5 ms·

None of that makes any difference to the question. Phased array techniques save transmitter power more than bandwidth, because the beams just can't be very narr

by ncmncm 4y ago

None of that makes any difference to the question. Phased array techniques save transmitter power more than bandwidth, because the beams just can't be very narrow with such a small array. It means one satellite gets your signal, not all in sight. Up top, one beam takes in many, many subscribers. Starlink will struggle to maintain more than a few tens of megabits. Sibling comment has the correct answer.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Retric 4y ago
Power ends up being bandwidth, but I don’t think you understand why. A cellphone networks depend on proximity to a cell tower to alow frequencies to be reused across multiple cell towers. On top of this they also use a wide range of techniques to share each individual towers available bandwidth with multiple cell phones. But the most basic trick is signals get weaker with distance. Starlink also uses distance as a satellite can only see a small fraction of the total number of ground stations. However, weaker from distance is indistinguishable from a weaker signal due to a phased array antenna pointing somewhere else, so they can in effect simulate more cells than they would have from proximity alone. On top of this they can use all the existing cellphone tricks to maximise bandwidth. PS: Yes Starlink is limited to ~100 megabits per customer, but that’s vastly better than 1.5 Mbps DSL which is what many rural communities are stuck with.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  You must feel terribly clever, congratulating yourself on imagining that I am unaware of the relationship between noise, power, and bandwidth. Trolling is unwelcome here. You have been told this before.
yencabulator 4y ago
> It means one satellite gets your signal, not all in sight. So it would seem an easy way to scale out is by adding satellites. I don't think they're anywhere near capacity on that, yet. Also, each current-gen satellite is 20 Gbps of bandwidth. v2 is claimed to be "almost an order of magnitude more capable than v1.0" in terms of communications bandwidth.

by ncmncm 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Retric 4y ago

Power ends up being bandwidth, but I don’t think you understand why. A cellphone networks depend on proximity to a cell tower to alow frequencies to be reused across multiple cell towers. On top of this they also use a wide range of techniques to share each individual towers available bandwidth with multiple cell phones. But the most basic trick is signals get weaker with distance. Starlink also uses distance as a satellite can only see a small fraction of the total number of ground stations. However, weaker from distance is indistinguishable from a weaker signal due to a phased array antenna pointing somewhere else, so they can in effect simulate more cells than they would have from proximity alone. On top of this they can use all the existing cellphone tricks to maximise bandwidth. PS: Yes Starlink is limited to ~100 megabits per customer, but that’s vastly better than 1.5 Mbps DSL which is what many rural communities are stuck with.

ncmncm 4y ago
You must feel terribly clever, congratulating yourself on imagining that I am unaware of the relationship between noise, power, and bandwidth. Trolling is unwelcome here. You have been told this before.

yencabulator 4y ago

> It means one satellite gets your signal, not all in sight. So it would seem an easy way to scale out is by adding satellites. I don't think they're anywhere near capacity on that, yet. Also, each current-gen satellite is 20 Gbps of bandwidth. v2 is claimed to be "almost an order of magnitude more capable than v1.0" in terms of communications bandwidth.