3 ms·
I think StarLink could stand to build terrestrial "Not-Satellites" in areas that are very densely built, if they could get it past the FCC. Something similar to
by foxyv 4y ago
I think StarLink could stand to build terrestrial "Not-Satellites" in areas that are very densely built, if they could get it past the FCC. Something similar to 5g microcells that users could switch to if they want better bandwidth.
I mean, why go to the Satellite network if you are less than 10 miles from a city center. Then you could leave the satellite uplinks to surrounding rural areas and users looking for ultra low latency.
- krallja 4y agoThat’s just a WISP, which have existed since the 1990s.
- foxyv 4y agoYes, exactly! Except it also has satellite as backup for areas that are line of sighted from existing towers. So there aren't any dead zones.
- lolc 4y agoYou mean, like a cellular network?
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agothe key thing is that the expensive part of a cell network is covering all the low density areas. SpaceX would only need to build out a cell network in the densely populated parts which is roughly 10000x less area and use starlink for everyone else
- cozzyd 4y agoUsing what spectrum?
- foxyv 4y agoPossibly the one they use for satellites if they already have approval, or they can setup their own WISP.
- lolc 4y agoWhat can they offer that 5G doesn't in an urban environment? You can get 100 mbps on a 5 w energy budget in a city.
- foxyv 4y agoI think the question is, why do people subscribe to Starlink in an urban environment that already has 5g available. The answer is probably that even if the terrestrial sites go down, you still have a satellite uplink. Edit: Or "It's Starlink!"
- jonathantf2 4y agoMaybe they could do this in like RV parks where there'd be a lot of Starlink users - force the individual dishes to connect to a local network then have one big dish on property that links to the sats.