8 ms·

It's interesting at 36 to look back at what I think would disrupt connectivity a decade ago: - Google Fiber (it wasn't possible to do it cheaper than incumbent

It's interesting at 36 to look back at what I think would disrupt connectivity a decade ago: - Google Fiber (it wasn't possible to do it cheaper than incumbents, so it devolved to standard incumbent x why would 40% margin company invest billions to get Comcast's peak profit margin of ~15% profit) - Starry Internet (too expensive to build out, I have it and it's good, but the company certainly didn't scale) - 5G in general (strictly inferior to incumbent, speed isn't faster, latency is higher, not as reliable) It's hard for me to wrap my mind around why this would work at all, sounds like a more-susceptible-to-bad-conditions version of Starry. I keep wondering how people make Starlink work, my understanding is the connection degrades then stops then reconnects every...idk, 5 minutes? as the satellites go overhead.

miloignis 2y ago
From my perspective, Google Fiber 100% disrupted connectivity - it woke the incumbents up and made them offer competitive Fiber. In that sense, they succeeded! My last three connections from my last three ISPs have all been gigabit (one of which was Google Fiber, easily the best internet I've ever had). I think they're expanding again, too, though I wish they had stayed as aggressive with rollout as they started.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  That's a really good point, back home, Verizon didn't bother with Fios investment until then.
- jerlam 2y ago
  Ironically, Google Fiber purchased a wireless provider - Webpass - back in 2016 which is deployed in parallel to their fiber offerings.
cbg0 2y ago
> 5G in general (strictly inferior to incumbent, speed isn't faster, latency is higher, not as reliable) I'm guessing this is a US thing? In Europe, 5G is definitely faster while latency is on par with 4G. YMMMV between EU countries though.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  You're right, it's definitely better than 4G, my wording was unclear, more in the sense of "Would I make this my home ISP?" than "how did 5G go?" (I would have thought cell providers would have 20-30% of the market now, ah, the follys of youth...)
  - TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
    5G home internet is the preferred in Australia where fibre isn’t present. Even at my house where I have FTTH, my mobile 5G connection is persistently faster and quicker, that is both bandwidth and latency are superior on my phone from my home location. Of course, the pricing is structured so you’re better off paying for both, either fixed internet plus mobile phone plane, or fixed 5G and mobile phone plan, depending on what is available at any specific location, but typically not all three options. Thank you centrally planned infrastructure.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    TBH I think a lot of it is many people still don't understand the product or misunderstand their actual needs/usage. Plenty of "normie" households can easily meet all their needs with a decent 5G fixed wireless install. As we see more cord cutting we'll probably see continued growth in fixed wireless. FWIW, most other ISP types are treading water in terms of overall subscribers while the only real growth overall in new subscribers is fixed wireless. Your gut probably wasn't wrong that fixed wireless will probably grab 20-30%+, but just timescale-wise off a bit. https://www.opensignal.com/2024/06/06/5g-fixed-wireless-access-fwa-success-in-the-us-a-roadmap-for-broadband-success-elsewhere https://www.opensignal.com/2024/06/06/5g-fixed-wireless-acce...
calebio 2y ago
> I keep wondering how people make Starlink work, my understanding is the connection degrades then stops then reconnects every...idk, 5 minutes? as the satellites go overhead. That is not a correct understanding for how the Starlink network behaves today[0]. While I can't speak for using it outside of the U.S., I have not faced any interruptions outside of a few times during very severe weather. [0] in the early days of the constellation, there were sub-second or a few second drops when there was no satellite overhead. But this dropped off very quickly once the constellation size increased.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  I see, tyty (been wondering for quite some time)
Workaccount2 2y ago
The key breakthrough for 5G was allowing ~10x the number of devices to connect to a node compared to 4G. 5G is what allowed the toppling of data caps that was by far the #1 consumer complaint for years. 4G just couldn't handle heavy loads well, so data caps were needed to constrain demand. Teleco's aren't going to say this out load, but it's the real reason why they were so celebratory about 5G, despite it coming off like just a renamed 4G to the average user.
- stnmtn 2y ago
  Why would they not be loud about it? I think "We've built out 5G so we can get rid of your data caps!" is a message any telecom would want to broadcast out, unless I'm missing something
  - conception 2y ago
    They don’t want to get rid of your data caps. They want to get rid of their data bandwidth limitations.
- jampekka 2y ago
  > 4G just couldn't handle heavy loads well, so data caps were needed to constrain demand. In many parts of the world uncapped data has been the norm since around GPRS.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    Could that be because they aren’t as densely populated by users so even if everyone with a phone has no data cap, they won’t overload the network? Which countries were that for example?
    - xavxav 2y ago
      basically every european country? they've all had much larger datacaps than north america for years preceding 5g and most are quite densely inhabited.
johncalvinyoung 2y ago
As I deployed Starlink in an extremely obstructed spot last year for a few weeks, where multi-second dropouts were quite common... it impressed me JUST HOW MANY satellites they have up there, and just how usable my dish was despite only having ~60% of its field of view clear. It's switching satellites much more often than every five minutes. The built-in obstruction mapping tool quickly demonstrated that though each satellite represents a tiny slice of sky... over the course of the day you're seeing a vast number of satellites at a high variety of spatial angles and orbits. I wouldn't recommend that obstructed situation to anyone (and it's going in a much clearer location this coming summer) but the users I was supporting reported it a far far better solution than the 4G LTE they'd been depending on prior. Not a patch on fiber, but a great solution for an awkwardly remote property.
woah 2y ago
It's crazy that almost every house is able to be attached to a pipe carrying high pressure water that will flood if it is broken or attached wrong, thick wire carrying high current that will shock you, a pipe containing explosive gas, and a six inch cast iron pipe full of poop, but adding one more connection to a tiny thin strand of glass wrapped in plastic is too expensive.
- calebio 2y ago
  A lot of the houses that don't currently have modern high speed internet access also don't have water pipes and sewer pipes. They have wells or water collection/delivery and septic tanks. Electricity and twisted pair phone line is really all that's been pulled to their property.
iam-TJ 2y ago
For Starlink the User Terminal (antenna a.k.a. "Dishy") is a phased array. It tracks the satellite as it passes from west to east. Each satellite is in view for around 15 seconds - the phased array instantly flips from east to west and acquires the new in-view satellite in microseconds. There's no degradation in almost all 'flips' especially if the U.T. has an unobstructed view of the sky.

