10 ms·

>Even with that boost, the service still only delivered downstream rates of 90.55 Mbps, leaving it well short of the 144.2 Mbps median posted by the industry as

>Even with that boost, the service still only delivered downstream rates of 90.55 Mbps, leaving it well short of the 144.2 Mbps median posted by the industry as a whole. >All of this data begs the question: What happens if Starlink can’t meet the 100/20 Mbps speed obligations attached to its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) projects? Am I the only one who raise my eyebrows? What's the median for wireless internet delivery? What does that has to do with RDOF's completion requirement (by 2028)? How is StarLink doing at this point comparing to the other RDOF winners in terms of deployment? From the actual Ookla article- >while Starlink download speeds were slower than fixed broadband for all providers combined in the U.S. (144.22 Mbps) and Canada (106.86 Mbps). Oh 144.22 Mbps is the industry median of _wired_ broadband. Well no shi* wireless is slower. Starlink can always deploy more satellites to service the demand. Is this a hit piece on Starlink?

Tuna-Fish 4y ago
SpaceX chose to target the 100/20 benchmark, and bid on that, and because of that, their success is measured against that. The part that is a bit hit-piecey is this quote from Viasat: “even if SpaceX were to deploy a full, 4,408-satellite Starlink system, that system would fall short in satisfying SpaceX’s RDOF commitments.” The full Starlink satellite system doesn't have 4,408 sats. That's just the Gen 1 constellation. They have committed to completing the Gen 2 constellation, with an additional 7,518 sats, which each provide many times more bandwidth than the Gen 1 sats, by 2027, well in time for the RDOF.
bayindirh 4y ago
They're beaming almost 100mbps from the space to surface of the earth, to us, mere consumers, and they're the worst because they're slower than some wired solutions? I'm seriously worried about the pollution they create for astronomers, but that's seriously absurd. Do I need to repeat? They're beaming this from space, to your home.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  Starlink chose the 100mbps threshold over trying to satisfy the lower speed threshold because the higher threshold makes their business plan viable (it lets them get $$$ government funding for providing high-speed rural connectivity). They don't get kudos for failing to meet the standard they're required to meet as a condition of the government program they need to make their business work.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    They built and shipped something really cool and useful. That seems like it deserves some kudos.
  - fshr 4y ago
    > The full Starlink satellite system doesn't have 4,408 sats. That's just the Gen 1 constellation. They have committed to completing the Gen 2 constellation, with an additional 7,518 sats, which each provide many times more bandwidth than the Gen 1 sats, by 2027, well in time for the RDOF.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  And not just to your home. I'm very strongly considering ponying up the money for Starlink to be able to work while camped out in the middle of nowhere.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    The receiver doesn't seem to be easily portable, say on a backpacking trip or something. Perhaps that will change in the future though.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      True, but I've got a pickup :)
      - xbar 4y ago
        I'm expecting an official cybertruck-bed-based antenna dish.
    - skykooler 4y ago
      The RV receiver fits in a backpack, though you'll need to carry a fairly heavy battery to power it for a while.
      - mikestew 4y ago
        "fits in a backpack", with the implication that it will consume the internal volume of said backpack. That does not make it a solution for parent's "backpacking trip", unless you wish to sleep on the ground in the clothes you wore. And you ate before your left. The "heavy battery" was just icing on the cake. You know some backpackers saw the handles of their toothbrush to impress other backpackers^W^W^Wsave weight, right? :-) That's not to say Starlink or a competitor can't get there eventually. I already have pocketable/backpackable device that can shove data up and down a satellite link (Garmin InReach), it's just dog-slow, and that's likely down to the antenna and transmitter power if I were to guess. Someone with more RF smarts than I can probably cook up a foldable antenna, perhaps boost the power a bit, I dunno. But the PoC is there, it just needs iteration.
- UmbertoNoEco 4y ago
  It's not only the pollution. The world is "unwillingly" giving up space spots to a company that can use those satellites as technological weapons. What happens when a Chinese/India/Russia(Insert any non-Anglo "bad" country) decides to emulate them , I would happily bet my left kidney the _commentariat_ here would not be so happy.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > space spots What does that even mean? You can't see them unless you have highly speziallised equipment. And in terms of physical spots, space is absurdly huge, space is not really a limited resource.
