[HN Gopher] Starlink WiFi Router FCC Approved
___________________________________________________________________
Starlink WiFi Router FCC Approved
Author : caiobegotti
Score : 80 points
Date : 2020-07-14 21:02 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (fcc.report)
(TXT) w3m dump (fcc.report)
| ProAm wrote:
| Does anyone know if all the Starlink satellites are operational?
| Did they send up any duds so far? Or have any failures post
| launch?
| jccooper wrote:
| They've deorbited 5 of the 540 launched so far, and a few more
| of the first launch seem to be derelict.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| What's significant about this? Seems to be plain 802.11ac router.
| dragonshed wrote:
| Starlink is a satellite constellation being constructed by
| SpaceX to provide satellite Internet access.
|
| Presumably their router would connect to this.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| The significance is that it's related to the much anticipated
| (by people with poor internet access) Starlink satellite
| internet service.
|
| https://www.starlink.com/
|
| People would be just as interested if it were just a plastic
| mounting bracket with the "Starlink" branding.
| syshum wrote:
| I have fiber to the home that is super reliable... I am still
| anticipating this and will be signing up to supplement my
| fiber
|
| so it is not just for people with poor internet
| paxys wrote:
| I'm curious why though?
| skissane wrote:
| > I have fiber to the home that is super reliable... I am
| still anticipating this and will be signing up to
| supplement my fiber
|
| We have fibre-to-the-home, but we'd like a bigger house and
| a bigger backyard. There are some really nice big houses
| with nice big backyards about 10-20 minutes north of us,
| but fibre-to-home is not available in that area. If
| Starlink works well, it would increase the odds we could
| move. So, I'd be inclined to sign up for Starlink alongside
| our fibre-to-the-home, just to compare the two.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Well... wait until you see pricing. Even if it comes in at
| the speculated $80/month price point, many people will find
| it cheaper and faster to stick with their terrestrial
| internet. There aren't many people willing to pay $80/month
| for a backup connection they'll only use once every month
| or two.
| asdfk-12 wrote:
| In Alaska, specifically, gigabit internet costs ~$200/mo
| through Liberty Media's subsidiary GCI in the three major
| cities. In rural areas, GCI offers plans through local
| co-ops averaging $150/mo for 6mbit down, 100gb data cap
| over terrestrial microwave relay. Starlink will normalize
| this market.
| ckdarby wrote:
| I like @syshum have access to 1 gbit fiber in my current home
| area.
|
| I am excited for Starlink to be able to buy a couple arces of
| land much further out and still be able to have "reasonable"
| internet that I'm able to work remotely.
| paxys wrote:
| Looking at the filing, the only relation seems to be
| branding, i.e. they're probably looking to upsell people on
| wifi routers when they buy internet service (like all other
| providers do).
| cma wrote:
| They could also be planning on selling it separately as a
| consumer fan product like the roofing torch flamethrowers.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Best consumer fan product would be a mini ground station
| for those with fibre connections.
| acheron9383 wrote:
| Yes, it is pretty standard to package an access point in
| with the modem. No idea if they will just include the
| router in the internet price, or rent it monthly on top of
| standard charge like how some ISPs do it.
| yread wrote:
| So, will they look like little rockets?
|
| https://fcc.report/FCC-ID/2AWHPR201/4805891
| reaperducer wrote:
| Or Star Fleet comm badges?
| causality0 wrote:
| I really hope Starlink works out. I have relatives whose only
| option is satellite internet and with the ultra-low data caps
| streaming video is just not an option at home. Imagine living
| without Netflix or Youtube.
| asdfk-12 wrote:
| I found living without Netflix and Youtube enlightening, as
| inter-library loans granted many titles that aren't available
| to stream. Also, Netflix dvd-by-mail service works fine in
| rural areas.
|
| After a while, I realized that my habituation to constant
| connection wasn't actually making my life more enjoyable... but
| for telework I'm rooting for a connectivity solution via
| Starlink.
| the-dude wrote:
| You mean like when we had only 2 national TV channels?
|
| Life was wonderful. I was outside a lot.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Yeah you gotta physically go to a Redbox and rent a DVD and
| stream HBO via satellite. It's almost unbearable.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I've never understood why people used Redbox when you have to
| physically go to a kiosk, you're limited to whatever movies
| are in that kiosk, and worst of all - you rent by the night,
| so if you decide not to watch it, you've either got to return
| it, unwatched, or pay more.
