5 ms·

Does that reflect permanent limitations on Starlink speed? Somehow that's less impressive than it initially seemed...

throwaway0asd 4y ago
Yes. You will likely see a maximum theoretical speed of about 600mbps (like WiFi). In practice it will be much slower, maybe half. It’s noise shooting through atmosphere, so there will be physical limitations.
preisschild 4y ago
Wireless will always be worse than proper fiber. In a perfect world, we would all have active optical fiber from the backbone to our home routers. But 5G and satellite internet is cheaper...
- bushbaba 4y ago
  Cheaper, in some situations. E.g. starlink would be horrendously expensive to provide service to everyone in downtown SF. But yes. For rural less dense deployments. Long range signal through the air is much cheaper.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Agreed, problem is with everything SpaceX hard numbers are hard to come buy. So wireless will be cheaper, if satelites are cheaper than 5g and other groind based solutuons is hard to tell.
  - thereddaikon 4y ago
    Cell towers already provide internet to everyone in downtown SF and have for 20 years. Just because you aren't using your PC with it normally doesn't mean it doesn't count. Wireless is always cheaper than wired for an equivalent coverage area. It just requires less physical infrastructure. But in almost every other way it has inferior performance.
- elif 4y ago
  Could you explain your reasoning? My understanding is that: fiber=c lasers=c fiber=nonlinear lasers=linear So in physics terms, starlink will eventually surpass buried fiber in latency for all situations where fiber routing divergence from linear exceeds the ~1000km orbital round trip.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    Now compare the noise level in a buried fiber, versus satellite radio transmission. We've been getting a thunderstorm every evening here, and my Starlink slows down a lot -- not sure if it's ionization, the water content of clouds, or what, but it's definitely noticeable. And my previous point-to-point wifi would also essentially stop transferring data when it rained, just in case some Starlink hater thinks it's somehow worse than alternatives.
  - leplen 4y ago
    Technically the speed of light in fiber is 2/3c because fiber has a higher index of refraction. Some HFT funds have actually moved away from fiber in some instances because they can pick up a few microseconds by going through the air instead.
    - nerpderp82 4y ago
      Goldman Sachs actually moved to a neutrino beam between London and NYC.
      - sterlind 4y ago
        there's nothing about this on Google, and neutrino detectors are definitely not advanced enough for this. was this a joke that went over my head?
        urspx 4y ago
        Maybe it's a joke about the (anomalous) detection of faster-than-light neutrinos? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_ano...
ncmncm 4y ago
Starlink will get slower and slower as they get more subscribers. This is already happening. In many places it is well below half as fast as before. More, and more powerful, birds will help some, but if they need to loft 4000 a year their unit cost will matter. I expect they will cap subscriptions offered in some areas, particularly parts of Asia and Africa.
- SEJeff 4y ago
  True, they aren't upgrading the satellites to the v2 ones that are 10x more powerful in total throughput and number of subscribers. They also aren't launching more satellites (and rockets) every year /s Oh wait, I was wrong on all of those!
  - dan1234 4y ago
    Don’t the next gen satellites require the new Starship for deployment, which is still nowhere near ready for launch (they aim for a first test launch by the end of this year, IIRC)?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    They have launched exactly zero of those "more powerful" satellites. And they are not launching at near the replacement rate for the final constellation. Higher-bandwidth birds just moves the bottleneck.
    - Tepix 4y ago
      It appears you are doubting that they will eventually launch their 2.0 satellites with an order of magnitude more bandwidth. It's not like they haven't delivered in the past... The constellation is still growing quickly, they just passed 3000 launched Starlink satellites. By the time they go past the 9.000 satellites or so they should have Starship ready and kick their launch volume into overdrive. Have the 30,000 extra satellites (on top of the 12,000 already approved ones) even been approved yet? > Higher-bandwidth birds just moves the bottleneck. What does that even mean? There is no reason to believe they can't launch enough powerful satellites to reach faster speeds in those rural areas.
mlindner 4y ago
Nothing about the current situation is permanent. They're launching more and more satellites and it's only in the eastern half of the US that subscriber rates are growing faster than available capacity.

