how the first version router was (the one I have). The new 2nd gen router has WiFi (ac), but Ethernet is not built in. You have to buy an extra dongle that costs $20 and goes inline to the dish. The new router does have a bypass mode, so you can get around using it at all (though it still needs to be plugged in as it's the PoE source through the proprietary cable). The reset method is a bit weird, since it doesn't seem there's a button. I think you have to plug and unplug it three times within a certain time period.
  - NDizzle 5y ago
    I had no idea they launched a v2. I wonder why they would regress so much. The obvious answer is cost... but they have to know how much people want good internet service in remote areas, right? I'll pay for it and I know I'm not the only one.
    - ncallaway 5y ago
      As mentioned in the article, though, how much could the added cost of an Ethernet connector be? That can’t increase the BOM that much, right?
      - stickfigure 5y ago
        Taking a wild guess here: Standard PoE+ is 30w, and even the newest PoH maxes out at 90w. The new hardware draws more than that, so Starlink made up their own PoEish standard with proprietary cable/connectors. The $20 dongle is probably a custom PoE adapter. The good thing about this setup is you only need a single cable run up to your roof. Adding an RJ45 jack directly to dishy might actually complicate the construction. For one thing, it's a weatherproofing issue. But now you have two ethernet ports and need a switch, which needs software management. It's not just a few pennies on the BOM.
        geerlingguy 5y ago
        We're talking about a typical 1 Gbps (non-PoE) LAN port on the router, so you could plug in another computer hardwired (or a switch). The jack is pennies, and the rest of the chips to support the extra Ethernet interface are still readily available. Version 1 of the router had a LAN port (labeled AUX).
        ncallaway 5y ago
        > Adding an RJ45 jack directly to dishy might actually complicate the construction It wasn't an additional jack on dishy. It was an additional jack on the router. See here for an example of the router: https://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/styles/large_wm_brw/public/article_images/2021/05/starlink-router-lifestyle-02.jpg https://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/file... One of those ports connects to the Starlink (through another box which provides the POE), and the other is labeled `aux` and is available for LAN. My understanding for the newer routers is there is now only the single port. The router itself doesn't appear to be weatherproof'ed in any way, and already needs to be installed indoors, so I think it'd just be the cost of the RJ45 jack (and whatever internal differences for the router). It just...seems like it cannot be much of a cost savings.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

fastaguy88 5y ago

I get it. If you already have internet, then Starlink is not for you. There are lots of questionable design choices (particularly in version 2), it's picky about placement, etc. etc. But if your other choice is HughesNet or its competitors, that throttles you after 15 GB (2 days of non-streaming usage for me), or 50 GB, the Starlink "shortcomings" are irrelevant. With Starlink, if you can get it, and if you can site it without blockages, you have "real" internet. Reasonable speeds and no caps/throttling. The massive over-subscription (presumably by people who have no functional alternative) suggests it serves a need. Just not a need for people who have a non-DSL wired alternative, like Jeff Geerling.

ghaff 5y ago
Starlink is a game changer if you don't have decent wired broadband. We had about 1 Mbps download and were the last house on the road who could get it. Then we didn't even have that. Verizon hotspot was "ok" but data was expensive so you had to watch your usage. Starlink isn't perfect--had a couple of days downtime over Christmas--but basically it works fine with 20+ Mbps bandwidth. With the prior DSL, I couldn't have worked from the house in a meaningful way. (My AT&T wireless is also very marginal.) Now I mostly could.
- clvx 5y ago
  Similar situation but I switched to T-Mobile. I have a Starlink order but it got delayed 6 months. At this point, I'll just cancel it because T-Mobile Home Internet is a game changer.
  - alexktz 5y ago
    How "unlimited" is the T-Mobile Home Internet package?
    - AshleyGrant 5y ago
      In my experience it's been totally unlimited. I try not to abuse it, but when I re-image my desktop, Backblaze will end up uploading multiple terabytes (even though I've inherited the backup state and the drive/directory structure is identical). I've never had a single issue. The Home Internet service is 100% deprioritized compared to postpaid cell phone data, so they really are selling "excess" capacity.