    - wmf 4y ago
      It seems like they're keeping a ~10 km buffer zone around each satellite which does add up. Between Starlink, OneWeb, and Kuiper a bunch of shells have already been taken.
      - panick21_ 4y ago
        Those are current technological limitation the same way Montana farmers in the West didn't have barbed wire. Tracking and control technology is constantly improving. Just like as with airplane safety humanity will improve with increase use.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    If Russia wants to use satellites as technological weapons, I don't think they're going to ask the FCC for permission.
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    Would they provide a usable broadband alternative to the broomstick-up-butt treatment I get from the telcos? Hell yes I'd take them. Oh they'd steal my data? Well, so does everyone on this site and the telco I have now. Consider this, Mr Geopolitical power. Do you want the US with this weapon, or sit on our ass and let China deploy one now that SpaceX has shown how powerful it is? This is the single greatest Western soft power weapon since the iPhone. And you're begrudging it? Come on.
aero-glide2 4y ago
Check out the section "Technology-Neutral Service Tiers" https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/factsheet https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/factsheet SpaceX bid for "above baseline". They still seem to be doing much better than other auction winners though.
mbesto 4y ago
Ya, I was thinking the same thing. This article seems like it's written by a PR/lobbying firm for BigTelCo / Satellite providers.
- ProAm 4y ago
  Not really, they are being subsidized by US tax payers to provide a service and they are not meeting the terms of the contract/agreement. None of Elon's empires would be successful without US tax payers so I think the article is merely trying to hold them accountable.
  - happyopossum 4y ago
    No, they haven't violated any contracts... They have until 2028 to meet the 100/20 numbers in specific areas. Ookla's testing was not specific to those areas, and was not done in 2028. But let's not let facts get in the way of irrational anger
    - ProAm 4y ago
      It's not anger but I think the article (while probably written by a competitor or lobby) is reminding the public that Musk often makes empty promises and we should not let him continue to be subsidized by the US tax payer for an inability to deliver on time and on budget. I now see Musk also complaining about 5G interfering with Starlink. It's all a game, which is fine, but I dont want to pay for billionaires entertainment.
      - extheat 4y ago
        This is a hollow argument since none of their competitors that also are faring any better either. SpaceX is delivering close to their promise now years before they have to. It's an alarmist piece by teleco like the clock is close to timing out and things are heading south. Over time they will improve the hardware to have higher bandwidth capability, such as with their v2 satellites, with further improvements to the hardware likely later on. > dont want to pay for billionaires entertainment It's not "entertainment". It's actually delivering value to underserved customers, there's no need to inject politics or personal vendettas into this.
akozak 4y ago
Setting aside the high cost of growing the constellation, I'm not sure they can just add more satellites even in theory. As I understand it Starlink has performance tradeoffs wrt to density of ground stations. Others on HN would probably know more though.
exclusiv 4y ago
Starlink took govt funds and is obligated to deliver 100/20 at a minimum. I own 2 starlinks at different locations and I can tell you 1 of those locations is consistently MUCH under that. That being said, I am pleased with starlink at one location as it absolutely blows away the next best available option.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jpgvm 4y ago
  The regional speed differences are due to Starlink current reliance on ground stations and terrestrial backhaul. If they can get sat-sat links working and transition their backhaul onto those links that will no only eliminate the regional performance differences but likely also be faster than any terrestrial options over long distances.
  - wmf 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure you have it backwards; the current configuration of going through one satellite is always going to be faster [edit: higher throughput] than going through multiple satellite hops.
    - jpgvm 4y ago
