From: jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com   
      
   In article ,   
   jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...   
   >   
   > On 2020-08-18 10:24, Jeff Findley wrote:   
   >   
   > >    Beta users of SpaceX's Starlink satellite-broadband service are   
   > >    getting download speeds ranging from 11Mbps to 60Mbps,   
   >   
   > This is a meaningless number. What matters is how many customers will be   
   > attached to a ground station and what is the capacity between ground   
   > station and satellite.   
      
   Since when?  It's pretty bog standard to run a speedtest like ookla.  It   
   tests the bandwidth of your Internet connection, measured in Mbps over a   
   short span of time.   
      
   I do this when I suspect connection problems at home.  Usually I get   
   more than 200 Mbps download and a few tens of Mbps upload.  So, I would   
   gain nothing by using Starlink.   
      
   > In a beta a test site likited to the seattle area with limited number of   
   > beta testers, there is no way to know how close to max capacitty of the   
   > one uplink (I assume to Starlink's offices) is used.   
      
   Which is why users will no doubt be running speed tests periodically to   
   see what they're getting.  Obviously SpaceX already tracks all that   
   information.   
      
   Also, my cable Internet service is shared with everyone else in the area   
   that's also using that same service.  Speeds can slow a bit during   
   periods of high usage.  For example, like on a Friday night when   
   everyone on the planet seems to be using their streaming TV services.   
      
   > > Latency numbers from above:   
   >   
   > Again, not relevant to real life.  The current system is limited to use   
   > only when you line within 1123km from the base station (the beta test is   
   > stricter on distance). However, the original plan was relaxed to allow a   
   > house to connect to a staellite that is 25° over horizon instead of 40°,   
   > which greatly enlarged the footprint to a radius of 1123km below satellite.   
      
   Latency to servers users actually use (e.g. a gaming server) will get   
   better when the laser interlinks between satellites come online.  When   
   that happens, it's most efficient to route packets through the   
   satellites and then down to the ground station closest to the   
   *destination*.  That's *not* what's happening today.   
      
   > The other issue will be where ground stations will be located. And   
   once   
   > SpaceX launches satellites that hace inter saetllite links, that latensy   
   > will need to be calculated, and whatecer jitter is introduced wheteber   
   > your route in the air changes as satellites move around and the path   
   > from you to ground station changes from one staellite to another and   
   > between the satellite tyat gets your signal, and the staellites in the   
   > path to A ground station.   
      
   That's still going to be a *lot* better than satellite Internet from a   
   geosynchronous satellite.  I've known people that have that service.   
   It's absolutely awful in more ways than latency and bandwidth.   
      
   Jeff   
   --   
   All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.   
   These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,   
   employer, or any organization that I am a member of.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)