Yes. You will likely see a maximum theoretical speed of about 600mbps (like WiFi). In practice it will be much slower, maybe half. It’s noise shooting through atmosphere, so there will be physical limitations.

preisschild 4y ago

Wireless will always be worse than proper fiber. In a perfect world, we would all have active optical fiber from the backbone to our home routers. But 5G and satellite internet is cheaper...

bushbaba 4y ago
Cheaper, in some situations. E.g. starlink would be horrendously expensive to provide service to everyone in downtown SF. But yes. For rural less dense deployments. Long range signal through the air is much cheaper.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Agreed, problem is with everything SpaceX hard numbers are hard to come buy. So wireless will be cheaper, if satelites are cheaper than 5g and other groind based solutuons is hard to tell.
- thereddaikon 4y ago
  Cell towers already provide internet to everyone in downtown SF and have for 20 years. Just because you aren't using your PC with it normally doesn't mean it doesn't count. Wireless is always cheaper than wired for an equivalent coverage area. It just requires less physical infrastructure. But in almost every other way it has inferior performance.
elif 4y ago
Could you explain your reasoning? My understanding is that: fiber=c lasers=c fiber=nonlinear lasers=linear So in physics terms, starlink will eventually surpass buried fiber in latency for all situations where fiber routing divergence from linear exceeds the ~1000km orbital round trip.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  Now compare the noise level in a buried fiber, versus satellite radio transmission. We've been getting a thunderstorm every evening here, and my Starlink slows down a lot -- not sure if it's ionization, the water content of clouds, or what, but it's definitely noticeable. And my previous point-to-point wifi would also essentially stop transferring data when it rained, just in case some Starlink hater thinks it's somehow worse than alternatives.
- leplen 4y ago
  Technically the speed of light in fiber is 2/3c because fiber has a higher index of refraction. Some HFT funds have actually moved away from fiber in some instances because they can pick up a few microseconds by going through the air instead.
  - nerpderp82 4y ago
    Goldman Sachs actually moved to a neutrino beam between London and NYC.
    - sterlind 4y ago
      there's nothing about this on Google, and neutrino detectors are definitely not advanced enough for this. was this a joke that went over my head?
      - urspx 4y ago
        Maybe it's a joke about the (anomalous) detection of faster-than-light neutrinos? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_ano...

ncmncm 4y ago

Starlink will get slower and slower as they get more subscribers. This is already happening. In many places it is well below half as fast as before. More, and more powerful, birds will help some, but if they need to loft 4000 a year their unit cost will matter. I expect they will cap subscriptions offered in some areas, particularly parts of Asia and Africa.

SEJeff 4y ago
True, they aren't upgrading the satellites to the v2 ones that are 10x more powerful in total throughput and number of subscribers. They also aren't launching more satellites (and rockets) every year /s Oh wait, I was wrong on all of those!
- dan1234 4y ago
  Don’t the next gen satellites require the new Starship for deployment, which is still nowhere near ready for launch (they aim for a first test launch by the end of this year, IIRC)?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  They have launched exactly zero of those "more powerful" satellites. And they are not launching at near the replacement rate for the final constellation. Higher-bandwidth birds just moves the bottleneck.
  - Tepix 4y ago
    It appears you are doubting that they will eventually launch their 2.0 satellites with an order of magnitude more bandwidth. It's not like they haven't delivered in the past... The constellation is still growing quickly, they just passed 3000 launched Starlink satellites. By the time they go past the 9.000 satellites or so they should have Starship ready and kick their launch volume into overdrive. Have the 30,000 extra satellites (on top of the 12,000 already approved ones) even been approved yet? > Higher-bandwidth birds just moves the bottleneck. What does that even mean? There is no reason to believe they can't launch enough powerful satellites to reach faster speeds in those rural areas.

mlindner 4y ago

Nothing about the current situation is permanent. They're launching more and more satellites and it's only in the eastern half of the US that subscriber rates are growing faster than available capacity.