I thought it would be dome-ish too, but the pictures show pretty clearly
flat and one of them it's not tilted at all. It would likely choose
straight up for the shortest path length if it can. But yeah they
probably can watch for signal strength and do an automated tilt to
vertical as part of a realign.. Or not...
On 07/15/2020 03:30 PM, castarritt . wrote:
Maybe they can use the motorized gimbal to shake off snow.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:24 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com
<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It is tilted, and I don't think it's flat. It's more like a dome.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 7/15/2020 3:18 PM, Robert Andrews wrote:
> What I noticed is the flat surface of the "UFO".. Gonna get some
snow
> on that without a heater...
>
> On 07/15/2020 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>> So are they looking at it from the mobile wireless perspective,
where
>> speeds are aspirational, “up to”, or “on a good day”? Or from the
>> home Internet perspective, where people run speedtests and bitch if
>> they don’t get what they’re paying for?
>>
>> Who has ever gotten a refund or cancelled a 12 month contract on a
>> cellphone because the speed didn’t match the marketing?
>>
>> And of course with any new service, whether it’s satellite or
5G, the
>> early adopters will probably get fantastic speeds because there’s
>> nobody else on the network. Let’s face it, WISPs do this too. Who
>> hasn’t had a new WISP pop up in your area advertising speeds that
>> sound like every subscriber gets the full capacity of the AP at max
>> modulation. And how many reviews do you see that say the WISP was
>> fast at first and then the speeds just got slower and slower.
>>
>> *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:42 PM
>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>>
>> The FCC allowed them 2Ghz of bandwidth for the satellite to user
>> terminal. 20Gbps must assume 10 bits/hz. Or maybe they mean a
>> different sense of "capacity". The journalistic sources are never
>> precise about these things.
>>
>> I've been assuming that just like any other wireless you can't put
>> the same channel into the exact same location at the same time, or
>> else they would interfere. So they might simplify and say "20 Gbps
>> per satellite", but I think it's really going to be "20Gbps for a
>> given geographic area". I don't know how big that area will be,
but
>> the smaller the satellite is, the smaller the antenna has to be,
and
>> then of course the wider the beam is. I imagine each satellite
won't
>> use the full 2ghz, but maybe dozens of satellites over a certain
area
>> will each use their own non-interfering chunk.
>>
>> ....I'll freely admit that I'm filling in blanks left by the
articles
>> I've seen. Maybe there are additional details to explain how
they're
>> solving these problems, but I suspect the 20Gb per satellite is not
>> going to be meaningful. It'll be 20Gb total for a region of
some size.
>>
>> On 7/15/2020 1:32 PM, Colin Stanners wrote:
>>
>> Doing some math:
>>
>> 40K subscribers on 60 satellites is 666 subs/satellite if
equally
>> loaded. But load is far from equal, the planet surface is
70% water.
>> I don't know how much the "standard" orbit is over water but
let's
>> say 50% as it's further from the poles. Say that at any point in
>> time, around half the satellites will be barely useful
(except for
>> cruise ships, and overseas aircraft service) due to being
over water
>> and ground obstructions.
>>
>> So a more accurate number is 1300 subs/well-positioned
satellite,
>> assuming for simplicity that subs are equally physically
spread out.
>>
>> The numbers that I saw state that every satellite has 20Gbps
>> capacity, let's assume that that is downlink subscriber
capacity at
>> maximum modulation, and that the backhaul to the ground
station is
>> fully available to that satellite and also 20Gbps at max
modulation.
>> 20Gbps / 1300 subs is 15mbit per sub, assuming that
everyone's using
>> it simultaneously.
>>
>> But there are the issues with wireless in general, added to
those
>> about customer self-installs (shudder), and satellite service:
>> mainly subs having trees or obstructions in the way, blocking or
>> reducing LoS to at least part of the sky where their hand-off
>> satellite should be, and rain. I'd say that altogether that
a more
>> realistic number with those is 8-12mbit per user.
>>
>> Being generous, 12Mbit average per sub: not bad these days,
>> considering the traffic patterns at peak time (1/3rd subscribers
>> using Netflix / D+ / etc with 1-3 streams at HD or 4K) I'd
assume
>> that from that they could sell mostly 30-70mbit download
speed plans
>> without too much consternation. But as traffic keeps increasing,
>> over time they may run out of capacity for the higher plans and
>> decide to reduce.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:58 AM Bill Prince
<part15...@gmail.com <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>
>> <mailto:part15...@gmail.com <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>>>
wrote:
>>
>> There are some details in this story that were new to
me. One of
>> the
>> ones that popped up was that each group of 60 Starlink
>> satellites is
>> expected to support ~~ 40,000 subscribers.
>>
>> That puts the 800 satellite "moderate service level" at
>> supporting about
>> half a million subscribers (~~ 533,000).
>>
>> In order to support a million subscribers, they will
need about
>> 1500
>> satellites.
>>
>>
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-router-fcc?_pos=19&_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r
>>
>> --
>> bp
>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>
>>
>> -- AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com
<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>>
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