miloignis 2y ago

From my perspective, Google Fiber 100% disrupted connectivity - it woke the incumbents up and made them offer competitive Fiber. In that sense, they succeeded! My last three connections from my last three ISPs have all been gigabit (one of which was Google Fiber, easily the best internet I've ever had). I think they're expanding again, too, though I wish they had stayed as aggressive with rollout as they started.

refulgentis 2y ago
That's a really good point, back home, Verizon didn't bother with Fios investment until then.
jerlam 2y ago
Ironically, Google Fiber purchased a wireless provider - Webpass - back in 2016 which is deployed in parallel to their fiber offerings.

cbg0 2y ago

> 5G in general (strictly inferior to incumbent, speed isn't faster, latency is higher, not as reliable) I'm guessing this is a US thing? In Europe, 5G is definitely faster while latency is on par with 4G. YMMMV between EU countries though.

refulgentis 2y ago
You're right, it's definitely better than 4G, my wording was unclear, more in the sense of "Would I make this my home ISP?" than "how did 5G go?" (I would have thought cell providers would have 20-30% of the market now, ah, the follys of youth...)
- TheSpiceIsLife 2y ago
  5G home internet is the preferred in Australia where fibre isn’t present. Even at my house where I have FTTH, my mobile 5G connection is persistently faster and quicker, that is both bandwidth and latency are superior on my phone from my home location. Of course, the pricing is structured so you’re better off paying for both, either fixed internet plus mobile phone plane, or fixed 5G and mobile phone plan, depending on what is available at any specific location, but typically not all three options. Thank you centrally planned infrastructure.
- vel0city 2y ago
  TBH I think a lot of it is many people still don't understand the product or misunderstand their actual needs/usage. Plenty of "normie" households can easily meet all their needs with a decent 5G fixed wireless install. As we see more cord cutting we'll probably see continued growth in fixed wireless. FWIW, most other ISP types are treading water in terms of overall subscribers while the only real growth overall in new subscribers is fixed wireless. Your gut probably wasn't wrong that fixed wireless will probably grab 20-30%+, but just timescale-wise off a bit. https://www.opensignal.com/2024/06/06/5g-fixed-wireless-access-fwa-success-in-the-us-a-roadmap-for-broadband-success-elsewhere https://www.opensignal.com/2024/06/06/5g-fixed-wireless-acce...

