SpaceX Starlink Satellite Internet

AngeloArgue

I've seen they have rolled out a beta service in northern states of the US. speeds between 50-150mbs. Cost is $99 a month with an initial $499 equipment cost.

Much like satellite TV the system uses a network of low earth orbiting satellites and a dish you put outside your dwelling.

Coverage in the southern half of Ireland is comparable with the best coverage available anywhere at the moment. Internet presently will be available 97.6% of the time. It looks like they have registered with comreg as an internet provider here.

Has anyone enquired about this? It may be useful for remote areas. The initial cost seems a bit steep. Internet is usually more expensive in the US. Maybe they'll adjust it to be competitive in the Irish market?

The Cush

AngeloArgue wrote: »

Coverage in the southern half of Ireland is comparable with the best coverage available anywhere at the moment. Internet presently will be available 97.6% of the time. It looks like they have registered with comreg as an internet provider here.

So far it appears the UK beta is up to about 51 degrees latitude
https://imgur.com/uiKvvU6

RandRuns

AngeloArgue wrote: »

I've seen they have rolled out a beta service in northern states of the US. speeds between 50-150mbs. Cost is $99 a month with an initial $499 equipment cost.

Much like satellite TV the system uses a network of low earth orbiting satellites and a dish you put outside your dwelling.

Coverage in the southern half of Ireland is comparable with the best coverage available anywhere at the moment. Internet presently will be available 97.6% of the time. It looks like they have registered with comreg as an internet provider here.

Has anyone enquired about this? It may be useful for remote areas. The initial cost seems a bit steep. Internet is usually more expensive in the US. Maybe they'll adjust it to be competitive in the Irish market?

Interesting, though the cost would be prohibitive if it was comparable here.

When you say that internet would be available 97.6% of the time, does that mean it would drop out at certain times of the day/night, or would it just be randomly not available?

The Cush

RandRuns wrote: »

Interesting, though the cost would be prohibitive if it was comparable here

The UK kit costs £439 plus £54 delivery and £89 pm

RandRuns

The Cush wrote: »

The UK kit costs £439 plus £54 delivery and £89 pm

Jaysus that's a bit harsh.

ED E

The Cush wrote: »

The UK kit costs £439 plus £54 delivery and £89 pm

RandRuns wrote: »

Jaysus that's a bit harsh.

This is the second thread on this, we should merge (@Mods).


People baulk at that price but remember a single spotbeam covers the area that a cellular operator might have 50+ cells in. Vs 1.

If all of Dublin was covered by 4 masts do you think anyones mobile would work? Its a very very limited product that costs a huge amount to provide. The customer is businesses and very affluent, not the user currently on Imagine.

ED E

AngeloArgue wrote: »

Much like satellite TV the system uses a network of low earth orbiting satellites and a dish you put outside your dwelling.

This is not correct.


- TV is broadcast, a signal for 1 is the same as a signal for 1 Million. Infinite scaling
- TV from the likes of Astra are from Geo (high) orbits, not LEO like Starlink. Geos are much cheaper as you dont have to have as many and you dont have to boost them all the time.

Apples and oranges.

AngeloArgue

The Cush wrote: »

The UK kit costs £439 plus £54 delivery and £89 pm

So they're starting the beta in the UK but the price remains the same as the US. I guess this will be marketed towards very remote areas where service is very limited. Unless they can reduce the price in the future so it can become competitive.

AngeloArgue

RandRuns wrote: »

Interesting, though the cost would be prohibitive if it was comparable here.

When you say that internet would be available 97.6% of the time, does that mean it would drop out at certain times of the day/night, or would it just be randomly not available?

Apparently the signal is maintained by a network of orbiting satellites. Presently they remain over head 97%+ of the time so every now and then you will lose the signal for a minute. The plan is to increase the number of satellites so that you will have a uninterrupted service.

AngeloArgue

ED E wrote: »

This is not correct.


