The nuance is in the magnitude of this statement relative to the magnitude of starlink. There are definitely a number RVers that will happily pay $500+ $1200/yr for a dedicated starlink subscription. It is definitely hard math to come up with a number that represents a significant portion of Starlink.
I recently got a new phone. Photos are now twice the size, video is about 4x the size, sometimes more. The latest Call of Duty is a 260GB install. This generation you can buy digital-only consoles that don't even have an optical drive, and I expect next generation will be all digital-only.
No we don't, the UK is an absolute backwater for broadband. Japan may be smaller but the terrain is some of the most challenging in the world.
RV parks might actually be a good candidate for Starlink service themselves. Starlink plus some WIFI repeaters to cover the area.
Yep. That plus the inevitable improvement in mobile service is going to really enhance the RV experience for the vast majority of RVers that fall on the 'recreational' side of the spectrum.
This is one of those "Choose two/one" type scenarios where you have several options of fast, cheap, reliable, etc. Certainly if the RV park owner does it themselves, I'd expect widely varying experiences with "adequate" being the best case scenario. You could hire someone who knows what they're doing and with the right hardware the setup isn't too complicated or necessary expensive (versus what it could be). You could do the entire thing wirelessly, and might not even sacrifice too much performance (assuming the RV's neighborhood has lots of available channels to work with, and that the RV users aren't expecting to get 100Mbit performance personally). At the other end of the (figurative) spectrum you could run wired APs covering the area, or even run ethernet to each RV spot (as an additional hookup besides power, etc), and then rent per-RV APs if they don't want to provide their own or hookup directly to ethernet. (This would assume a reasonably sized weatherproof box with power in addition to ethernet, or perhaps simply using PoE, in which to store the AP, at each parking spot). The most likely scenarios are purely wireless repeaters and wired PoE powered repeaters. Mikrotik, Ubiquity, and EnGenius are some good options here (with variations on cost versus ease or features, etc). I'm not familiar with EnGenius's hardware myself but I've heard good things about some of their newer stuff, personally I'd go with either Mikrotik (cheaper but less shiny) or Ubiquity (shiny and expensive), and use PoE APs that are centrally managed. That way you just gotta run some outdoor grade ethernet to the necessary locations and stick a pole in the ground to mount the AP (compared to doing it without PoE, in which case you need power at each AP too). You can probably cover 6-8 RV parking spots easily enough with a single AP, possibly more, and can get reasonably featured/priced outdoor 802.11a/b/g/n/ac APs for under $200 (Mikrotik). Knowing what ripoff rates get charged for LV wiring around here, I'd assume you'd probably spend as much or more just getting the ethernet run to each AP location than for the AP itself ... Of course, I suspect the most likely way an RV park sets up though will be to buy whatever snazzy "wifi mesh" doodad catches their eye, and just plug them in wherever there's a spare outlet, and tell their customers to be glad they have internet at all when it's terrible. But that doesn't mean it can't be good at a reasonable cost, and even recoup it's investment if you charge a reasonable rate for the usage, but that requires knowing enough to at least hire someone competent to set things up.
Good WiFi networks are not that hard or expensive to design if being done by the right people. I helped a friend do the network upgrade for a "resort" in death valley. AirMax and Unifi equipment very straight forward, and easy to do. -Harry
I never said you couldn't set up good WiFi, I just said that people generally don't. It is what it is and thus individual Starlink terminals will end up being a better option. Bingo. And most RV parks do not hire the right people, just as homeowners do not. There are many more badly designed/installed WiFi networks out there than properly designed ones.