calebio 2y ago

> I keep wondering how people make Starlink work, my understanding is the connection degrades then stops then reconnects every...idk, 5 minutes? as the satellites go overhead. That is not a correct understanding for how the Starlink network behaves today[0]. While I can't speak for using it outside of the U.S., I have not faced any interruptions outside of a few times during very severe weather. [0] in the early days of the constellation, there were sub-second or a few second drops when there was no satellite overhead. But this dropped off very quickly once the constellation size increased.

refulgentis 2y ago
I see, tyty (been wondering for quite some time)

Workaccount2 2y ago

The key breakthrough for 5G was allowing ~10x the number of devices to connect to a node compared to 4G. 5G is what allowed the toppling of data caps that was by far the #1 consumer complaint for years. 4G just couldn't handle heavy loads well, so data caps were needed to constrain demand. Teleco's aren't going to say this out load, but it's the real reason why they were so celebratory about 5G, despite it coming off like just a renamed 4G to the average user.

stnmtn 2y ago
Why would they not be loud about it? I think "We've built out 5G so we can get rid of your data caps!" is a message any telecom would want to broadcast out, unless I'm missing something
- conception 2y ago
  They don’t want to get rid of your data caps. They want to get rid of their data bandwidth limitations.
jampekka 2y ago
> 4G just couldn't handle heavy loads well, so data caps were needed to constrain demand. In many parts of the world uncapped data has been the norm since around GPRS.
- echoangle 2y ago
  Could that be because they aren’t as densely populated by users so even if everyone with a phone has no data cap, they won’t overload the network? Which countries were that for example?
  - xavxav 2y ago
    basically every european country? they've all had much larger datacaps than north america for years preceding 5g and most are quite densely inhabited.

johncalvinyoung 2y ago

As I deployed Starlink in an extremely obstructed spot last year for a few weeks, where multi-second dropouts were quite common... it impressed me JUST HOW MANY satellites they have up there, and just how usable my dish was despite only having ~60% of its field of view clear. It's switching satellites much more often than every five minutes. The built-in obstruction mapping tool quickly demonstrated that though each satellite represents a tiny slice of sky... over the course of the day you're seeing a vast number of satellites at a high variety of spatial angles and orbits. I wouldn't recommend that obstructed situation to anyone (and it's going in a much clearer location this coming summer) but the users I was supporting reported it a far far better solution than the 4G LTE they'd been depending on prior. Not a patch on fiber, but a great solution for an awkwardly remote property.

woah 2y ago

It's crazy that almost every house is able to be attached to a pipe carrying high pressure water that will flood if it is broken or attached wrong, thick wire carrying high current that will shock you, a pipe containing explosive gas, and a six inch cast iron pipe full of poop, but adding one more connection to a tiny thin strand of glass wrapped in plastic is too expensive.

calebio 2y ago
A lot of the houses that don't currently have modern high speed internet access also don't have water pipes and sewer pipes. They have wells or water collection/delivery and septic tanks. Electricity and twisted pair phone line is really all that's been pulled to their property.

iam-TJ 2y ago

For Starlink the User Terminal (antenna a.k.a. "Dishy") is a phased array. It tracks the satellite as it passes from west to east. Each satellite is in view for around 15 seconds - the phased array instantly flips from east to west and acquires the new in-view satellite in microseconds. There's no degradation in almost all 'flips' especially if the U.T. has an unobstructed view of the sky.