- TV is broadcast, a signal for 1 is the same as a signal for 1 Million. Infinite scaling
- TV from the likes of Astra are from Geo (high) orbits, not LEO like Starlink. Geos are much cheaper as you dont have to have as many and you dont have to boost them all the time.

Apples and oranges.

Ah, I know that :cool:
I was just being illustrative on a most basic level:
You need an outside dish pointing with a clear line of sight to the sky with a cable going into your house for the service

Timmaay

RandRuns wrote: »

Jaysus that's a bit harsh.

Given my rubbish 4g broadband has been struggling to give 1/4 mb the last week or so (especially during the day, obviously school kids all on zoom), I'd happily pay that for good internet here.

theguzman

AngeloArgue wrote: »

So they're starting the beta in the UK but the price remains the same as the US. I guess this will be marketed towards very remote areas where service is very limited. Unless they can reduce the price in the future so it can become competitive.

It's a catch-22, if you reduce to price of it to be similar or even cheaper than similar wired urban offerings then you will get idiots who have fibre and fast internet available to them getting starlink just out of stinginess or the fact that Starlink will be faster than the majority of vDSL offerings by Eir cabinets in rural towns around the country.

E.g. many rural towns and villages have a good 60-100mb vDSL copper connections but paddy ontop of the mountain 3 miles out in the sticks got diddly squat.

The bandwidth will obviously be limited so urban users have to discouraged. What should happen would be to GPS ringfence your starlink antenna perhaps linked to the National Broadband Plan Database and Eircode so you could only buy it if you are in a region with limited connectivity options. Now of course this won't happen since Ireland will probably be less than 0.01% of the global starlink market so why invest this type of effort or resources when starlinks aim is to generate profit so tough luck you have to pony up the money and you can have Starlink wherever you like from Ballsbridge to Ballinspittle.

babelfish1990

RandRuns wrote: »

Interesting, though the cost would be prohibitive if it was comparable here.

I don't understand why people consider rural broadband costs to be "prohibitive" without considering the huge savings from buying property in remote areas vs urban areas. The cost of a remote dwelling is typically €100,000 vs €400,000 in an urban area. The difference of €300,000 would pay for a few hundred years of broadband even at Starlink prices! Of course, there are some other costs that are higher in remote areas - such as septic tanks and wells for private water supply - but householders seem to accept these, and moan about the high cost of broadband.

There is no particular need for Starlink to reduce it's prices because it is aimed precisely at remote dwellings, and in most countries householders in these remote locations don't have the benefit of a alternative heavily subsidised Government scheme, and will gladly pay the extra to get Starlink. In many countries such as USA, the Governments will subsidise Starlink, as they will accept that it meets the needs of their rural broadband schemes. Musk is happy to make high margins on Starlink, as he wants the money to fund his Mars colonization programme. Until Amazon launch their competing service, he can probably milk Starlink profits, and even when Amazon launch they probably won't be stupid enough to crash the prices as Bezos will need the profits to get back his position as richest man in the World!

RandRuns

babelfish1990 wrote: »

I don't understand why people consider rural broadband costs to be "prohibitive" without considering the huge savings from buying property in remote areas vs urban areas. The cost of a remote dwelling is typically €100,000 vs €400,000 in an urban area. The difference of €300,000 would pay for a few hundred years of broadband even at Starlink prices! Of course, there are some other costs that are higher in remote areas - such as septic tanks and wells for private water supply - but householders seem to accept these, and moan about the high cost of broadband.

There is no particular need for Starlink to reduce it's prices because it is aimed precisely at remote dwellings, and in most countries householders in these remote locations don't have the benefit of a alternative heavily subsidised Government scheme, and will gladly pay the extra to get Starlink. In many countries such as USA, the Governments will subsidise Starlink, as they will accept that it meets the needs of their rural broadband schemes. Musk is happy to make high margins on Starlink, as he wants the money to fund his Mars colonization programme. Until Amazon launch their competing service, he can probably milk Starlink profits, and even when Amazon launch they probably won't be stupid enough to crash the prices as Bezos will need the profits to get back his position as richest man in the World!