perydell 5y ago

Article looks and sounds like clickbait. One of the fundamental aspects of starlink is the internet access and speed you will get. That doesn't seem to be covered here. You took down your starlink because you couldn't transfer it to someone else, are afraid of the damage starlink is doing to astronomy, and you don't like the design decisions about the new dish that you don't even have? Sorry, this doesn't make any sense.

geerlingguy 5y ago
I covered that last year in my 4 month review (and linked to that post in the article as well): https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2021/spacexs-starlink-review-four-months https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2021/spacexs-starlink-revi...
mikestew 5y ago
TFA doesn’t talk about what you think it should talk about, so it’s “clickbait”? Granted, “YouTube Face” never helps bolster one’s legitimacy, but what part of the headline did not meet expectations? By your own description, the article delivered.
fasteddie31003 5y ago
i_am_proteus 5y ago
Another tell is that the performer in the video assumes an exaggerated facial expression for the thumbnail image, a common practice in click bait videos.
- charcircuit 5y ago
  Exaggerated emotions are just a way of marketing your video to viewers. It's good marketing.
  - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
    Isn't clickbait good marketing? I don't like it, but I'd say it is good marketing.

woudsma 5y ago

$240 per month for internet, wow. I didn't realise things were that expensive for people living in remote areas. I'm currently paying ~$40 (converted from EUR) per month for a 100Mb/s fiber connection.

adventured 5y ago
That's because it's not. The cost isn't $240 by necessity. They're knowingly overpaying for Internet access (they have multiple connections, they're not even using Starlink for example). I'm paying $34 / month in a small city in the middle of nowhere for 200mbps in the US.
- geerlingguy 5y ago
  $140/month to get the most upload bandwidth possible at my house (35 Mbps through Spectrum). Then $99/month for Starlink (for now, at least). Meanwhile a few blocks away a friend has 500 Mbps symmetric access for $50/month.
  - iptrans 5y ago
    Time to build a wireless link to your friend :)
    - anderspitman 5y ago
      Seriously though this is achievable with consumer hardware[0], as long as you have line-of-sight or close enough to it. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-300Mbps-dual-polarized-directional-CPE510/dp/B00N2RO63U https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-300Mbps-dual-polarized-direct...
      - BenjiWiebe 5y ago
        And check out Ubiquiti and Mikrotik for more hardware that does this sort of thing.

NDizzle 5y ago

I've had Starlink in Rural AR for 10 months now. I have it currently set to "failover only" on my Ubiquiti device, as it's snowing sideways and there is a tremendous (read: 30%) amount of packet loss at the moment. I don't yet know how to do automatic failover due to packet loss on a UBNT device, but that's what I'm looking up this afternoon. Anyways - I have 3 ISPs, with two of them being LTE. One is the unlimited ATT iPad plan, since I have a router that currently identifies as an iPad (so modern) with the other being TMobile home internet. Up until this snow storm, I had both of the LTE connections in failover only mode, using Starlink exclusively since about November, when there was an update that stopped the "disconnect all active sessions every ~45 minutes when I lose physical sight of the satellite I was connected to" problem. I guess that was when sat to sat communication came online in my longitude. I will also note that my IP has been static on Starlink for about 2 weeks now, which is the longest it's ever been. It's still CGNAT, so multiplayer game hosting is mostly out, unless the game handles it. Most don't. Overall it's a decent thing, but I would recommend at least one backup ISP for those rural or thinking of going rural. LTE Hacks group on Facebook can help you tremendously if you are considering buying a place outside the range of normal wired connections. It's kind of funny that snow took it down 1 day after I started looking at the premium option, which I'm considering if I can get my workplace to pay $300 per month, with me covering the other $200. Kind of dulls the excitement for that...

