Starlink has described how to peer with them extensively now. It is still kind of confusing to me - say I had fios to the business, and a AS that met their requirements, I could also somehow dual home that AS to my starlink terminal, and it would be a business class service required?
https://starlink-enterprise-guide.readme.io/docs/peering-with-starlink On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 1:21 AM David Lang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Ulrich Speidel wrote: > > > All good points ... see below. > > > > On 27/02/2024 2:13 pm, David Lang wrote: > >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Ulrich Speidel wrote: > >> > >>> On 27/02/2024 12:19 pm, David Lang wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote: > >> > >>>> There are large areas with poor or non-existant cell coverage. > >>>> > >>>> Outside the US, scaling of Starlink can happen just by providing coverage > >>>> to locations that don't yet have coverage with no additional satellites. > >>> But what's the population of these areas? Generally quite sparse. (Or > >>> politically disinclined to accept Starlink service) > >> > >> per square mile? low. But there are a LOT of square miles, and those areas > >> are ones where it's very expensive per-user to run fiber (even to cell > >> towers or wireless ISP towers) > > The point though is that these sparsely populated areas aren't where the > > scalability issue arises. Capacity needs to be where the demand for it is. > > I only partially agree with you here. Yes, capacity that isn't needed doesn't > matter, but I think that the capacity where there aren't other options matters > more than in the more densly populated areas where there are other options > (and > I say this as a starlink user living in the Los Angeles area, a fairly densely > populated area) I use Starlink as a backup now, but I do periodically test it > and verify that it is acceptable for work + other uses. > > >>> If you put in fibre today, you know that by upgrading the endpoints over > >>> time, you can get orders of magnitude of extra bandwidth if needed. > >> > >> If you can get fibre, you should get fibre (with starlink as a possible > >> backup). SpaceX has said many times that Starlink is never going to be > >> competitive to fibre > >> > >> if you can get fibre, you aren't under-connected. > > Tick. But 2 billion plus can't, or at least not yet. The question is how > > many > > of them might Starlink & Co be able to assist in due course? > > what information do you have about the distribution of these 2B > under-connected? > > (and as someone who just a couple years ago was on a 8m down/1m up connection, > what is the definition of 'under-connected'?, see the revoking of the grant to > SpaceX for providing such service after they changed the definition of minimum > acceptable connectivity and then proactively declared that Starlink will not > meet it several years out) > > >>> If you can reduce distance between satellite and ground station by a > >>> factor of 2, all else being equal, theoretically you'd also reduce > >>> footprint to a quarter, but that's assuming you don't need to worry about > >>> antenna sidelobes. But say we can, and then that gives us a factor of 4 in > >>> terms of capacity as long as our user density is the same. It also buys us > >>> an extra 6 dB in received signal power and hence an extra 2 bits per > >>> symbol. That's another factor of 4 at best if you go from 1 to 3 > >>> bits/symbol. Larger antennas: Doubling antenna size gives you 3 dB in gain > >>> or an extra bit per symbol. So that turns into a game of diminishing > >>> margins pretty quickly, too. > >> > >> add in the ability for multiple satellites to serve a single cell and you > >> can get a noticable multiple as well > > Not in terms of capacity - but in terms of a better distribution of it. > > Already happening - most places can now "see" dozens of Starlink satellites > > above the horizon. > > but as I understand the reverse-engineering of the starlink system, a given > cell > is currently only serviced by one satellite at a time. > > >>> But now you want to serve cellphones on the ground which have smaller > >>> antennas by a factor of I'd say about 16:1 aperture-wise. So you need to > >>> make your antennas in space 16 times larger just to maintain what you had > >>> with Dishy. > >> > >> the cell service is not intended to compete with the Dishy, just be an > >> emergancy contact capability > > > > Here's how one of the local partner organisation here spins it. Much more > > than just an emergency contact capability: > > > > https://one.nz/why-choose-us/spacex/ > > > > (Judge for yourself whether this instils the impression that you're going to > > get 5G level service off this. You really need to read the small print!) > > yeah, that does seem to imply more than it can offer. Elon has been pretty > vocal > that each cell is something like 70 miles in diameter, and the available > bandwidth needs to be shared across all users. Text messages should always > work, > voice will probably work, and as the system gets built out, data will happen, > but will be slow due to the sharing. > > >>> That's a far cry from what is needed to get from two million or so > >>> customers to supply two billion unconnected or under-connected. For that, > >>> we need a factor of 1000. > >> > >> without knowing what the user density of those under-connected are, it's > >> going to be really hard to get concrete arguments. > >> > >> Spacex is intending to launch ~10x as many satellites as they have now, and > >> the full 'v2' satellites are supposed to be 10x the bandwidth of the V1s > >> (don't know how they compare to the v2 minis), that's a factor of 100x > >> there. > > > > It's not that easy. Adding satellites in the first instance is just adding > > transmitters, and unless you have spectrum to accommodate these, then even > > if > > the satellites' on-board bandwidth is higher, it doesn't translate into as > > much extra capacity. Spectrum comes in terms of extra Hertz, and in terms of > > spatial beam separation. The former is limited in that they don't make any > > more of it, and the latter is a matter of antenna size and getting antenna > > side lobes sufficiently far down. And we know that SpaceX are running close > > to spectral capacity in some areas. > > I am assuming that the fact that they have planned for 10x satellites (~45k > satellites up from the ~5k they have now) means that they have a plan to be > able > to use that many efficiently. I have no inside knowlege, so I am speculating > about this. > > > Assuming that the spatial distribution of the under-connected is somewhat > > similar to Starlink's current customer base in terms of densities, we need > > that factor of 1000. > > I think there are a lot of early adopters for who Starlink is a luxury, not a > lifeline. I think the under-connected are going to be in more sparse areas > than > the early adopters. I have friends and family in rural areas, and awareness of > Starlink is only slowly penetrating there. > > I'm seeing increased use for mobile applications here in the US, including in > built-up areas. > > >> Is another 10x in the under-served areas being in less dense areas really > >> that hard to believe? > >> > >> And Starlink will hopefully not be the only service, so it shouldn't have > >> to serve everyone. > > So which factor in terms of capacity growth should we expect of Starlink & > > Co > > over today? > > not enough information. I agree it's something to watch, I'm just more > optomistic about it than you are. > > >>> And then you need to provision some to compete with extra capacity you > >>> wanted, and then some to cope with general growth in demand per client. > >>> And then you have to transmit that same viral cat video over and over > >>> again through the same pipe, too. > >> > >> True, although if you can setup a community gateway of some sort to share > >> one satellite connection, you gain efficiency (less housekeeping overhead > >> or unused upload timeslots), and have a place that you can implement > >> caches. > > > > Indeed. Or if you provide a feed to a local ISP. But Starlink still focuses > > on direct to site, as does every other LEO provider FAIK. > > SpaceX is diversifying thier offerings, including boats, planes, and very > high-performance community gateways. > > I'd love to see more tech folks supporting this sort of thing. > > I would especially like to see us put together disaster kits that can take one > uplink and spread it around. We've seen SpaceX being willing to donate dishy > kits, but being able to spread the hotspot island out from direct wifi range > of > the dishy to be able to cover a larger area would be worth quite a bit (and > don't forget the need for power for the system) > > David Lang_______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink -- https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/2024_predictions/ Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
