I expect the aiming is north for the northern hemisphere and south for the southern. The app obstacle planning view gives preferred sky view already, so it does help.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
It's not that straight forward. If you are in a remote area it is as you say.
If you are in a congested area Starlink aims to control congestion and that might have the dish pointing somewhere other than the simple "should I point north or south" concept.
Congestion is a function of power on the ground and really isn’t something that can be solved by satellite diversity. It’s a regulatory limit.
The ‘toward the closest pole when under 53 deg’ bias is really always the right answer unless there isn’t a symmetrical-ish-enough distribution of ground stations around the user. In that case UT bias toward the denser region of gateways will return slightly more favorable UT beam forming.
***’North or south’ may also get a little more mathsey with lower-than-53 shells.
Last edited:
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I'm not going by some theory, I'm going by observation. There are widespread reports of dishes not pointing the way your understanding would suggest they point.
But then you did just say "is always the right answer unless".
I'm outside Markham and my reception is great as long as the sheep don't knock over the dish (which I still have not mounted).
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
Guam and Northern Mariana Islands are live.
Interesting datapoint on Viasat-to-aircraft: According to dude, "Finally, all new United mainline domestic jets feature Viasat satellite internet, including the A321neo. This industry-leading satellite service worked flawlessly throughout the flight, with download speeds hovering around 25 Mbps and uploads around 1 Mbps."
I actually find a 'flawless' 25 down from Viasat a bit hard to wrap my head around, though it's rare I'm both a) on a Viasat enabled aircraft and b) going to work and thus am going to pay for wifi, so I suppose I can't say I simply don't believe it. Maybe that flight was so booked with airplane nerds just trying to get on the inaugural flight that they were all too busy chatting each other up and only two people actually used the wifi?
I actually find a 'flawless' 25 down from Viasat a bit hard to wrap my head around, though it's rare I'm both a) on a Viasat enabled aircraft and b) going to work and thus am going to pay for wifi, so I suppose I can't say I simply don't believe it. Maybe that flight was so booked with airplane nerds just trying to get on the inaugural flight that they were all too busy chatting each other up and only two people actually used the wifi?
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
In the pic above all of Mexico was active and all of the Amazon was as well. Now they have a different color. Are they free areas of service? They still show speeds for those areas on the speed maps.
According to the Starlink Availability Map, those are areas of no coverage. The even darker areas indicate where service will be starting soon.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
According to the Starlink Availability Map,those are areas of coverage if you switch to download speed, upload speed, or latency views.
Where did you think I took the screenshots from?
Isn't that just wait list areas that have service, but low free bandwidth?
My area was like that for a long time so I was on RV/Roam for service.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
In the past when it was a wait area for low bandwidth the tool tip for the region would say "expanding in 2023" or similar.
Right now that region has no tooltip text.
That's part of why I called it out.
It's outside of the behavior seen for other areas of the map, something special is going on (or someone screwed up).
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Elon's own reply says that it's not politicians going after Elon so much as companies using lobbyists to get government contracts. Companies lobbied to get a contract written such that they would be able to win it. Then they didn't win it. So they lobbied again to get it changed so that they could win it.
It's odd that the government could be convinced to create the contract, but not actually award it to the companies behind it. It says something good about the way the government works. It suggests to me that the politicians are honest, but perhaps too susceptible to the influence of lobbyists.
And now we'll have nearly a billion dollars being routed to a company that probably will buyback stock and issue a dividend.
When I read the original FCC denial, I was floored. It was full of technical inaccuracies and biased statements. Normally, the FCC is a very technically competent agency since the work it does is so technical.
The initial denial might possibly be due to technical folks envisioning a different solution than what Starlink offered and/or ignorance. But to continue that into the present time in the face of overwhelming evidence speaks of corruption. Either industry paybacks, or political ideology, or both.
The initial denial might possibly be due to technical folks envisioning a different solution than what Starlink offered and/or ignorance. But to continue that into the present time in the face of overwhelming evidence speaks of corruption. Either industry paybacks, or political ideology, or both.
Similar threads
