National Broadband Plan or Starlink

FCC are in a fight with the DoD in the states at the moment. Why? Because spectrum is very very finite. Starlink has this problem just like other wide area solutions.


Its a great solution for ships, oil rigs, aviation, research bases in the arctic. Its a non runner for mass market.

Useful if you are lucky enough to have electricity and a computer in the Congo basin, we are not the Congo basin, we are a modern developed 1st world country with 3rd world communications infrastrcuture. Luckily the NBP will address that, Starlink could be handy for campers or those who travel in the mountains alot with limited 3G/4G coverage.

celtic_oz wrote: »

Sounds like a bit more than that, not urban but yes rural surely

Probably, for areas that will never see fibre, but let's see how it works out in the years ahead, in places like rural USA/Canada.

Luckily rural Ireland will have access to 10 Gbps fibre via the NBP.

Starlink is proving to be a game changer in terms of mobile connectivity. While still in beta testing, it is already being considered for:

Rural connectivity for schools
Military Communications
‘Weather data as a service business model'
Emergency Connectivity, during disasters

Unlike fibre, it should provide broadband to moving vehicles including planes, trains and cars.

celtic_oz wrote: »

Understood products are not comparable probably in speed or cost.

If the retail cost in Europe is comparable to the US Beta it would have been far more cost effective than the NBP, for the fringes.

The initial speed and latency is pretty good, given the limited rollout of the space segment infrastructure.

The Starlink Wiki on Reddit often has the most up to date info on Starlink for people interested in following this.

It will save rural connectivity in much the same way as 3G was going to.

Then we were told that 4G would save us from the high contention of 3G.

Now 5G is going to save us from the high contention of 4G and 3G.

Repeat for 6G, 7G, etc.

There's only so much you can modulate over the air and that dips significantly in rain or heavy cloud cover when it has to back down the modulation big time. As for connectivity on the move, this isn't going to get around the inherent limitations of multipath and rapidly changing signal levels as objects rapidly move between you and the other end of the link which is what makes connectivity on the move so difficult with 3G,4G,SiriusXM, etc.

A ground station is not required but will cause the problem that frequently hits traditional satellite broadband insofar as geolocation is fecked and you'll get served your Google and Netflix content from wherever the earth station breaks out onto the WWW (and you'll get RTE Player International not the Irish version). Of course, satellite has never been a viable use case for streaming media due to extremely low usage caps so wasn't an issue until now.

I can't imagine Mary in Moat will be too impressed when she gets served French Netflix, told she can't watch the GAA on RTE Player because it's not available on the international player and has her SkyGo suspended because she's been "roaming" for more than 30 days.

So no, this is not a viable alternative to the NBP no more than Mr Ryan subsidising the rollout of 3's mobile network last decade on the premise everyone in thr country would be happy out forevermore on 3G dongles was.

I agree with your general point re contention, which is very much a function of infrastructure density. With sufficient cells, 4G/5G could provide reasonable broadband in rural areas. The problem is the cost of the backhaul necessary to achieve this.
Equally, there's a finite capacity for any given number of Starlink satellites. Based on filings to the FCC each each satellite in the SpaceX system provides aggregate downlink capacity to users ranging from 17 to 23Gbit/s. Assuming 100% efficiency, this means that each satellite can handle 200 simultaneous streams at 100Mbit/s. This is why it is not targeted at general broadband in densely populated areas. However, on the west edge of europe we are at an advantage from a Starlink perspective. In many cases, there will be little competition for bandwidth, as satellites fly past.

KildareP wrote: »

There's only so much you can modulate over the air and that dips significantly in rain or heavy cloud cover when it has to back down the modulation big time. As for connectivity on the move, this isn't going to get around the inherent limitations of multipath and rapidly changing signal levels as objects rapidly move between you and the other end of the link which is what makes connectivity on the move so difficult with 3G,4G,SiriusXM, etc.

With free space optics there's almost no limit to what 'you can modulate over the air'.
As for Starlink connectivity on the move... Starlink has already provided connectivity to military planes.

KildareP wrote: »

A ground station is not required but will cause the problem that frequently hits traditional satellite broadband insofar as geolocation is fecked and you'll get served your Google and Netflix content from wherever the earth station breaks out onto the WWW (and you'll get RTE Player International not the Irish version). Of course, satellite has never been a viable use case for streaming media due to extremely low usage caps so wasn't an issue until now.

The filing with ARCEP for a ground station in Gravelines, France, is expected to cover Ireland. (ARCEP is the France’s Electronic Communications, Postal and Print media distribution Regulatory Authority). Giving an Irish IP address to Irish customers is not an issue, it's trivial to implement.

So yes, Starlink should be a viable alternative to the NBP, providing regulatory approval is obtained. I'm not suggesting it should form the core of the NBP, even if that horse had not already bolted. However it could still be used to reduce the cost of serving the more remote homes.

ED E wrote: »

These are results with basically nobody on the network. Like 4G when nobody had a 4G phone or 5G today. Add a few thousand ground stations to an area and it all grinds to a halt.

Those results are from early beta testers, we have simply no idea what is causing the bottleneck. I would expect that Starlink would publish service parameters, before launching a full commercial service. Only then can we be sure of how good the service is. However, based on their current rate of progress, I would expect is to be suitable for general use.

The $99 per month is enough to discourage me away from it anyway, that is just simply too much money per month, I would not even pay that for FTTH. With NBP Fibre you will get connectivity for €40-€55 per month same as copper now. I know Starlink will effectively be a monopoly since you won't go with them unless you have no other choice.

celtic_oz wrote: »

Starlink is estimated to cost in excess of 10 billion dollars

What fools they are .. Musk et al should have just asked the boardsies.



:rolleyes:

Grand. Seems like you have your mind made up and are not for changing, even when you have people who actually work in telecoms and network engineering - both fibre and microwave - offering advice based on actual, real world experience.

No point in trying to discuss so I'll leave ye to it

NewClareman wrote: »

With free space optics there's almost no limit to what 'you can modulate over the air'.

Though that's a different technology to Starlink and doesn't work over long distances.

I think Starlink is a huge improvement over existing satellite systems but it's still a radio based satellite system. It will never compare with terrestrial fibre for capacity.

NewClareman wrote: »

I was just replying to the comment that there was a limit to what 'you can modulate over the air'.

Nah, lets be clear you were trying to belittle someones experience and saying you'd have to work in actual starlink to understand it. Because they are the only show in town.

Bit of elon fanboyism here i suspect. Let the brand drive the outcome...

NewClareman wrote: »

I have never suggested that Starlink are the only show in town - that would be silly. It is equally silly to suggest that working in telecoms makes someone an expert in satellite communications. Even for experts in that area, Starlink brings a whole new level of complexity.

So, to be clear, I'm not belittling anyone's experience. However, I am suggesting that they are overstating the relevance of that experience, in this area. It is clear from their comments that that is the case.

No one said that, but you basically indicated the experience was irrelevant. But you were pretending to be polite.

Starlink simply cannot match fibre to the home. Now i know that might really irk you (for whatever reason) but its just how it is.

Also no one has said it doesnt have an application, of course it does. It would be silly to suggest it doesnt.

But the absolute lunacy in saying its a serious competitor to fibre to the home in a country like Ireland needs to be tackled head on for what it is.

celtic_oz wrote: »

Actually some mentioned "congo basin" or the "artic"




Please stop going off topic and READ the op.

Don't act like a moderator.

You aren't one. I'm entirely on topic.