From u/Raym0111on reddit.
Valid locations for Starlink Beta (44th to 52nd parallels north) on Google Earth : Starlink
Valid locations for Starlink Beta (44th to 52nd parallels north) on Google Earth : Starlink
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Valid locations for Starlink Beta (44th to 52nd parallels north) on Google Earth
- Thread starter spsheridan
- Start date
It will be interesting to see how much pushback The Canadian Man puts on Starlink service. Telesat is still threatening to move forward and, should it ever come to be, will sort of be a national treasure that they wouldn't want undercut by those pesky Americans. The overwhelming majority of Canadia lives below the 52nd parallel...
Take a look at the other side of the Atlantic, it seems a bit more populated
Starlink is going Beta in Europe?
And, Canada is in Europe now?
I am dying to get into Starlink. Despite living in the Bay Area, where I live there only 1 high speed choice. Its currently a 6 jump microwave relay lol.
I'm almost willing to deal with the spotty service Starlink would have today just to have an alternative to the relay system which drops regularly as well.
I'm almost willing to deal with the spotty service Starlink would have today just to have an alternative to the relay system which drops regularly as well.
I guess I should fill out my details.
Lucky! I guess you did have to brave Maine winters, so you deserve something nice
Yours will be the most interesting corner case for Starlink to explore user base: Basically on the skirt of a population center but without any hardwired solution. From the bean counter perspective that's where the money's at because that's where there's a potentially significant amount of users. From the engineering perspective, the intersection of minimum service level(s) and PFD makes it the worst case.
FWIW, I think you end up on the winning end, assuming you have sufficient clear sky access, but I could imagine some effort on the Starlink side deciding who's in and who's out. (Versus true rural areas where user density is never going to be a primary concern so pretty much anyone who wants to sign up gets to sign up)
Has anyone heard anything about number of beams (or even antenna elements) per satellite?
I hadn't really considered the issue of population density being a downside until now, I am also curious about these limitations.
If Starlink was available now there are 20 accounts instantly on my road alone, however just 1 mile down the road is cable hardwire, so density isn't crazy.
I imagine it will be very popular all around the Santa Cruz Mountains wherever there's not high speed wired service. I hope they will simply keep adding satellites as users increase and add capacity that way. Our current service is approx $200 per month due to the pay per gb pricing.
If Starlink was available now there are 20 accounts instantly on my road alone, however just 1 mile down the road is cable hardwire, so density isn't crazy.
I imagine it will be very popular all around the Santa Cruz Mountains wherever there's not high speed wired service. I hope they will simply keep adding satellites as users increase and add capacity that way. Our current service is approx $200 per month due to the pay per gb pricing.
I wonder about my case as well. My neighbors have cable access, the cable is on the road by my house, but they want $8K to connect me (it's actually $11K, but they say they'll eat the first $3K). That's down from $14K on the previous quote, maybe they're starting to feel the pressure. It's a rural area, but I don't think it qualifies for those gubmint subsidies since "I have high speed internet in the area."
I'm outside Charlotte with all their banking centers, so I assume they have first priority.
I'm outside Charlotte with all their banking centers, so I assume they have first priority.
The big problem is that, at least to my knowledge, nobody really has a good idea where the threshold is for users/area for Starlink. The good news is that SpaceX will maximize the limits [that are set and, to a degree, regulated by the FCC and ITU] in such a way that it’s all but guaranteed that they’re going to be able to serve a higher density of users than legacy FSS.
The real ‘limit’ here is primarily power flux density (PFD), which is basically a measurement of microwave intensity on the ground. There’s a bit to it but from a service perspective what ultimately ends up happening is that PFD caps data rate within an area on the ground, which in practical terms means there’s a maximum number of users that can be in that area.
It’s kinda like the hotspot on your mobile—it works fine if it’s just you and maybe one or two other people, but life would suck for everyone if you had 20 people buckled in. For Starlink maximizing that ‘20’ is high priority since, unlike the mobile analogy, they’re all individually paying customers.
Ill be VERY surprised if there no data cap on Starlink, though it will certainly be way up there. Way beyond, say, most people’s mobile (or legacy FSS) service caps. It won’t be infinite like hardwire services [basically] are because that would mean SpaceX did a crappyy it job at designing the satellite network, but it’s probably going to high enough that it’s immaterial to most people and only discretely advertised as a cap.
Similar threads
