5 ms·

Why are jumping to satellites? They don't perform well, and there are a lot of other options. Fixed wireless and cellular spectrum come to mind. Both are way ch

Why are jumping to satellites? They don't perform well, and there are a lot of other options. Fixed wireless and cellular spectrum come to mind. Both are way cheaper than launching thousands of satellites.

mikecoles 3y ago
Starlink performs amazingly well in its use-case.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  ... As long as there aren't many subscribers in the area. Satellite is OK if there isn't anything else. On average, it doesn't beat 4G/5G.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Starlink is completely different from previous satellite internet. Those things are not true about it.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      But they are? Starlink sucks in high service density areas, that's not news [0]. It also averages 100Mbps and tops at a theoretical 500Mbps, whereas 5G averages 250Mbps and tops at a theoretical 1000Mbps. Latency is also considerably higher for Starlink (~60-100ms), than for 5G (~1-50ms). [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/ookla-starlinks-median-us-download-speed-fell-nearly-30mbps-in-q2-2022/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/ookla-starlinks-...
      - goodSteveramos 3y ago
        If fixed wireless were a practical solution there wouldn't still be millions of rural Americans without broadband in 2023 with all the billions already spent on it. Starlink satellites are small and cheap to send to orbit. Its still more expensive than wiring an urban apartment building with fiber but it is absolutely the only way we have to get these people connected. The economics are boarder-line but it should be still be given a fair chance at success.
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
        ISPs would rather not tap into the broadband rural market, as long as they get subsidies while providing subpar service. This is not a technical or economic issue, but a regulatory one, and it is not new either. > Starlink satellites are small and cheap to send to orbit. Its still more expensive than wiring an urban apartment building with fiber but it is absolutely the only way we have to get these people connected. This is absolutely not true. Quote [0]: > We assume that the territory of the continental United States can be served by 5 percent of the satellites in the constellation, and in this case, the constellation should consist of 4,229 satellites. This only accounts for rural US population. As of August 2023, the total number of satellites in the constellation is ~4500 [1], with an estimate cost of ~$500,000 per unit, including launch [2]. A 5G tower costs roughly a fifth of that [3], while providing higher bandwidth and dramatically lower latency. Again, this is just another example of corporations sucking from the government, and giving nothing in return. [0] http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1026762698 http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1026762698 [1] https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html [2] https://ts2.space/en/how-much-does-a-starlink-satellite-cost/#gsc.tab=0 https://ts2.space/en/how-much-does-a-starlink-satellite-cost... [3] https://www.steelintheair.com/5g-cell-towers-in-2023-top-questions-answered/#:~:text=How%20much%20does%20a%205G,cell%20runs%20%2425%2C000%20and%20up https://www.steelintheair.com/5g-cell-towers-in-2023-top-que....
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Half a million is cheap compared to other satellite internet services i was referring to. A 5G tower alone is a trivial cost compared to the cost of laying fiber to the middle of nowhere to connect said tower. There is nothing for ISPs to “tap into”. Just like rural postal service, rural internet is never going to be profitable and should be provided as a service by the state to all the Americans who grow our food and harvest our lumber and all the other things people do outside urban areas. Do you think we should bother to connect these people or not?
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
- NewJazz 3y ago
  At a competitive cost?
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    No. It will have to be subsidized and should be. There is no excuse for not spending the few billion dollars needed to connect these people.

mikecoles 3y ago

Starlink performs amazingly well in its use-case.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
... As long as there aren't many subscribers in the area. Satellite is OK if there isn't anything else. On average, it doesn't beat 4G/5G.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Starlink is completely different from previous satellite internet. Those things are not true about it.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    But they are? Starlink sucks in high service density areas, that's not news [0]. It also averages 100Mbps and tops at a theoretical 500Mbps, whereas 5G averages 250Mbps and tops at a theoretical 1000Mbps. Latency is also considerably higher for Starlink (~60-100ms), than for 5G (~1-50ms). [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/ookla-starlinks-median-us-download-speed-fell-nearly-30mbps-in-q2-2022/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/ookla-starlinks-...
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      If fixed wireless were a practical solution there wouldn't still be millions of rural Americans without broadband in 2023 with all the billions already spent on it. Starlink satellites are small and cheap to send to orbit. Its still more expensive than wiring an urban apartment building with fiber but it is absolutely the only way we have to get these people connected. The economics are boarder-line but it should be still be given a fair chance at success.
      - manuelabeledo 3y ago
        ISPs would rather not tap into the broadband rural market, as long as they get subsidies while providing subpar service. This is not a technical or economic issue, but a regulatory one, and it is not new either. > Starlink satellites are small and cheap to send to orbit. Its still more expensive than wiring an urban apartment building with fiber but it is absolutely the only way we have to get these people connected. This is absolutely not true. Quote [0]: > We assume that the territory of the continental United States can be served by 5 percent of the satellites in the constellation, and in this case, the constellation should consist of 4,229 satellites. This only accounts for rural US population. As of August 2023, the total number of satellites in the constellation is ~4500 [1], with an estimate cost of ~$500,000 per unit, including launch [2]. A 5G tower costs roughly a fifth of that [3], while providing higher bandwidth and dramatically lower latency. Again, this is just another example of corporations sucking from the government, and giving nothing in return. [0] http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1026762698 http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1026762698 [1] https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html [2] https://ts2.space/en/how-much-does-a-starlink-satellite-cost/#gsc.tab=0 https://ts2.space/en/how-much-does-a-starlink-satellite-cost... [3] https://www.steelintheair.com/5g-cell-towers-in-2023-top-questions-answered/#:~:text=How%20much%20does%20a%205G,cell%20runs%20%2425%2C000%20and%20up https://www.steelintheair.com/5g-cell-towers-in-2023-top-que....
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Half a million is cheap compared to other satellite internet services i was referring to. A 5G tower alone is a trivial cost compared to the cost of laying fiber to the middle of nowhere to connect said tower. There is nothing for ISPs to “tap into”. Just like rural postal service, rural internet is never going to be profitable and should be provided as a service by the state to all the Americans who grow our food and harvest our lumber and all the other things people do outside urban areas. Do you think we should bother to connect these people or not?
        manuelabeledo 3y ago
NewJazz 3y ago
At a competitive cost?
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  No. It will have to be subsidized and should be. There is no excuse for not spending the few billion dollars needed to connect these people.