[Netisneverfree]

Since this is network and internet related, just want to chime in with some experience using non-standard internet connection methods. It may help in understanding what's happening here.

Starlink as I understand it, while using 'satellites' is more like 'terrestrial tower' based internet, but with low-orbit stations in use instead of towers erected on a high hill. I make this distinction, because of other 'satellite' internet companies having been used to compare it in the past, in my opinion, erroneously.

Satellite internet like Xplornet for example, do something else where you have just a few satellites only, providing line of sight connection for EVERYONE on the facing side of the planet for that satellite.

Starlink is more like terrestrial tower because you have essentially a choice of which satellites you want to use to connect through, since there are many that could be connected to at any time. This is like terrestrial tower, because your home might be closest to a tower in a town near you, but the other tower just off the side a bit further away gets less usage and so you have less issues connection due to congestion or 'things' getting in the way. Things could be tree canopies, house roofs, etc.

So what I figure is happening here after reading the article, is that their current configuration is reaching levels of congestion that can't keep up with the demand they expected, and so they are going to start launching more satellites to keep up with the demand. They are also looking to increase the broadcasting signals strength to help ensure a higher quality connection to those who do connect to their system.

That's basically terrestrial tower internet itself in a nutshell from my experience using it in the past. Even their ping times are similar.

Now for those who get their knickers in a knot because 'thing orbiting planet in space is always a satellite'. Yes, I know. It's technically satellite internet in that right. But my point is that this isn't how we should be thinking of it.

We should instead be calling it Aerial internet, since it helps differentiate from the other satellite internet (which in my usage experience is crap and should only be used in the worst case scenarios) and terrestrial tower which is also not the greatest, but is better than stuff like Xplornet.

I've never met anyone who likes using services from folk like Xplornet, except obviously ignorant people who never have had anything better. The moment I show them the difference between their connection and mine back at the farm, or here in urban life; they immediately try to make up excuses for it instead of accepting it isn't that good.

But that's besides the point. My point is that Starlink is doing pretty good if they are only seeing that much of a drop in speeds and latency. It's still a usable connection by rural standards, which was its intent mostly to begin with. It wasn't meant to be used by urbanites who have access to much better; as I understand was what was intended by Elon in the first place.

For comparisons sake: Most rural internet only ever gets UPTO 50mbps at best, in the best locations. You can expect to get much worse in rural areas with terrestrial tower based internet. And while many including Xplornet may falsely advertise they can achieve higher speeds; latency kills their performance. It doesn't matter if you can get 300mbps, if your latency is a full second or higher of ping time. not milliseconds. Seconds. Even minutes sometimes. Depends on how bad the situation is for you.

So, with that all in mind, despite all the Elon hate going on right now; I think Starlink is doing pretty good still.

I don't have it, yet; since I don't need it. But if they keep on this path they are on right now, when I move back to the rural areas I am probably going to get Starlink as a backhaul connection, and a terrestrial tower setup as my main connection. Or perhaps vice versa. Depends on which one has the better and more stable connection in that area.

But I would never use traditional satellite internet like Xplornet. If I ever did, it would be because I have enough money that I can throw it away and not care; all just to make sure there is a redundant connection to ensure that I have a backup for my backup. Even then... I'd rather just get a second company on terrestrial to hook me up instead.

[fragmede]

If you're interested, https://mikepuchol.com/modeling-starlink-capacity-843b2387f5...? is an super in-depth public analysis of Starlink's capabilities.

[qayxc]

> I think Starlink is doing pretty good still.

Well, atm., yes. From the very beginning I thought that's it's a very risky idea to focus on end users, though. Ships, airplanes, mining operations, emergency services, etc. - that's where the real benefit and money is.

Ships have rates of up to $60k/mo for low bandwidth satellite internet. StarLink maritime is only $5k/mo and every maritime plan basically equates ~50 residential users in terms of turnover. Special deals with airlines, cruise ships and so forth could easily bring in as much money as tens of thousands of end-users - including much less hassle with regulators and billing.

The problem is that satellite internet (no matter if LEO or GEO) scales very poorly and creates an economic death spiral (hence the need for Starship) - more users means less available bandwidth, thus requires more satellites. More satellites require more rocket launches, which costs money and requires more users to pay for it, etc.

It remains to be seen whether the current path StarLink takes is sustainable from a business perspective. A 30k satellite constellation is certainly economically unsound using current rockets (e.g. Falcon 9), given that it took 3 years to get ~3300 into orbit and the average lifetime per Gen1 satellite is planned to be around 5 years.

This means 3300 Gen1 sats have to be replaced within the next 5 years while another 7500 or so have to be launched on top of that. With Gen2 sats being heavier, F9 can only take maybe 25 (this is a guess) instead of 50-60 sats per launch. That'd amount to about 87 F-9 launches per year just for StarLink and I don't think that's economically feasible (hence Starship). But we'll see.

[biomcgary]

I think you need to add US regulatory and political considerations when considering the liability of targeting consumers versus business. In the US, rural users are over-represented in congress and are by far the biggest beneficiaries of Starlink (vs other available options). In my area, I can only WFH because of Starlink, so you better be sure that I contact my swing state Representatives and Senators anytime I hear about something that might negatively impact Starlink service.

[ghaff]

Although it's reasonable to ask whether Starlink is charging enough. Of course, I'd be the first to admit that it comes from a privileged position to state that I'd pay a lot to be able to live with decent Internet access somewhere that I wouldn't otherwise be able to.

[biomcgary]

Personally, I'd be willing to pay more for Starlink, but that willingness is capped by the price of unlimited 4G plans in my area.

From a business perspective, I suspect that the number of potential consumers living (at the moment) in areas with wireless ISPs and no wired ISPs is quite a bit larger than than areas with no wireless ISP. However, with time, I suspect that WFH and Starlink will encourage some people to move farther out from current infrastructure and they will be almost entirely dependent on Starlink, since HughesNet and other geostationary satellite internet providers aren't really comparable in bandwidth or latency.

[sneak]

Musk has publicly stated that Starlink Gen2 hard-requires Starship.