LegitShady 5y ago
starlink radomes to keep snow and cats off the dish next?
jeffbee 5y ago
It sounds like you have a nifty setup, but I’m surprised you would consider such a high price for your third connection. Why is it worth so much in your case? For the price, you’re approaching the amortized cost of burying miles of cable, which could be an option for people who are only a short distance from wired infrastructure.
- NDizzle 5y ago
  Well, if I can get my cost for the premium Starlink to $200, I would drop the TMO home internet. Right now I'm paying $99 for Starlink, $23/mo ATT, $50/mo TMO. Hardware costs were $450 for the router and LTE modem (EM160g) and roughly the same for (what I know know to be the gen 1) Starlink. I had no idea they rolled out a gen 2 Starlink that's even more restricted than the first one. Ah well. When I was in NORCAL and wired, I was on business internet that was $190/mo, so that's about what I'm accustomed to. I have no idea what it would cost to wire my house. I'm miles from any infrastructure.

krisoft 5y ago

So he says that he wanted to give the dish to his cousin. Then he describes all the bureaucratic barriers he faced in that plan. But what happens if he just places the dish there? Does it immediately give an error on first connection, or doest it get banned later? I understand that the limit is because Starlink is oversubscribed in the cousin's area, I'm just wondering where the limitation is enforced.

qayxc 5y ago
> But what happens if he just places the dish there? That's exactly what he tried a few months back. It didn't work (no connection was possible IIRC). The service was basically geo-fenced back then and still might be.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Did he say that in the video? He never said so in the article, and its absence is conspicuous.
  - geerlingguy 5y ago
    I mentioned it in the previous review (just linked from the article). If only it were that easy :(
sschueller 5y ago
From what I gathered from the video is that it doesn't work there because there is no converge. Those 70 miles might be just outside the coverage area. I guess if you are right outside one of these circles https://starlink.sx/ https://starlink.sx/ it won't work

sschueller 5y ago

I don't understand why cable connections are so bad when there is DOCSIS 3.1. Is it that the cable provider just has such a limited link on their end that people are getting speeds sub 100mbit? Are they vastly over provisioning their networks?

geerlingguy 5y ago
In my case, Spectrum has decided that they want a flashy "gigabit tier", so they provision everything as download bandwidth (940 Mbps), and then only assign 35 Mbps upload. I'd pay extra for business class service, but it doesn't even help, it's the same speed just with some more guarantees and a stable IP.
- sidewndr46 5y ago
  It's the same in my area. I have 200/10 now for about $78 month. I don't need more than 100 Mbps down under any circumstance. I would pay nearly $200/month to get on the 940/30 plan here. I don't really feel like paying more than double to get internet that is still painfully slow. Also the DOCSIS network in my area is such low quality it isn't reliable anyways.
  - geerlingguy 5y ago
    Yeah ever since the pandemic started, speeds average closer to 700 Mbps down (which is still about 3x more than I've ever really needed...). I would gladly pay the same amount for like 100 down/100 up, but then Spectrum couldn't call their service "Gigafast".
- Stephen304 5y ago
  Upload speed shenanigans is what pushed me to pursue Comcast's "business tier" gigabit pro fiber and the last 3 or so years have been pure bliss. Unfortunately it's limited to locations right around the corner from fiber so yet another reason I might live in the same place forever, or at least until cheap symmetric 5 gig or more starts becoming the norm.
- 5y ago

shortformblog 5y ago

A year or two ago I stayed in an Airbnb with the literal worst DSL connection I’ve ever run into, just dog slow, took literal minutes to load a modern website. I have to imagine the benefit of Starlink is when your alternatives are so bad that it’s like having no internet access at all, it looks pretty good. But many people aren’t dealing with that, meaning that when you have better options, something like Starlink no longer looks all that necessary. But users who are in a position where real internet is a real luxury due to location, Starlink still has value, even if it’s obviously not perfect. Especially when compared to satellite internet options that are comically slow even compared to cable modem connections that were common more than a decade ago. Good critique, Jeff.

