[HN Gopher] FCC rejects LTD Broadband, Starlink RDOF bids ___________________________________________________________________ FCC rejects LTD Broadband, Starlink RDOF bids Author : walterbell Score : 88 points Date : 2022-08-10 19:52 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.fiercetelecom.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.fiercetelecom.com) | cm2187 wrote: | Stupid question. In Europe or the US, we wired the whole country | all the way to the most remote house to connect them to the | electricity grid. Then again to connect them to the telephone. | What has changed that makes it so difficult with fiber? | wmf wrote: | Political will and lobbying. | cm2187 wrote: | It seems to be the same problem in most european countries | that have different political systems. Doesn't seem to | explain it to me. | rjbwork wrote: | I forget the name of the phenomenon, and my search-fu is | failing me, BUT - there is something like the "first mover | disadvantage" or "innovator's curse" when it comes to | infrastructure and technology. | | Compare somewhere like Romania with the US. Sure, the size | of the country matters, but they started their modern | network buildouts WAYYYY after the US. They US was heavily | invested in copper and coax. Romania was able to leapfrog | our legacy technology and move straight to fiber + | neighborhood based local ISP's. While both technologies | performed similarly very early on, the ceiling of | performance and lifetime of the line is far higher for | fiber than copper or coax (barring physically destructive | actions like an errant shovel. | | So, in effect, they _started_ with something can be | upgraded continuously to this day. We started with | something whose performance ceiling was much lower, and | whose effective lifespan was over 10 years ago or more in | many cases. So now that old stuff has to be maintained | while doing the capex heavy infrastructure work all over | again to get the new stuff in there. Meanwhile, we 're | still paying them every month and their shareholders are | collecting their dividends, so why would they want anything | to change? It's not like they're going be able to charge | some insane premium for their new faster fiber lines over | their old and slow coax and copper. | noahtallen wrote: | Not sure that's completely true -- I've heard great things | about fiber availability in Romania, Switzerland, and | Nordic countries for example. | jcrawfordor wrote: | I can't speak much to European history, but near-universal | electrical and telephone service in the United States is the | result of a very substantial regulatory and subsidy effort from | the 1920s-1970s. Some of this was achieved through regulation | (e.g. AT&T's requirement to provide telephone service in all | markets that met certain triggers regardless of profitability, | which resulted in AT&T charging higher prices elsewhere as a | form of subsidy) and through direct legislative facilitation | and subsidies (e.g. the Rural Electrification Act and resulting | Administration, which offered extremely advantageous loans to | rural electric and telephone co-ops). | | These programs still exist to some degree in the form of the | Universal Service Fund (USF) and Universal Service Fund | Administrator Co (USAC), and the chunk of money here (called | RDOF) is actually a specially earmarked portion of the USF. | That said, USF's impact on improving broadband across the | country has been somewhat limited because USF's focus tends to | be on areas and individuals with _no_ service (e.g. due to | rural locations or poverty), rather than improving | competitiveness of service in markets that have it. For | example, the "Free Cellphone" popup booths you see in poorer | areas of the US are an implementation of USF programs to | provide subsidized connectivity to low-income individuals, as | are the $10/mo ISP plans available to low-income households. | | This set of priorities is in no small part because, as you can | imagine, the incumbent ISPs lobby against USAC actions that | would subject them to more competition. But it also comes out | of the history of the concept of "Universal Service" which was | born in an era when regulated monopolies were the norm for | public utilities, and so inter-provider competition was simply | not something being discussed. At that point in history, areas | with inter-provider competition were generally viewed as _bad_ | for the consumer because in areas with competing telcos (for | example Los Angeles in the 1910s with LA Telephone and LA Home | Telephone) you could only call people that used the same | telephone company as you... requiring businesses to have two | phones and list two phone numbers. The present world of | multiple competing but interconnected providers wasn 't really | something that was contemplated when most of the regulatory | system was built, and post-1982 (AT&T divestiture) the | regulatory system has never really caught up... which we can | fairly confidently blame heavily on extensive lobbying by both | divested AT&T companies (USWest, AT&T, etc) and their | competitors that forced the '82 monopoly busting (Sprint/MCI, | GTE/Verizon, etc). | mattnewton wrote: | The US is very big and has very sparsely populated areas, to | the point where it would take some time to recoup the cost of | the fiber and labor to run it at market rates. Without subsidy, | the large telecom companies would rather just not allocate | capital to it and issue a stock dividend or something. | agp2572 wrote: | Telephone and electric lines are above ground in most of US. I | assume adding one more overhead line is easy but just make