I live in a remote rural area and I don't pay anything like that for broadband, and don't know anyone who does. It may be worth it if one lived in Alaska or somewhere, but in Ireland it simply isn't comparable to current prices. That was my point.
It's nonsense to claim one should pay over the odds for broadband because rural houses are cheaper, when there are alternatives out there.

alan4cult

The latency of satellite broadband would make remote desktop very hard to use. For file transfers and offline working it would be a solution.

babelfish1990

alan4cult wrote: »

The latency of satellite broadband would make remote desktop very hard to use. For file transfers and offline working it would be a solution.

The latency on traditional geo-stationary satellites does make these applications difficult to use.

However, LEO satellites such as Starlink are in very low orbits, so the latency is not bad. They are aiming for 20-30ms - and already seem to be achieving around 34ms. This is acceptable for home working applications. With more ground stations, and point-to-point laser links between the satellites they will continue to improve.

NewClareman

babelfish1990 wrote: »

I don't understand why people consider rural broadband costs to be "prohibitive" without considering the huge savings from buying property in remote areas vs urban areas. The cost of a remote dwelling is typically €100,000 vs €400,000 in an urban area. The difference of €300,000 would pay for a few hundred years of broadband even at Starlink prices!

Let me know where these magical €100k houses are, I'm interested. I don't know of any houses in Clare or Limerick, regardless of 'remoteness', for €100k. Unless you're looking at a "do it up'r" that is in no way comparable to a €400k house in an urban area.

RichardL1951

Konnect ME offer satellite broadband for between €30 and €70/month with free standard installation

social butterfly 2020

alan4cult wrote: »

The latency of satellite broadband would make remote desktop very hard to use. For file transfers and offline working it would be a solution.

latency wont be a big issue as the satellites will be orbiting 500m above as opposed to 30000+ as the norm

bk

Very interesting video by Linus Tech Tips using Starlink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh1a2K9ZgNA

- Roughly 138mb/s down 20 something up
- Latency of 27ms
- He was able to play four simultaneous 4k video streams on it!!
- He was able to game on it

Looked really impressive, perfect for those in more rural areas.

ED E

Look at 6:26, the thumbs load like 800k ADSL. He explains it but fails to actually explain it. 27ms is a headline figure but kinda like the NEDC range of an EV.

bk

ED E wrote: »

Look at 6:26, the thumbs load like 800k ADSL. He explains it but fails to actually explain it. 27ms is a headline figure but kinda like the NEDC range of an EV.

Yes, it isn't perfect, but still vastly better then what many people all over the world have and even many in rural Ireland have.

And remember, this is an early beta, with only 1,000 of the eventual 30,000 sats in place and without the laser backhaul between sats.

It is damn impressive.

social butterfly 2020

RandRuns wrote: »

I live in a remote rural area and I don't pay anything like that for broadband, and don't know anyone who does. It may be worth it if one lived in Alaska or somewhere, but in Ireland it simply isn't comparable to current prices. That was my point.
It's nonsense to claim one should pay over the odds for broadband because rural houses are cheaper, when there are alternatives out there.

what are the alternatives as I live in the sticks and have very little choice??

darrenheaphy

social butterfly 2020 wrote: »

what are the alternatives as I live in the sticks and have very little choice??

Me too, I'd happily pay the Starlink fees today if it meant a reliable service with low enough latency for remote work

social butterfly 2020

RichardL1951 wrote: »

Konnect ME offer satellite broadband for between €30 and €70/month with free standard installation

is it any good though?

The Cush

social butterfly 2020 wrote: »

is it any good though?

No feedback from any subscribers that we know of. A family member uses the previous service from Ka-Sat for WFH including zoom meetings etc. and is happy with the service.