mprev 5y ago

If you can get high speed, low latency, affordable internet access another way then Starlink probably isn't for you. We've just moved to a place where our only other option was a £400 a month leased line delivering synchronous 100Mbps. For less than a quarter of that, Starlink gives us roughly 120-150Mbps down, around 7Mbps up, and pings around the 30 ms mark. Upload is slow but workable for now. It's easy to complain for clout when you don't actually need the service. But if you don't have another affordable option, Starlink is remarkable. I keep having to remind myself that I'm running a business from my rural home via space. And, sure, there are elements that aren't perfect (the cable on our dish isn't replaceable unless you want to manually splice wires, but reports on the Starlink subreddit say that Starlink will send you a new dish if the cable gets damaged). The power draw is around the same as a fairly typical lightbulb from 20 years ago, so I can totally live with that. I know it's frustrating for people who can't get Starlink, especially if they know someone who wants transfer their dish to them, but that's the price of avoiding oversubscription. If you can take the Starlink dish off your roof and still post your videos complaining about Starlink then you were never the target customer anyway.

pirate787 5y ago
Agree 100%. My community is in the DC metro area and despite our relatively ex-urban setting, the corrupt local and state government has failed us. Subsidies badly misspent and monopoly policies that stifle land-based competition. Probably 25-30% (thousands of households) have no access to true broadband, just unreliable DSL from a bankrupt provider that once put our state representative on payroll. We're all clamoring for Starlink.
- reportingsjr 5y ago
  Starlink won't work well for the sort of sprawling exurbs you live in, fyi. It can't support a very high density of dishes due to RF bandwidth limitations. Starlink's key markets are fairly spread out rural areas, not infrastructure expensive exurbs and suburbs.
  - cozzyd 5y ago

hanklazard 5y ago

“Then there are other people reading who think he's the commensurate con-man” Does anyone actually think this about Elon? Think what you will about the guy’s persona, but it seems undeniable that he is doing big things in the world (and outside of it).

jacquesm 5y ago
Elon isn't a con man because he actually delivers but there is a streak running through him that doesn't seem to care if he deceives people as long as he reaches his higher goals. He's not a 'nice guy' in my book.
osipov 5y ago
geoffeg 5y ago
I think "con man" is a bit too strong, but he does have a history of making promises that either slip significantly (misses deadlines by years) or end up not playing out at all. There are various reasons I can imagine for that, from naive optimism, to marketing or wanting to motivate people.
jandrese 5y ago
There is no doubt Elon has haters that will loudly proclaim that everything he does is a scam. Just read any Youtube comment section where he appears. Are they as prevalent as the people who think his feet can't touch the ground because they are too holy? I don't know, but I do know they exist.
BlueTemplar 5y ago
Well, it did seem to be the popular perception before the first Tesla came out and the first SpaceX rocket landed again...
reportingsjr 5y ago
There are definitely a lot of people who think this. Go on twitter and search for "TSLAQ". There are people deluding themselves that Tesla isn't actually shipping the number of cars they claim. Maybe 7+ years ago you could try to make that claim and not be a laughing stock, but it's very odd at this point.

0x0000000 5y ago

Funny, I cancelled but haven't taken it down. Anyone looking to buy a useless Starlink terminal?

Kon-Peki 5y ago

Starlink is definitely demonstrating that there is demand and a willingness to pay. Part of me wonders if it will suffer the same fate as Iridium - terrestrial service came in and took the market away. Especially if the rollout continues to be so slow.

darknavi 5y ago
Well if that happens that's great. I think there will always be some sort of market for it if they can get ships/planes onboarded.
rdsnsca 5y ago
Already happening here in Nova Scotia.....https://internet.developns.ca https://internet.developns.ca will serve 1.5GB fibre to 95 % of homes and business by 2025. They want to do another plan after to reach the last 5 %.
charcircuit 5y ago
Terrestial roll out will also be slow because there is little financial incentive to do it.

mrlonglong 5y ago

Why? Were cats sleeping on it? There were recent reports that cats just liked to sleep on the dish in very cold weather as they are self heating.

