Starlink continues to have been designed to sell a small number of users lower-latency links at a steep premium.
-
Starlink's satellites can only handle a limited amount of bandwidth total and per satellite. The entire constellation could only provide a few hundred thousand people the connection speed the fiber-optic connection to my house has.
The cost per user of Starlink is also very high as compared to rolling out more fiber optic and cell towers.
@michael_w_busch To me this is the real answer. Roll out fiber just like electricity to remote communities, and use fewer satellites for the really remote stations. I get it if you are comparing starlink to better terrestrial infrastructure. (More users for a lower price and less lag than satellite internet of any kind)
-
Starlink's satellites can only handle a limited amount of bandwidth total and per satellite. The entire constellation could only provide a few hundred thousand people the connection speed the fiber-optic connection to my house has.
The cost per user of Starlink is also very high as compared to rolling out more fiber optic and cell towers.
@michael_w_busch @semitones starlink seems designed to work just long enough for some large number of people and processes to depend on it and then have a kessler syndrome event, which could be an intentional one given the military nature of starlink use
-
@michael_w_busch @semitones starlink seems designed to work just long enough for some large number of people and processes to depend on it and then have a kessler syndrome event, which could be an intentional one given the military nature of starlink use
@orloff @michael_w_busch "That's a nice Low Earth Orbit you have there... It would be a shame if anything happened to it." >> Debris shell >> no new satellites for the rest of my life.
-
@orloff @michael_w_busch "That's a nice Low Earth Orbit you have there... It would be a shame if anything happened to it." >> Debris shell >> no new satellites for the rest of my life.
An unchecked collisional cascade in low orbit would not prevent spacecraft being sent elsewhere; because the collision probability would be low for one brief pass through the debris cloud.
But destroying everything now in low orbit and making those altitudes unusable for the years to decades until the debris fell out of the sky would be quite bad enough.
-
Starlink continues to have been designed to sell a small number of users lower-latency links at a steep premium.
And it remains way past time to stop letting corporations make a mess of the sky.
IIRC, Starlink cannot really serve densely populated areas (too many consumers with too few sats overhead). Competitors like AST, who would operate with just tens or hundreds of satellites would take that revenue (hopefully without creating giant mirrors in the sky).
So suddenly the idea of "a million ai datacenters in orbit" pops up, just so there is somehow demand for thousands of satellite launches…
🫣
️ — 
️️️️️️
-
Starlink continues to have been designed to sell a small number of users lower-latency links at a steep premium.
And it remains way past time to stop letting corporations make a mess of the sky.
@michael_w_busch A business managed by Musk, with massive government subsidies, failing in quality and not delivering to the users?
So shocked you could knock me down with a feather. -
@michael_w_busch To me this is the real answer. Roll out fiber just like electricity to remote communities, and use fewer satellites for the really remote stations. I get it if you are comparing starlink to better terrestrial infrastructure. (More users for a lower price and less lag than satellite internet of any kind)
@michael_w_busch @semitones this is the answer. Where i have held my nose and used starlink at a friend’s place it’s because the telco won’t run fibre a mile up a lane unless it’s a commercial service costing thousands. We’re talking locations that already have copper lines and can’t be described as remote at all. Starlink is only useful here because of governance failures resulting in no cabled option and the fact starlink is effectively subsidised.
-
@michael_w_busch @semitones this is the answer. Where i have held my nose and used starlink at a friend’s place it’s because the telco won’t run fibre a mile up a lane unless it’s a commercial service costing thousands. We’re talking locations that already have copper lines and can’t be described as remote at all. Starlink is only useful here because of governance failures resulting in no cabled option and the fact starlink is effectively subsidised.
@Wifiwits @michael_w_busch this so much. I really can't blame the person buying starlink at the subsidized price, but I can blame the system!
-
@michael_w_busch I get all that, I am just dense, and feel like I'm misunderstanding...
Small number of users, how? Does this mean the people needing rural internet access? I guess I'd agree, but it mattered to me when I was out there.
Low latency compared to what? Compared to terrestrial connections, Starlink had really very high latency. Low compared to e.g., Hughes?
Premium -- is this in cost, or number of satellites? Starlink was way cheaper than Hughes for a lot more bandwidth.
@semitones @michael_w_busch Latency is basically distance. The farther between two points the longer it takes to travel between them. The latency between two computers in your home will be very low almost instant, the latency to the moon is 1.24 seconds. (International phone calls still have a noticeable pause, but much less than when we used to send the signal to geosynchronous satellites).
-
@semitones @michael_w_busch Latency is basically distance. The farther between two points the longer it takes to travel between them. The latency between two computers in your home will be very low almost instant, the latency to the moon is 1.24 seconds. (International phone calls still have a noticeable pause, but much less than when we used to send the signal to geosynchronous satellites).
@semitones @michael_w_busch Starlink works by sending your signal to orbit, then perhaps to another satellite and then back to the earth, where it then travels over fiber to the rest of the internet. Everything has a bandwidth, basically how much data can be at a time. Think of it like pipes, the bigger the diameter the more bandwidth. The connection to your house may be small, but only you are using it. The connection between internet nodes is much bigger, but many people are using it. Satellite bandwidth is much smaller than fiber or even, copper wire. A radio signal is just less efficient. To get more bandwidth, you need more satellites, many, many more. But then more users, so more satellites…
-
@michael_w_busch I get all that, I am just dense, and feel like I'm misunderstanding...
Small number of users, how? Does this mean the people needing rural internet access? I guess I'd agree, but it mattered to me when I was out there.
Low latency compared to what? Compared to terrestrial connections, Starlink had really very high latency. Low compared to e.g., Hughes?
Premium -- is this in cost, or number of satellites? Starlink was way cheaper than Hughes for a lot more bandwidth.
A small number of users compared to ground-based internet (again, broadband for hundreds of thousands versus billions).
A steep premium as compared to fiber optics and local wireless.
And low latency as compared to other satellite connections.
Also:
Starlink is still operating at a loss. Its true costs are far higher than what is charged.
SpaceX is pleased to claim it makes money on the Starlinks, but that is based on EBITDA accounting that excludes the cost of building them.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