Correct, this is a network in it's infancy. Right now it is about getting users without *any* low latency connectivity a very sane level of connectivity. As the network is built out (using Starship, not Falcon 9), it will get capabilities such as the ISL (laser links), increased density, and thus increased bandwidth per user, and ability to service more users. I would not be surprised if SpaceX declines to accept customers in major metro areas eventually, to reserve bandwidth for financial customers and datacenters in the major metro areas. I am by no means saying that "fiber is not good", I am saying that fiber is unrealistically expensive when compared to the cost of StarLink for many many many parts of the US, Canada, and the world in general. This is like saying "wired ethernet is the best performance, so I won't install a WiFi network at home", this is ignoring all of the cases where WiFi is either desired (laptops) or the only sane option (tablets and smart phones). What I practice is what I call "wireless offloading", any device that I can get wired connectivity, I used wired connectivity (TVs, storage, you name it), if it has a hardwired port, I try and use it, of course I put in 121 drops of Cat6A in a ~2,000 SQ FT house. This preserves WiFi bandwidth for devices that do not lend them selves to wired, such as tablets, phones, portable use of laptops, smart speakers, etc. The same is true for StarLink, if you have reasonable "wired" options, you probably should use them unless you have specific needs, such as taking your internet access with you in your RV, and avoiding having multiple providers. Personally I would still want connectivity at "home" while I am away for smart devices, security cameras, solar monitoring, etc. When you do not have reasonable wired options, StarLink is by far going to be the best solution vs ViaSat or HughesNet, etc. -Harry
And I have to imagine that distances will be like Airline Routes on StarLink, while fiber will be just fat pipes from city to city that will lbe potentially heading the wrong direction to get to some long-haul connections and again at the other end, while the StarLink routing will be direct, potentially take it over the north pole using laser links and then directly down to the beam at the destination. Or does there need to be a gound station in the mix?
Not entirely sure, but certainly the ground stations are the connection between the satellites and the wider Internet. But Starlink users could be communicating over Satellite. The World <--> Ground stations <--> Satellites <--> Users
Not that it will make too much of a difference in latency, but FWIW it is extremely unlikely the majority of ISL traffic will go over the poles. That would require the cross links to lock on satellites in very different orbital planes (including, of course, different altitudes) which is extremely difficult. Its a near certainty the cross links will only look one sat forward and backward in a plane (which is static geometry) and maybe to satellites in the +/- next plane over (which is kind of like the geometrical equivalent watching a car pass you in the next lane over--even though you're going 70 and they're going 75mph, its a pretty slow and predictable operation). The polar Starlink orbits will primarily (and most likely, only) serve latitudes above the coverage of the primary inclinations, thus the cross link traffic going over the poles will be mostly from/to users in those regions. In almost if not every case there will be a ground station. The only way there could not be a ground station is if the information is going from Starlink UT to Starlink UT, and in that scenario both users AND the Starlink Traffic Routing MotherShip would need to know that's the case. Starlink UT to UT seems like a pretty low percentage of traffic to begin with, and it seems like there might be some privacy issues in there too...?
Different sub topic: Given the very mixed product quality and service provided by Tesla, is anyone else concerned about how dealing with Starlink will be?
Given the fact that nobody likes their internet service provider, does it mater? It is easy to imagine Starlink providing as advertised technical service. It is easy to imagine Starlink providing inconsistent customer service.
Speak for yourself. Someone can have my AT&T fiber when they pry it from my cold, dead hands. $70/mo 1G/1G, no caps. Had it 4 years, zero downtime.
Here is a photo during construction, you can use it when ever you have to say your not going over board with wiring. Of course I am the silly person that towed a 50 ft boom lift with our Model X to do a point to point wireless project.... Wiring Friend on the boom lift attaching the UBNT gear to our old house Towing the boom lift back up to the Phoenix area from Tucson -Harry
That would be the exception, not the rule. We have had so many outages with Cox Cable in Tucson, that the local school district (largest in the city area) has had to do robo calls during outages because of remote teachers and remote students being impacted. The school district just emailed and robo called about Cox outages planned for December 17th (last day of school for the year), December 18th (teachers still working) and December 22nd (does not impact teachers or students). This is for "network upgrades", and Cox stated it will be a 2-4 hour outage sometime during that day. Local telco as I posted earlier has a tiny fraction of the city covered with passive fiber. Yes, Fiber is a great goal, and if you have it, stick to it. Cable is probably better vs StarLink, if you have it, stick to it. -Harry