driverdan 5y ago

In many areas cell data is a better choice. When I lived in a bus I traveled to almost 30 states and spent most of my time in rural areas like national forests. Finding a good signal was a lot easier than you might expect. Get the right hardware with an external antenna and high speed coverage is good in most of the country. Finding a good plan can be tough. If you can get a good T-Mobile signal they have unlimited plans for a reasonable price. AT&T has data plans that are $1/GB. There are grey market resellers that offer unlimited SIMs at an inflated price.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

I've had starlink for probably a year and a half now. It has steadily improved, gotten more reliable, and is more able to avoid trees (I alas am not in an open plain). I used to have 10 seconds of blockage every 5 minutes. Now I get some blockage every... 5 hours? I also have a 5G modem appliance that I used to use for stuff like Zoom. It actually is LESS reliable than the Starlink now. Do I do massive bandwidth downloads or serve websites? No. I am the typical consumer usage. Is the expense worth giving the finger to the cable company? Oh yes. If I got around to getting rooftop solar and storage or a backup generator, then I'd be protected from a grid failure. That appeals to me, but then again going off-grid is an obsession of the typical aging male techie in America. I think it's the new "going republican when you were liberal young": instead you go pseudo-libertarian.

Karsteski 5y ago
Why inject worthless politics talk into your otherwise fine comment...
- MrStonedOne 5y ago

modeless 5y ago

A lot of this is poorly informed. The reason many places can't get service isn't the number of satellites, it's the number of ground stations. The satellites don't communicate with each other, only ground stations, so there have to be some near you that the satellites can see for the entire time they're over you (either one very close to you or several farther away but surrounding you), or your signals don't have anywhere to go. The next generation of satellites will be able to communicate with each other, but they haven't really started launching in earnest yet. It may have to wait for Starship. The proprietary connector is annoying but the antenna needs 100+ watts. Power over Ethernet doesn't support that, so the antenna connector can't use standard Ethernet. If the router additionally had a standard Ethernet port then it wouldn't be weatherproof, which was clearly a design goal. They should really have done some kind of weatherproof housing for an Ethernet connector. I expect they will on the next version. Kessler syndrome is not going to happen because unlike their competitors SpaceX intentionally put all their satellites in very low orbit where the atmosphere naturally cleans up any debris within a couple of years. That's something uniquely enabled by SpaceX's low launch costs because it limits the useful life of the satellites, requiring frequent replacement. But it's worth it.

rpdillon 5y ago
> Kessler syndrome is not going to happen because unlike their competitors SpaceX intentionally put all their satellites in very low orbit where the atmosphere naturally cleans up any debris within a couple of years. That's something uniquely enabled by SpaceX's low launch costs because it limits the useful life of the satellites, requiring frequent replacement. I haven't researched Starlink much before, but if the target satellite count is 10k (some say 30k?) and replacements are needed every 24 months, this suggests that to keep Starlink running they need to deploy an average of ~415 satellites every month, forever. Some quick searching suggests a cost of $250k/satellite[0], for a total monthly bill of over $100M. I must be misunderstanding, because that seems pretty pricey, and it excludes launch costs, which they say are ~$30M. Maybe everything will be cheaper by the time the constellation reaches 10k satellites. [0]: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-launch-second-announcement/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-launch-s...

footlose_3815 5y ago

[dead]

zimbatm 5y ago

The pre-order queue might not be a thing anymore. At least for me, I ordered the antenna in January 2022 and got it the same month.

AcerbicZero 5y ago

I ran our satellite internet service out of Iraq when I was deployed there* - I think it was HughesNet or Bently Walker. It was one of the only ways to get unfiltered open source internet at the time, which was a requirement for our mission, and a nice bonus for us in general. Compared to no internet, satellite internet is pretty good. Compared to anything else? Take anything else. *To be fair this was also like, 10 years ago now, and Iraq sucked anyway - but I'm pretty sure bandwidth needs for general internet usage haven't gotten any lighter since then so I suspect the performance is just as atrocious as I remember.

