dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I fully expect your situation in Idaho to move you down to the lower price level later this year. Especially if you aren't in that cluster west of Boise.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I fully expect your situation in Idaho to move you down to the lower price level later this year. Especially if you aren't in that cluster west of Boise.
petit_bateau
Active Member
I'm confused.
Why has @DrGriz found his cell listed as 'congested/waitlist' and his price moved up to the $120 tier, rather than remaining in the 'available/uncongested' at $90/month tier.
It sounds like DrGriz would know if there was a secret cabal of RV-users down the road in his empty corner of Idaho, that was swallowing all the bandwidth.
What is it that is going on in this example ?
The congestion is likely at the ground station, which is serving a much larger area. (One ground station serves more than one cell.)
I don't know. We live in a long valley (it's called "Long Valley" for some reason /s) and most of the people live in the "uncongested" area the next cell over. There is only one internet cable to the area serving everything. It's not at all clear to me
There appears to only be one ground station actually in Idaho, Colburn, and I think it is a very long way from Long Valley:
So your cell might be getting its connection from the Butte, MT ground station.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
From that location you will be using at least
* Butte, MT
* Prosser, WA
* Colburn, ID
* Vernan, UT
* Tionesta, CA
not necessarily in that order (your signal will bounce from sat to sat and each sat will pick it's own ground stations as it goes by).
There are additional ground stations in range but they are less likely to be used than the 5 above. For example Evanston, WY and Quincy, WA are in range but unlikely to be used if the others are up.
If you want to see the links go to Starlink.sx and set your home location, watch the solid green line (and the dotted orange line coming off the sat touched by the solid green line) as the dots move by, whatever orange dot is touched indirectly by the solid green line tells you which ground station you are using according to the simulation (real world SpaceX might make other choices).
Last edited:
My price goes up to $120/mo in April here in rural PA. Sucks because my only other options for internet are the super slow 6Mbit DSL I had for over a decade or other satellite net, no cable available for me. T-Mobile now provides cellular internet here but it's not very good.
I'll keep paying Starlink for now, my TSLA money has afforded me the breathing room financially, but I have to wonder if the price will ever come back down, or will Starlink keep squeezing the early adopters like this?
I'll keep paying Starlink for now, my TSLA money has afforded me the breathing room financially, but I have to wonder if the price will ever come back down, or will Starlink keep squeezing the early adopters like this?
I don't know, but I don't think it has to do with the ground station. The distance from the Coburn station is essentially the same for everyone here. Same with Butte. They are both hundreds of miles away. In fact, it would make no sense to have two different ground stations. Long Valley is literally one basket, and we are all in it.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
You might be in one location but the dance of satellites over you and the relationship between you, the sat, and the ground stations changes constantly. If you want to know I strongly suggest you
go to https://Starlink.sx and set your home location, watch the solid green line (and the dotted orange line coming off the sat touched by the solid green line) as the dots move by, whatever orange dot is touched indirectly by the solid green line tells you which ground station you are using according to the simulation (real world SpaceX might make other choices).
Just watching it for a few minutes you should easily be able to identify the 4 most common ground stations used for your location. Watch it longer and you might see a 5th and maybe even a 6th come into play.
Setup some way to track it and you might find more than 6 ground stations being used for your location. It's very dynamic.
You don't have to move around for the ground station you are using to change. SpaceX sats are constantly moving.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I hear what you are saying, but literally move my green dot west the width of another green dot in the other picture and you will see where it is supposedly uncongested according to Starlink site. I think the "congestion" is an arbitrary boundary.
petit_bateau
Active Member
Thanks, I'd not thought of that. However in this case it seems DrGriz is reporting something that might not fit that hypothesis. (I don't know, I am trying to understand this).
So really there are three sources of congestion, which may of course be cumulative:
- sat-to-user;
- sat-to-ground-to-backhaul;
- sat-to-sat on-orbit;
Is it possible that in @DrGriz case the sat-to-sat is becoming congested at just that one on-orbit location ? So that always (or almost always) the in-orbit links become saturated / and that in his location the local backhaul is also saturated ? Might that explain what is being reported here ? Step one smidge either way and the local backhaul is still saturated but magically the on-orbit links are sufficiently decongested ?
Or if not, then what is this ?
Wouldn't I see some service degradation once in a while if any of that were the case?
petit_bateau
Active Member
Fair point. Maybe there is service degradation going on but for whatever reason you never discern it. Or maybe there is another technical aspect of network congestion that we have not figured out. Or maybe this is blatant price-gouging and/or administrative over-simplification by Starlink. Or a mistake. Or something else.
I don't know. That is why I asked if anyone could explain this puzzle to me. Though I am less puzzled than I was a few days ago, your case does seem to be odd.
I'll throw a couple more at you. Look at the circled single cell in Central Washington I have marked. I know it because I drive through it occasionally. Very rural. Yes, there's a tiny little gas station/village but it's mostly forest/desert. Why no service yet at all, when all of the similar unpopulated areas around that single cell have service? Is it because practically no one lives there? But the cell just to the north is just as unpopulated.
As for Idaho, the three stacked "waitlist" cells (top one circled is mine) have maybe 1/100 the density of the area south of us and west of Boise that also is waitlisted. If I use the simulator, we all seem to be using the same ground stations and satellites.
I go for the administrative over-simplification or "it takes programmer time to set the satellites up to prioritize sat time for a given cell and we haven't gotten around to it yet" sort of thing.
But I don't know. It's interesting to speculate.
petit_bateau
Active Member
I don't know either, I'm just as interested as you. Are there defence/security concerns in any of those cells that might be playing a role in this ?
Their are radio telescopes in the Brewster, Washington area. Looks fairly close to the area in question.
