shaklee3

50 ms·

661.
by shaklee3 6y ago
That's not an innovation. Iridium was doing that 25 years ago.
662.
by shaklee3 6y ago
It is possible and has been done before in the past. The companies that tried it went bankrupt because the business plan doesn't work out. The ground stations are too expensive for end consumers. Starlink will likely see the same fate
663.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Because that's what will make this whole thing fall apart. A motorized phased array antenna isn't going to be cheap to recoup.
664.
by shaklee3 6y ago
The FCC prefers 5G. Starlink will likely never be able to use that spectrum in certain areas.
665.
by shaklee3 6y ago
That doesn't reduce tracking complexity. It makes handoffs more frequent and complex as the OP was pointing out.
666.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I didn't say the latency was as high as GEO. If a car commercial said a car was $20k, and you got to the dealership and it was $60k, would you just throw your hands up and say it's still pretty good? The point is that the publicit
667.
by shaklee3 6y ago
https://www.shacknews.com/article/118663/spacex-starlink-20m... He said 20ms, and you are saying it'll be higher, and that's okay. You can't just shrink buffers to get rid of queuing latency. You in
668.
by shaklee3 6y ago
No, there are not millions of Americans who don't have that. Both viasat and Hughes provide 25Mbps everywhere in the USA, and up to 100Mbps in some cases. Your math is completely ignoring the fact that 80% of the satellites are over NO
669.
by shaklee3 6y ago
You are arguing against exactly what Elon had said at launch. I'm not being unfair with a beta. I've lived this industry for a while; latency will go up with congestion. Let's revisit this comment in a year.
670.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Existing satellite internet doesn't go out with clouds, and only with heavy rain.
671.
by shaklee3 6y ago
That's not comparable to sending a signal from space.
672.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Artemis was vaporware. It never made it into the field.
673.
by shaklee3 6y ago
What encoding technology is specific to wireless? (Hint: none)
674.
by shaklee3 6y ago
For what it's worth, satellite is typically around 1-4 bits per second per Hz.
675.
by shaklee3 6y ago
That's not how it works. The FCC doesn't just free up massive spectrum from other places. We're talking about 500MHz chunks that just don't exist. The FCC favors cell technologies, so if anything, they would take it away
676.
by shaklee3 6y ago
What you said at the end is not true. It does not have a relatively uniform signal at all areas of the earth (on purpose, since they know where the customers are), and it's not a benefit to be standing capacity where nobody lives.
677.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I think you're overestimating how much those people are willing to pay.
678.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Because the speed tests show it, and there are no inter satellite links. In fact, because of the limited coverage in a very specific area, is highly likely that what you're seeing is on the lower end of latency for the final system sin
679.
by shaklee3 6y ago
The problem is that the target audience you refer to doesn't have the amount of money it takes to sustain a system like this. Otherwise any of the existing satellite providers could continue to launch more and more satellites and serve
680.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Their target launch cadence has been missed by quite a bit for many years. At this point they are only launching their own satellites at a cost to them, and not launching very many paying customer payloads at all.
681.
by shaklee3 6y ago
This is absolutely not true. They are still selling you a dish in a terminal that most of the population could not install themselves on their house. The majority of the installs will be professionaly done.
682.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Please post your napkin math. That seems to disagree with all the other analysts' math.
683.
by shaklee3 6y ago
SpaceX has to pay the same fiber cost in terms of latency as everyone else. They do not have gateways near every PoP, and will need to backhaul a nontrivial distance to add latency.
684.
by shaklee3 6y ago
That's not how it works. There are intentionally launching satellites at different inclinations so that they can cover more densely populated areas with more bandwidth. The speed and capacity is absolutely not uniform over the entire g
685.
by shaklee3 6y ago
How could you possibly tell that they're able to provide reasonable quality to customers by looking at a single speed test? There is a whole bunch of other stuff that goes into running a network other than doing a single speed test. A
686.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Both the speeds and the latency are worse than what was originally promised. there have also been no pricing for the plans, nor have there been pricing for the equipment. This has been the biggest downsides since day one.
687.
by shaklee3 6y ago
I've used both services for several years, and they are perfectly fine. I think people have lost their objectivity completely here and somehow think starlink is a new technology that nobody else was capable of making.
688.
by shaklee3 6y ago
It's going to get worse. Right now it's completely uncongested. The terminals are not built to handle two satellites at the same time, so the throughput they are getting now is likely close to the maximum that they will be seeing.
689.
by shaklee3 6y ago
Why is that impressive if the original press announcement said it would be < 20ms?
690.
by shaklee3 6y ago
No, it's not. So far you don't know anything about the price or the actual speeds that will be offered. So far all we know is that the latency numbers that were promised of sub 20ms are clearly not going to happen.

More ›