TinkersW 5y ago
Ya I helped switch someone from Hughes to the v2 Starlink, it is night and day difference, and actually costs less(Hughes was like $140 for the shittiest internet imaginable)

softwarebeware 5y ago

This quote really stands out: "Many countries, including the US, have a lot of inequality when it comes to Internet access and affordability."

phkahler 5y ago

>> These connectors are dumb, and I can't think of a good reason they exist. There are ways SpaceX could improve networking hardware, but proprietary non-standard connectors ain't one of 'em. Did he ever think they might be weather proof? Looks like some rubber seals on those connectors. You know, since the dish is outdoors and has to deal with rain, sleet, or snow. I certainly wouldn't put a standard RJ45 on it. I'd like to have Starlink at my condo, do they care if I split costs with a few neighbors? Do they have group plans? It seems like having higher usage from a single terminal would be better for them vs having multiple terminals.

jcrawfordor 5y ago
Weatherproof RJ45 fittings are well established and used by most outdoor CPE. I do assume that Starlink figured their connector design was easier to use (the typical weathertight ethernet ferrules are kind of fiddly), but it seems like a poor choice overall considering it's going to make installation a lot more complicated since the cable needs to be fished with connectors on. It seems like a decision that was made to benefit consumer "jammed through the window" install to such a degree that it will make professional installation significantly more difficult, especially that right angle connector is never going to be fishable through smurf tube the way an electrician would install it, and it'd require a huge hole to drill it through the siding the way a cable installer would. That's the big advantage of modular connectors: installers have the tools to terminate cables, so they can run the cable sans connector.
- garaetjjte 5y ago
  It seems cable is still ordinary twisted pair, so you can just cut it, add extra waterproof connection box and use modular connectors...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

richardfey 5y ago

Why the custom connectors though?

iancmceachern 5y ago

Its interesting to me how the customer service mindset between Elon's companies and a company like Amazon is so opposite. Amazon has a almost militant drive to optimize customer experience, will take anything back, will do just about anything to please their customers. They state so. Tesla, Space X in the form if starlink, solar city all seem to have pretty piss poor customer service and experience. They get away with things you'd never tolerate from your local grocery store, car dealership or ISP. But we hold them up on a pedestal and say it's a necessary evil, part of the process. Why do they need to hold onto millions of dollars in pre-order fees from average people when they have so much investment from the rich that they could use for that purpose. It's because he isn't selling products anymore. He doesn't make his money when the product ships, he makes it when he announces a new vaporware product, collects pre-orders and stock benefits from the hype and press, and then never delivers on the actual product. Its no matter to him, by that time he has already made his money and cashed out. The only difference between Theranos and Elon's ventures is that his ventures hot the bottom 25% of the goals and timeline so its not a total lie. At the same time, it's also not totally honest.

mprev 5y ago
Theranos couldn’t deliver reliable tests using other people’s equipment, let alone the magic box they pretended to have invented. Their claims were pretty much impossible to fulfil. There are Teslas driving on the roads. Starlink is serving customers. SpaceX is delivering payloads. Like him or loathe him, Musk has delivered multiple times.
- iancmceachern 5y ago
  Percentage wise though. How many times has he delivered as promised on time vs. how many times has he not. It's got to be close to 25/75 right? I agree, he has delivered on about the bottom 25% of his promises.
Rygian 5y ago
> The only difference between Theranos and Elon's ventures is that Elizabeth Holmes is in jail for fraud and Elon Musk signs and delivers on deals with NASA.

engineer_22 5y ago

Regarding the number of proposed starlink satellites: The constellation is proposed to be approximately 10,000 satellites. I wondered how this compares to the number of US commercial flights per year. The FAA claims it handles 45,000 flights per day [1]. If we assume each aircraft has 5 flights per day and spends half it's time on the ground, then we might guess there are approximately 4,500 aircraft flying above the USA at any given instant. The USA is only a portion of the globe, let's say it's 1/50 of the global surface area, and let's assume starlink satellites are distributed evenly across the sky. From this we can guess, there will be approximately 200 starlink satellites above the CONUS at any instant. So the starlink constellation will be about 5% of the problem that commercial air traffic is. [1] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/ https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/

resizeitplz 5y ago
Except they aren't evenly distributed. Stargazing skews to nighttime hours while air traffic skews to daytime hours. Not to mention coastal vs inland densities. That is an interesting comparison though! And it'd be cool to compare with more nuanced assumptions - maybe even factor in how contrails affect things in addition to the 1:1 satellite:plane maths.
- closetohome 5y ago
  Also most airliners follow fairly standard routes between cities. Starlink satellites, by nature, have to be evenly distributed. Each one is also visible from a larger patch of ground because it's 300 miles farther away than a plane.

