Starlink - anyone using it?

[Terminal_Boy]

Ideal for places in the back end of nowhere that will never get fibre nor cellular coverage.

I’d imagine that the current beta phase is due to network capacity rather than satellite coverage.

 

[peige]

I don't need it but if I had a poor connection I would definitely consider it, even at the current price point because poor speed really does do your head in!

Years back I had a very poor broadband connection and was using satellite broadband. Upload was via the phone and download was via a node on astra if I recall. Latency was obviously bad but when the data came it flooded back at you

 

[visibleman]

Too expensive IMO.

Compared to the usual array of GEO Sat providers, it's very well priced and with it being LEO, performance will be/is a lot better.
Although it's not aimed at people that can get £35 connections, rather the millions of people on the planet that either cannot get a connection or services that are offered to them, have (very) limited bandwidth and are/or extremely costly.

Elon is already talking of portable units which could be a bit of a game changer.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Elon is already talking of portable units which could be a bit of a game changer.

Yes I heard about that.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Not sure why there are any negative comments about Starlink other than ‘why can’t I get this?!’

It’s faster and cheaper than the alternatives from other sat providers.

This isn’t a product aimed at people who can get a mediocre (or better) FTTC connection in the U.K.

 

[Rroff]

Ideal for places in the back end of nowhere that will never get fibre nor cellular coverage.

I’d imagine that the current beta phase is due to network capacity rather than satellite coverage.

Capacity and I think you need to be in range of certain service points (ground stations) and current trial ones are in France or something so only cover southern England for the most part - I might be wrong as I only skim read the details.

 

[clv101]

Reliability, latency and quality in general is going to be poor, certainly in it's infancy. It's priority is to get those in remote areas connected, i'd certainly prefer a low-level FTTC connection if available, over Starlink.

Latency should be great, sub 20ms. Reliability, users are already reporting multiple days of up time with only seconds of outage which is improving all the time as more satellites are added. Starlink should outperform anything other than FTTP.

How can it be available in some areas and not others? Are you on a different planet? Does the satellite use very narrow sector antennas???

They need ground stations - but also support, marketing, logistics etc. Those in the UK with it so far have had direct shipment from California, can't be doing that for thousands.

And here's the pretty picture: https://satellitemap.space/#

 

[Yaayuh!]

Latency should be great, sub 20ms. Reliability, users are already reporting multiple days of up time with only seconds of outage which is improving all the time as more satellites are added. Starlink should outperform anything other than FTTP.

I’ll believe it when when I can see a UK long term usage review. I’d also like to know what effect heavy cloud and even storms have on it.

But again, Starlink doesn’t exist to compete with the average connection, it’s to bring connections to remote areas, brilliant in that regard.

 

[clv101]

There are already thousands of in users in the US, check out Reddit and YouTube, it works, very well and will only get a lot better over the coming year with 100+ new satalites a month.

Remote areas, yes, in the UK that includes anyone living a couple of miles from an exchange.

 

[safc10g]

Kinda reminds me of my EOL (Europe Online) days, dish on side of parents house pointed at 19.2e, DVB card in the PC, downlink only, uplink was still dialup modem haha!

Wasn't quite as I expected (didn't do much research...obviously!!) as had to basically schedule downloads which would be sent down via satellite during the night, HDD going nuts! Actually TOO nuts...files were coming down too fast, corruption all over.

the things we do for faster internet ha!

 

[BigT]

It’s too early for me to adopt since my FTTC is acceptable in my village but I’ve no doubt soon it’ll eclipse anything Openreach will put here in the next 10 years so I’m sure I’ll be subscribing sooner rather than later. I’m so impressed with what they’ve achieved already. Yes it’s expensive but compared to other alt-net providers here (old school satellite and a WISP) it’s actually reasonably competitive considering it offers a considerably better service already.

 

[clv101]

The other thing to be aware of is the fairly high power use. Dishy draws well over 100W continuously. Developers have said this will fall as they work on 'sleep' modes, but at least it's warm enough to keep the snow off.

 

[visibleman]

Latency should be great, sub 20ms.

Elon has mentioned that he hopes to get it to around 20ms but I think sub 20ms will be hard as they would need to lower the orbit of the Starlink constellation (doubtful), which is why they officially state latency as 20 to 40ms.

Starlink should outperform anything other than FTTP.

Starlink isn't the holy grail and there are plenty of other services that will/have the ability to outperform Starlink other than FTTP.
As mentioned before, it's predominantly aimed at those on the planet that can't get or get poor internet connectivity rather than being aimed at those who have a range of internet services available to them - hence the cost.

 

[clv101]

Elon has mentioned that he hopes to get it to around 20ms but I think sub 20ms will be hard as they would need to lower the orbit of the Starlink constellation (doubtful), which is why they officially state latency as 20 to 40ms.

A lower altitude shell is exactly what they are proposing and when the satellites are all communicating between each other via laser you get closer to your destination before hitting a ground station.

Starlink isn't the holy grail and there are plenty of other services that will/have the ability to outperform Starlink other than FTTP.
As mentioned before, it's predominantly aimed at those on the planet that can't get or get poor internet connectivity rather than being aimed at those who have a range of internet services available to them - hence the cost.

Indeed, but that class includes *many* in both the US and UK who don't currently have access to anything more than say 3Mbps.

 

[Cyber-Mav]

what frequency does starlink use? i take it thats its not 2.4 or 5ghz?

 

[ChrisD.]

what frequency does starlink use? i take it thats its not 2.4 or 5ghz?

Don't confuse it with wireless. Starlink uses K-band and V-band RF, much higher than wifi products use.

 

[Cyber-Mav]

isnt high frequency worse for distance? thought they use something in the khz band to get to space.

 

[ChrisD.]

isnt high frequency worse for distance? thought they use something in the khz band to get to space.

If you use kHz you're going to be massively limited in terms of data bandwidth available. Higher frequency RF is used for the majority of satellite communication, including mobile phone mast to mast RF links. It's fine with distance as long as there's no objects in between the devices.

 

[visibleman]

A lower altitude shell is exactly what they are proposing and when the satellites are all communicating between each other via laser you get closer to your destination before hitting a ground station.

Be impressive if/when it happens (/FCC sign off on lowering the orbit) but a reliable sub 20ms end-to-end is a pretty mean feat considering the issues at play with sat links, even in LEO and with laser crosslinks.

 

[Haze]

I will stick with 4g broadband