|
| Netflix still does DVD rentals, and though it's been a few
| years since I've used it, they had a great selection and
| except for some new releases just after relese, they were
| always in stock.
| brianwawok wrote:
| Netflix was a commitment. Redbox was a whim.
|
| In the years before streaming netflix, I often did Redbox.
| Pick up a DVD on the way home form work on Friday. Return
| is Saturday when I go out shopping.
|
| Do it twice a month, spend $2 (or $3 when they raised the
| price).
|
| Netflix was 9.99 or more, and you basically had to watch 5
| or 6 DVDs a month to "get your monies worth". So I often
| found myself watching a DVD when I didn't want to because I
| had already paid it, so I could send it back and get the
| DVD I actually wanted but didn't get because it was out of
| stock.
| xmichael0 wrote:
| How old are you? I remember being a kid 30+ years ago going
| to the VHS store and picking out some crap and loving every
| minute of it. It's an experience. I remember the joy of
| going to a vHS / DVD rental shop with a date etc. Nothing
| wrong with getting out of the house for a bit and picking
| something out, it was fun! (;
| zdragnar wrote:
| Streaming via satellite is actually quite painful, and
| getting a 4glte data plan is almost always the better option
| over satellite (from personal experience).
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Streaming via internet, yes, but streaming one of the 500
| or so channels with scheduled programming on satellite TV
| is not. And totally agreed, if you've got 4G that's the way
| to go.
| ed wrote:
| Broadband is not just for entertainment. Almost all quality
| educational content has moved to (surprisingly) Youtube.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Imagine living without Netflix or Youtube._
|
| You mean, the way I and several billion other people do right
| now?
| beamatronic wrote:
| Well, those folks don't really count. /s
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Imagine living without JS. 90% of the web would break. Right
| now a decent amount of web would break without images and
| even some without video.
|
| If you live on a yacht with cheapest sat connection (which is
| really obscene at $150 per month) you get a mere 2kbps.
| That's not even enough to load html. You only get to get
| email and weather via specialised software.
| OhSoHumble wrote:
| For me, it's more about what kind of opportunities people
| miss out on when they're in an underserved area. For example,
| a lot of learning is being done remotely right now. How does
| a student on a satellite Internet connection participate in a
| streamed classroom? They can't so they just... miss out on
| schooling.
| adsjhdashkj wrote:
| Curiously, what is your point here? I'm sure you understood
| the authors message, so i imagine your reply is cheeky in
| some manner. I imagine your reply pokes fun at the idea of
| those being important.
|
| However.. i just don't get that. I imagine several billion
| people can disagree about _many_ "important" things. Does
| that dismiss the importance of those items? How many millions
| of people live below basic human means? Should those basic
| means be considered unnecessary?
|
| I imagine if i lived in the woods in the middle of no where i
| might scoff at the idea of electricity. That doesn't
| invalidate peoples dependence on electricity. Which, is what
| is what i take from your comment. Sure, Youtube vs
| Electricity, not quite a fair comparison - i get that.
| Nevertheless your comment strikes off the mark for me, but
| perhaps i don't get your intent.
| oneplane wrote:
| I think the point wasn't people not having it available or
| not using it by choice, but people who are used to having it
| and now having to imagine not having it.
| dfabulich wrote:
| For those unclear on the concept: Starlink is SpaceX's satellite
| network. The Starlink Wifi router will connect to that satellite
| network to provide wireless home internet.
| jcun4128 wrote:
| Would this be that UFO-looking thing you stick in the ground
| outside. Or this is literally a router(box in home) that
| connects to what before connecting to the satellite(s)?
| lgats wrote:
| box in home router. Though it could have special equipment to
| further process the satellite signal, that's likely to be
| primarily on the 'dish' itself.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| If by "connect" you mean the ethernet out of the starlink
| router connects to the WAN port of this wireless router, then
| you are correct.
|
| Starlink uses totally different frequencies than what this
| device is approved for.
| bosswipe wrote:
| So they're probably going to use the same scammy techniques as
| other ISPs where they require you to rent a $100 standard router
| for $200 per year.