zecken 5y ago

Regarding the second LAN port and proprietary cable — standard RJ45 ports are not waterproof, especially if they’re delivering almost 100W (the max load of this new dishy). I expect that plays into the decision making here; also, selling a phase array antenna plus power supply plus WiFi router for $500 is actually pretty cheap.

freedomben 5y ago
You're totally correct about RJ45 not being waterproof, but a point made in the video, and one that I whole-heartedly agree with, is that there's no reason this needs to be a proprietary cable. They could still have made a new more waterproof cable/jack, but opened the spec and/or allow other manufacturers to build them.
Qub3d 5y ago
There are ways around it: You can put the RJ45 inside a water-tight screw-together housing, or at least use a standard plug design -- the best option being a waterproof variant of an IEC metric screw sized connector like M12: https://www.mcmaster.com/networking-equipment/micro-m12-screw-together-ethernet-connectors/ https://www.mcmaster.com/networking-equipment/micro-m12-scre...

kingcharles 5y ago

If you are in a city, but can't get wired Internet (I'm in downtown Chicago), I would recommend trying T-Mobile's Home Internet before you go for Starlink. T-Mobile's "Trash Can" router is a bit flakey, but the speeds are great and there are no limits. Plus, no installation, just plug in and go. For $50 a month, it's really a steal, IMO.

dzhiurgis 5y ago

100W continuous draw is around $15 a month in power alone - this buys you unlimited 5G in many places around the world.

BenjiWiebe 5y ago
Believe me, if I could buy unlimited 5G (or 4G, my phone is old) for $15/mo here in the US I'd be doing it. I'm paying $10/mo for 1GB.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Yeah most places charge based on what people can afford, not based on competition. Hence Starlink in South East Asia is priced so high up that it's basically useless for 99.9% of population.

frebord 5y ago

Recently got Starlink. From 10Mbps/0.5Mbps to 150/10 is a god send. I'll gladly pay for the extra power consumption. I have some sympathy for the astronomy crowd, but I wonder if its inevitable. And is world wide broadband more/less important to society than having to correct for light streaks? The router debacle is just ridiculous though. All of the networking tech being used is so ubiquitous, why not include a damn ethernet port. I just received my ethernet adapter 2 months later and... it doesn't work. Tried multiple configurations including straight into a PC - nothing. to top it off my support ticket was closed without any response... so my $300 mesh wifi will just sit on the shelf while half the house gets poor connectivity. Overall its exciting to have decent internet and not live in a city. The future of it is exciting too -especially the space laser links. Imagine a situation where you can hop directly to a ground station on or very nearby a data center. A lot of people saying Starlink is great if you don't have access to something better, but Starlink may end up being the "fastest" internet available.

oversocialized 5y ago
Destroying the night sky is only inevitable if people choose to use Starlink and similar services. Considering most people use the internet for cat pics, porn, and mindless entertainment not sure the trade off is worth it.
- emteycz 5y ago
  While most people use internet for porn, the same people also most likely use internet for work and business. It's not like your browser is locked to Pornhub.com.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

andrewstuart 5y ago

I object to Starlink because it ruins the night sky for astronomers.

sigmonsays 5y ago

hiding cat5e in proprietary connectors is low.