      It's possible for it to be faster over long distances because light travels faster in vacuum than in glass fibre and likely less hops in space vs terrestrially where transit would need to go via several carriers to reach far destinations. That is putting aside ground stations located in areas which themselves have poor transit which is the main problem with regional variability of performance I would imagine, though could also be congestion if they are oversubscribing in those regions. i.e too much density of terminals.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Lower latency is very, very far from the same thing as more bandwidth. Certain customers can benefit from the difference in latency. Not you, though. Starlink will make those who would benefit (hedge funds, mainly) pay through the nose to get it. And, pay even more to keep somebody else from getting it. Probably they will charge a huge premium for 1ms faster than fiber, and 100x more for each ms better than that. You may be certain they will not use that extra income to provide you better value.
slaymaker1907 4y ago
Honestly, I'm surprised that managed 90Mbps. Beaming internet from satellites iis not really a great idea because you are essentially doubling the wireless bandwidth required for a given level of service. Wireless cell service has the big advantage of only needing to use bandwidth for the link from the tower to the client while satellites require a link to the client and a link back to the ground station. There's also the fact that putting a bunch of compute into a satellite is going to be way more expensive due to weight, power and cooling in space not to mention increased cosmic ray interference.
- sgtnoodle 4y ago
  It's highly directed radio signals, though, so it's spatially separated.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Doesn't help, really.
    - sgtnoodle 4y ago
      Sure it does. The most directed RF signal is a wire...
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        No. A separate wire has its own transceiver. They still have to share the transceiver among all subscribers. Beam forming saves on transmitter power and receiver S/N stats. If it were all just for you, that could improve your bandwidth. But it is not. Lots of people would like you to think otherwise. Now you know better.
        jlokier 4y ago
        Beamforming phased array MIMO antennae certainly can transmit to and receive from multiple stations via spatially distinct beams in parallel at the same time. I don't know if Starlink satellites do so, but it is technically possible.
moralestapia 4y ago
>What's the median for wireless internet delivery? Who cares? If they signed up for >100/20 Mbps speed obligations attached to its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) projects they have to deliver. The article has a valid point.
- Retric 4y ago
  They have to deliver that in specific areas by 2028 not nationwide today. Assuming they avoided bidding on areas their network is currently contested they might already meet their obligations.
rjbwork 4y ago
I'm on T-Mobile's home internet. With just the modem chilling in my room, i can get about 200/20. I've bought an external antenna that I'm going to be hooking up to the modem and mounting on top of my house soon. Testing it in my front yard I was able to get 350/25. Latency/Jitter was also significantly better with that antenna. I'm not super rural, but we have literally no other internet options, are on septic/well water, and are about 10 minutes from the nearest store by car.
- taeric 4y ago
  I'm in a similar situation. Have TMobile and Starlink RV. Right now, I think TMobile hits faster at its best, but the normal experience is much worse. Sucks, as it is much much cheaper.
vlunkr 4y ago
Anyone who has lived with rural internet will be blown away by 90MB. This is an incredibly high bar.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  They will, and they are judging by reviews. It’s a bit nitpicky but that B needs to be a lowercase one.
- ketzo 4y ago
  It’s an incredibly high bar that SpaceX explicitly said it would meet in order to receive more government funds. It’s not an arbitrary threshold.
  - happyopossum 4y ago
    > that SpaceX explicitly said it would meet By 2028? So where exactly is the sky falling?
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Sky is not falling, people just make a big deal because its SpaceX and Musk.
    - ketzo 4y ago
      Well, the article makes the point that Starlink is definitely not under anything close to what it’s expected “peak load” will be, and even so, it’s not currently meeting speed requirements. But mostly, I agree — the article seems a little over-worried.
      - olyjohn 4y ago
        I didn't know why people are getting bad speeds, because I'm regularly exceeding these speeds on my dish. Starlink requires self-installation and I'm willing to bet that a lot of people don't understand how to set it up properly. I will say it took me over 2 weeks to really get a good location, top some trees and set up a proper mount above the house. People post pictures of their dishes just sitting on the ground, and a lot of people don't have patience or time to get the connection working well.
joshcryer 4y ago
Ookla's speed test shows the entire network, not RDOF subscribers alone. It should be easy enough for Starlink to give RDOF subscribers the slated speeds. So yeah I think the article is click bait. Especially since Ookla showed improvement year on year for Starlink.
fatnoah 4y ago
Heck, my upload with a fixed broadband provider in the US was 10Mbps! Starlink's cited performance would match that.