| acheron9383 wrote:
| Unclear until the pricing comes out, they may just include it
| for free when you buy internet service. But ISPs generally need
| to package at least something to serve Wifi for customers that
| don't already have their own Access Point, looks like SpaceX
| just put together their own, rather than provide something off
| the shelf.
| VivaCascadia wrote:
| It looks like starting out they're going to prioritize rural
| Washington State. From the FAQ which is buried for some reason at
| https://www.starlink.com/main.16ae0a3588c339b10118.js.
|
| q:Who can participate in Starlink Beta?
|
| a:Starlink Beta will begin in the Northern United States and
| lower Canada, with those living in rural and/or remote
| communities in the Washington state area. Access to the Starlink
| Beta program will be driven by the user's location as well as the
| number of users in nearby areas. All beta testers must have a
| clear view of the northern sky to participate.
| Roritharr wrote:
| The one thing I find iffy is that the current generation of
| Starlink Sats aren't supposed to do Sattelite to Satfelite
| communication, so the actual latency benefits around the globe
| aren't going to materialize the first couple of years. I'm really
| interested when they plan to have their service to be actually
| competitive latency-wise.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| > latency benefits around the globe aren't going to materialize
| the first couple of years.
|
| Even with ground stations they actually will, there's analysis
| on youtube about that.
|
| If each router can also be a peer (or even a ground station),
| then it's going really quick to achieve that.
| stx wrote:
| For some remote places that may not matter as much. For example
| in the rural Rocky Mountains you are limited on internet
| options. This could still be much needed competition.
| teraflop wrote:
| Interestingly, this device seems to _only_ be a WiFi router. The
| test results don 't mention any protocols other than 802.11, or
| any frequency bands other than the 2.4GHz/5GHz bands used for
| WiFi. So the actual satellite communications must be handled by
| something else.
| superkuh wrote:
| Yeah, I was almost confused by the measurements for emissions
| at 7.2 GHz before I realized it was just checking for the third
| harmonic of 2.4.
| acheron9383 wrote:
| The actual modem that talks to the sats is in the antennas you
| mount on the roof. They are calling that the "terminal"
| ahnick wrote:
| Who else is hoping to run a bonded internet connection with their
| existing ISP and Starlink? :)
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| Frequency Range 2412.0-2462.0 5180.0-5240.0
| 5745.0-5825.0
|
| Looks like your standard wireless AC router (2.4ghz and 5ghz).
|
| Whatever this is, it doesn't "talk" to starlink, per its FCC
| application:
|
| > _In this application, SpaceX proposes to operate in the
| 10.7-12.7 GHz, 13.85-14.5 GHz, 17.8-18.6 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz,
| 27.5-29.1 GHz, and 29.5-30 GHz bands._
|
| https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-authorizes-spacex-provide-b...
| acheron9383 wrote:
| I'd bet this is the box you place inside your house to serve
| Wifi, and run ethernet up to the roof to connect to the
| modem/antenna on the roof, hence this being essentially a bog
| standard AC Wifi Router.
| topspin wrote:
| Today I received an email message from SpaceX/Starlink to obtain
| my "service address." Previously I had provided my email (more
| than once, actually) on the Starlink "beta" sign-up page. This is
| the first communication I've seen from them.
| ews wrote:
| Interesting, which area do you live in ?
| tlack wrote:
| Got it here as well (in Miami, FL)
| [deleted]
| jonplackett wrote:
| Got one in London too. Seems like just a standard thing though,
| not getting too excited... yet
| MartinodF wrote:
| Yep, same in Milan, Italy! I think they just realized zip
| codes are not so useful once you're dealing with the whole
| world ;)
| speedyapoc wrote:
| I too received an email requesting my service address (near
| Kenora, Ontario, Canada).
| getaclue wrote:
| Thanks. Signed up for Stoney Creek cuz of youu!!
| dawnerd wrote:
| Same. Aloha, OR
|
| I'm not expecting it to mean much.
| 6d6b73 wrote:
| Indoor operation only. This is just a router that will probably
| have an external device connected to another antenna.
| ehonda wrote:
| Starlink will be great in rural Canada where the ISP oligopoly
| has no incentive to provide fast internet. I am curious how it
| will perform in stormy weather. Does it cut out like satellite
| TV?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-07-14 23:00 UTC)