Sophistifunk 5y ago

I live in Australia, which is divided into two regions: those where I can get internet better than modem speeds, and those in which I might ever hope to afford to purchase a home. Starlink will make one of those areas a subset of the other, and for that I remain ever hopeful it works out.

oxplot 5y ago

The whole point of the new dish is to cut cost: - They integrated the power supply into the router. Cuts the cost. - An ethernet port and a physical switch with all its required component costs money. If SpaceX determines that only one digit percent (very likely) of its customers use the Ethernet port on the router (or don't use the router, both of which is detectable from SpaceX PoV), then the ethernet port becomes a good target to remove. - Same story with the cable from the dish. It's most likely that the cable, plugs and connectors for that cable costs less overall. Also note that there is not PoE standard that allows 180 watts, so they essentially had a non-compliant port that could potentially cause issues in some scenarios. For instance, the ethernet inductor module on the PSU board for the first version is rated for lower current than the dish needs at its maximum power usage so the components are essentially running on the edge of their spec, probably why some PSUs were failing (see reddit). In addition, by making the cable non-standard ethernet, they've eliminated a potentially large number of support requests of people adding extensions to the already at-the-limit cable and wondering why it doesn't work. As for why you can't transfer your account: you have a service that's in high demand and low supply. It'd be irresponsible of SpaceX to allow one person to sign up for 10 services, then sell the equipment at higher price to a 3rd party and transfer the service, while those who really need the service have to wait longer. It's good to sit down and think why certain product decisions are made, instead of assume "user hostility" right off the bat.

completelylegit 5y ago

This article was from the perspective of someone who doesn’t need Starlink. They already have (pricey) fast internet. Starlink isn’t for them. It’s for idiots like me who live far enough out of town that nobody wants to run cable or fiber to me. I’ve literally offered to pay for “whatever it takes” to AT&T and Comcast on several occasions only to be told it’s just never going to happen. I don’t like Elon Musk, what he stands for, how he manages companies, staff or social media. But I’ll throw fists with anyone who wants to talk poorly of Starlink. My only option for internet was 5mbit/768k. Now I can play FPS and stream 4k video to multiple screens simultaneously. Until we as a nation (USA) start investing in telecomm infrastructure Starlink is going to be as good as it gets for me.

atdrummond 5y ago

My biggest complaints were: 1. Used more power than all my other appliances/devices combined. 2. I dropped signal every few minutes. Didn't impact streaming/downloads but did make calls basically untenable. Given my work, this made StarLink a step back despite the dramatic increase in speeds.

zackmorris 5y ago

Good article, ones like these need to become the canonical reviews. Lots of stuff for the Starlink engineers to be embarrassed about. But the real embarrassment is the satellites. They should been covered in an antireflective coating, the kind you can get for $20 at any hardware store. But the engineers didn't bother, even though they knew about Iridium flares: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare Why would they make such a simple, obvious mistake? Let's look at some options: A) They didn't know (casts doubt on the competence of the engineers and the adequacy of their engineering process) B) They couldn't solve it (I just did, this is a red herring) C) They didn't care (casts doubt on their relationship with science, environmentalists and members of the public who don't want to see satellites when they look at the stars) D) They wanted people to see the satellites in the sky as free advertising (ding ding) Corporate greed runs the show now. And other countries will copy this bad behavior because once again, a US corporation didn't lead by setting a good example. If we want to see real change in the world, we need to start by NOT supporting bad actors. Don't buy Starlink. Tell your friends why.

zackmorris 5y ago
With the recent loss of the 40 SpaceX satellites due to the solar storm, I'm thinking now that I may have written my comment in haste. I grew up in a region with exceptionally low light pollution, staring at the stars and Milky Way in awe, and feel great sorrow for people who don't get to see them. The idea that there will always be a satellite glaring somewhere in the sky now, diminishing that sense of natural wonder, is one of the great tragedies of the modern world IMHO. But I'm not going to sit here and tell people what to buy. Starlink has great tech, and I do want everyone in the world to have affordable internet access. It's up to each of us to do our own research and vote with our dollars for products that are sustainable, equitable, etc. I think we all want to do better and fix our mistakes, rather than live in the shame of any dishonorable behavior we may have had in the past.