Tuna-Fish 4y ago

SpaceX chose to target the 100/20 benchmark, and bid on that, and because of that, their success is measured against that. The part that is a bit hit-piecey is this quote from Viasat: “even if SpaceX were to deploy a full, 4,408-satellite Starlink system, that system would fall short in satisfying SpaceX’s RDOF commitments.” The full Starlink satellite system doesn't have 4,408 sats. That's just the Gen 1 constellation. They have committed to completing the Gen 2 constellation, with an additional 7,518 sats, which each provide many times more bandwidth than the Gen 1 sats, by 2027, well in time for the RDOF.

bayindirh 4y ago

They're beaming almost 100mbps from the space to surface of the earth, to us, mere consumers, and they're the worst because they're slower than some wired solutions? I'm seriously worried about the pollution they create for astronomers, but that's seriously absurd. Do I need to repeat? They're beaming this from space, to your home.

gamblor956 4y ago
Starlink chose the 100mbps threshold over trying to satisfy the lower speed threshold because the higher threshold makes their business plan viable (it lets them get $$$ government funding for providing high-speed rural connectivity). They don't get kudos for failing to meet the standard they're required to meet as a condition of the government program they need to make their business work.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  They built and shipped something really cool and useful. That seems like it deserves some kudos.
- fshr 4y ago
  > The full Starlink satellite system doesn't have 4,408 sats. That's just the Gen 1 constellation. They have committed to completing the Gen 2 constellation, with an additional 7,518 sats, which each provide many times more bandwidth than the Gen 1 sats, by 2027, well in time for the RDOF.
yellowapple 4y ago
And not just to your home. I'm very strongly considering ponying up the money for Starlink to be able to work while camped out in the middle of nowhere.
- Alupis 4y ago
  The receiver doesn't seem to be easily portable, say on a backpacking trip or something. Perhaps that will change in the future though.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    True, but I've got a pickup :)
    - xbar 4y ago
      I'm expecting an official cybertruck-bed-based antenna dish.
  - skykooler 4y ago
    The RV receiver fits in a backpack, though you'll need to carry a fairly heavy battery to power it for a while.
    - mikestew 4y ago
      "fits in a backpack", with the implication that it will consume the internal volume of said backpack. That does not make it a solution for parent's "backpacking trip", unless you wish to sleep on the ground in the clothes you wore. And you ate before your left. The "heavy battery" was just icing on the cake. You know some backpackers saw the handles of their toothbrush to impress other backpackers^W^W^Wsave weight, right? :-) That's not to say Starlink or a competitor can't get there eventually. I already have pocketable/backpackable device that can shove data up and down a satellite link (Garmin InReach), it's just dog-slow, and that's likely down to the antenna and transmitter power if I were to guess. Someone with more RF smarts than I can probably cook up a foldable antenna, perhaps boost the power a bit, I dunno. But the PoC is there, it just needs iteration.
UmbertoNoEco 4y ago
It's not only the pollution. The world is "unwillingly" giving up space spots to a company that can use those satellites as technological weapons. What happens when a Chinese/India/Russia(Insert any non-Anglo "bad" country) decides to emulate them , I would happily bet my left kidney the _commentariat_ here would not be so happy.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > space spots What does that even mean? You can't see them unless you have highly speziallised equipment. And in terms of physical spots, space is absurdly huge, space is not really a limited resource.
  - wmf 4y ago
    It seems like they're keeping a ~10 km buffer zone around each satellite which does add up. Between Starlink, OneWeb, and Kuiper a bunch of shells have already been taken.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      Those are current technological limitation the same way Montana farmers in the West didn't have barbed wire. Tracking and control technology is constantly improving. Just like as with airplane safety humanity will improve with increase use.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  If Russia wants to use satellites as technological weapons, I don't think they're going to ask the FCC for permission.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  Would they provide a usable broadband alternative to the broomstick-up-butt treatment I get from the telcos? Hell yes I'd take them. Oh they'd steal my data? Well, so does everyone on this site and the telco I have now. Consider this, Mr Geopolitical power. Do you want the US with this weapon, or sit on our ass and let China deploy one now that SpaceX has shown how powerful it is? This is the single greatest Western soft power weapon since the iPhone. And you're begrudging it? Come on.

