3 ms·
I agree, still some applications for it, but LEO is cheaper per terminal and per bit, so GEO will just not be a product (for commodity services like internet ac
by matt-p 2y ago
I agree, still some applications for it, but LEO is cheaper per terminal and per bit, so GEO will just not be a product (for commodity services like internet access/Calls) in future.
- lxgr 2y ago> LEO is cheaper per terminal Are you sure about that? High-throughput LEO inevitably requires steering (whether electronic or mechanical), while high-throughput GEO is possible using a one-time adjusted dish, at least to station-kept satellites (which all HTS these days are, as far as I know). For mobile applications, steering is obviously required for both, so there GEO has less of an advantage. The Starlink dish is quite expensive, and I'm not sure if it's really sold at cost or whether there's some subsidy baked in (since it's only usable with their service anyway).
- matt-p 2y agoYes, I am. More complicated, yes, but produced at much, much higher volume. That is critical. A (year by year even more) niche market for applications that are ok with high latency, low-ish bandwidth and are stationary will not support proper volume production. Meanwhile the biggest LEO operators will building potentially millions of units. If you only care about low bandwidth, with LEO you potentially don't even need a satellite terminal e.g look at starlink Direct to Cell, the physics about steering matter less in the case of low bandwidth since you can run a separate service on different frequencies with better radio characteristics.
- lofenfew 2y agoYou need to get a technician out to adjust the dish with GEO. With starlink, you just plop it on the ground somewhere.