aero-glide2 4y ago

Check out the section "Technology-Neutral Service Tiers" https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/factsheet https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/factsheet SpaceX bid for "above baseline". They still seem to be doing much better than other auction winners though.

mbesto 4y ago

Ya, I was thinking the same thing. This article seems like it's written by a PR/lobbying firm for BigTelCo / Satellite providers.

ProAm 4y ago
Not really, they are being subsidized by US tax payers to provide a service and they are not meeting the terms of the contract/agreement. None of Elon's empires would be successful without US tax payers so I think the article is merely trying to hold them accountable.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  No, they haven't violated any contracts... They have until 2028 to meet the 100/20 numbers in specific areas. Ookla's testing was not specific to those areas, and was not done in 2028. But let's not let facts get in the way of irrational anger
  - ProAm 4y ago
    It's not anger but I think the article (while probably written by a competitor or lobby) is reminding the public that Musk often makes empty promises and we should not let him continue to be subsidized by the US tax payer for an inability to deliver on time and on budget. I now see Musk also complaining about 5G interfering with Starlink. It's all a game, which is fine, but I dont want to pay for billionaires entertainment.
    - extheat 4y ago
      This is a hollow argument since none of their competitors that also are faring any better either. SpaceX is delivering close to their promise now years before they have to. It's an alarmist piece by teleco like the clock is close to timing out and things are heading south. Over time they will improve the hardware to have higher bandwidth capability, such as with their v2 satellites, with further improvements to the hardware likely later on. > dont want to pay for billionaires entertainment It's not "entertainment". It's actually delivering value to underserved customers, there's no need to inject politics or personal vendettas into this.

akozak 4y ago

Setting aside the high cost of growing the constellation, I'm not sure they can just add more satellites even in theory. As I understand it Starlink has performance tradeoffs wrt to density of ground stations. Others on HN would probably know more though.

exclusiv 4y ago

Starlink took govt funds and is obligated to deliver 100/20 at a minimum. I own 2 starlinks at different locations and I can tell you 1 of those locations is consistently MUCH under that. That being said, I am pleased with starlink at one location as it absolutely blows away the next best available option.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jpgvm 4y ago
The regional speed differences are due to Starlink current reliance on ground stations and terrestrial backhaul. If they can get sat-sat links working and transition their backhaul onto those links that will no only eliminate the regional performance differences but likely also be faster than any terrestrial options over long distances.
- wmf 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure you have it backwards; the current configuration of going through one satellite is always going to be faster [edit: higher throughput] than going through multiple satellite hops.
  - jpgvm 4y ago
    It's possible for it to be faster over long distances because light travels faster in vacuum than in glass fibre and likely less hops in space vs terrestrially where transit would need to go via several carriers to reach far destinations. That is putting aside ground stations located in areas which themselves have poor transit which is the main problem with regional variability of performance I would imagine, though could also be congestion if they are oversubscribing in those regions. i.e too much density of terminals.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Lower latency is very, very far from the same thing as more bandwidth. Certain customers can benefit from the difference in latency. Not you, though. Starlink will make those who would benefit (hedge funds, mainly) pay through the nose to get it. And, pay even more to keep somebody else from getting it. Probably they will charge a huge premium for 1ms faster than fiber, and 100x more for each ms better than that. You may be certain they will not use that extra income to provide you better value.

slaymaker1907 4y ago

Honestly, I'm surprised that managed 90Mbps. Beaming internet from satellites iis not really a great idea because you are essentially doubling the wireless bandwidth required for a given level of service. Wireless cell service has the big advantage of only needing to use bandwidth for the link from the tower to the client while satellites require a link to the client and a link back to the ground station. There's also the fact that putting a bunch of compute into a satellite is going to be way more expensive due to weight, power and cooling in space not to mention increased cosmic ray interference.

sgtnoodle 4y ago
It's highly directed radio signals, though, so it's spatially separated.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Doesn't help, really.
  - sgtnoodle 4y ago
    Sure it does. The most directed RF signal is a wire...
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      No. A separate wire has its own transceiver. They still have to share the transceiver among all subscribers. Beam forming saves on transmitter power and receiver S/N stats. If it were all just for you, that could improve your bandwidth. But it is not. Lots of people would like you to think otherwise. Now you know better.
      - jlokier 4y ago
        Beamforming phased array MIMO antennae certainly can transmit to and receive from multiple stations via spatially distinct beams in parallel at the same time. I don't know if Starlink satellites do so, but it is technically possible.

moralestapia 4y ago

>What's the median for wireless internet delivery? Who cares? If they signed up for >100/20 Mbps speed obligations attached to its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) projects they have to deliver. The article has a valid point.

Retric 4y ago
They have to deliver that in specific areas by 2028 not nationwide today. Assuming they avoided bidding on areas their network is currently contested they might already meet their obligations.

rjbwork 4y ago

I'm on T-Mobile's home internet. With just the modem chilling in my room, i can get about 200/20. I've bought an external antenna that I'm going to be hooking up to the modem and mounting on top of my house soon. Testing it in my front yard I was able to get 350/25. Latency/Jitter was also significantly better with that antenna. I'm not super rural, but we have literally no other internet options, are on septic/well water, and are about 10 minutes from the nearest store by car.

taeric 4y ago
I'm in a similar situation. Have TMobile and Starlink RV. Right now, I think TMobile hits faster at its best, but the normal experience is much worse. Sucks, as it is much much cheaper.

vlunkr 4y ago

Anyone who has lived with rural internet will be blown away by 90MB. This is an incredibly high bar.

lostlogin 4y ago
They will, and they are judging by reviews. It’s a bit nitpicky but that B needs to be a lowercase one.
ketzo 4y ago
It’s an incredibly high bar that SpaceX explicitly said it would meet in order to receive more government funds. It’s not an arbitrary threshold.
- happyopossum 4y ago
  > that SpaceX explicitly said it would meet By 2028? So where exactly is the sky falling?
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Sky is not falling, people just make a big deal because its SpaceX and Musk.
  - ketzo 4y ago
    Well, the article makes the point that Starlink is definitely not under anything close to what it’s expected “peak load” will be, and even so, it’s not currently meeting speed requirements. But mostly, I agree — the article seems a little over-worried.
    - olyjohn 4y ago
      I didn't know why people are getting bad speeds, because I'm regularly exceeding these speeds on my dish. Starlink requires self-installation and I'm willing to bet that a lot of people don't understand how to set it up properly. I will say it took me over 2 weeks to really get a good location, top some trees and set up a proper mount above the house. People post pictures of their dishes just sitting on the ground, and a lot of people don't have patience or time to get the connection working well.

joshcryer 4y ago

Ookla's speed test shows the entire network, not RDOF subscribers alone. It should be easy enough for Starlink to give RDOF subscribers the slated speeds. So yeah I think the article is click bait. Especially since Ookla showed improvement year on year for Starlink.

fatnoah 4y ago

Heck, my upload with a fixed broadband provider in the US was 10Mbps! Starlink's cited performance would match that.