it | more ugly and prone to outage due to storms or bad weather. | btilly wrote: | We have learned from experience that when you put a new set of | wires on, a non-trivial risk exists that existing wires get | damaged. And then people blame the owner of the other wires for | their problems. | | This happens enough by accident that cases of intent are hard | to prove, but nobody doubts that it happens with intent as | well. | | The result as we've had more and more wires up is more and more | regulatory costs around putting up wires. | octoberfranklin wrote: | The simple answer to this is to make point-to-point dark | fiber a regulated monopoly, just like electricity. | | It's illegal for me to start my own electric distribution | company within the footprint of my power company. It's also | illegal for them to deny me service, or to expand vertically | into anything other than electrical local distribution. | | It would be so easy to do the same thing for dark fiber. Hold | an auction, whoever wins gets to buy all the dark fiber that | crosses property lines within the territory. In exchange, | they have to divest ownership of any business that isn't dark | fiber, and must lease point-to-point wavelengths on a fixed | and published price schedule to any willing buyer. | | The electrical companies would be happy to do this. Mine | already does, but only for certain areas where they had to | run their own fiber anyways (basically along the major | highways). They would be happy to expand to every doorstep if | they were guaranteed a regulated monopoly just like they have | for electrical lines. That would be a big enough market to | allow their fiber department to split off from the electrical | utility and become a standalone dark fiber utility. They | don't want to be an ISP (they had the chance to become one | and turned it down). They're just really good at hanging ADSS | on poles and want to do a lot of that. | btilly wrote: | Regulated monopolies have a long history of getting control | of the regulation, and then becoming abusive monopolies. | | All solutions have problems here. :-( | octoberfranklin wrote: | > What has changed that makes it so difficult with fiber? | | Unregulated monopolies. | | Infrastructure that runs to your doorstep is a natural | monopoly. All of them -- roads, water, electricity, sewer -- | are either municipally owned or else regulated to prevent | vertical expansion. Except non-voice telecom. | maxsilver wrote: | > What has changed that makes it so difficult with fiber? | | Nothing. Utilities just got lazy. If an address has ever had | working landline telephone service or grid electrical service, | then there's no good reason they don't also have gigabit fiber | service. | say_it_as_it_is wrote: | This would be acceptable if the members of the FCC weren't being | compelled to take action that would be favorable to Comcast and | Verizon. I do not accept that they acted in good faith. Hasn't | anyone noticed that the net neutrality actions initiated by the | FCC under the Trump administration haven't changed? | chroma wrote: | If you look at the authorized bids[1] versus the defaulted | bids[2], you can see only three companies got any money from the | Rural Digital Opportunity Fund broadband subsidy. The other five | companies got nothing, including SpaceX and LTD. | | E-Fiber San Juan LLC gets $7.5M to provide broadband services to | 1,085 homes in rural Utah. Monster Broadband gets $5.8M for | 11,286 homes in Texas and Tennessee. Northern Arapaho Tribal | Industries gets $7.8M for 2,408 homes in Wyoming (probably on | Indian reservations). So a total of around $21 million will be | spent on 15,000ish homes. | | The FCC's budget for the RDOF subsidy is around $20 billion for 4 | million homes, so 99.99% of the money is still up for grabs, as | are 99.96% of the rural households. | | 1. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-848A2.pdf | | 2. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-848A3.pdf | resfirestar wrote: | To be clear, those links are only for the eleventh batch of | "ready to authorize" bids that was released today. Other bids | were authorized in different batches, viewable at | https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/releases | devindotcom wrote: | I don't think this is correct. The FCC announcement notes that | $5B of the original RDOF auction has been authorized already. | It gave out $23M today in a separate announcement. | chrisjc wrote: | I have a feeling that Starlink will end up being an indirect | recipient despite the rejection. | | Starlink might just end up making deals with the companies that | won their bids and sell their services/hardware as rebranded | solutions. It's probably cheaper for these companies to do this | instead of setting up their own infrastructure. | | Of course the real question is probably whether not following | through on their obligations and getting fined is less than the | amount they were awarded. | themitigating wrote: | I love how people want to live in rural areas to save money but | then the federal government makes up the difference for what | would normally be expensive utilities. Then those same people | crap on those who live in cities. | partiallypro wrote: | Some people can't afford to live in cities...and their life is | better in rural areas. Some people prefer to own rather than | rent, even if it's a 100K house on a small plot passed down | generations. You're essentially saying poor people don't | deserve internet access. It's hilarious to me that people with | your position proclaim to be progressive (not saying you are,) | when there is an explicit hatred of the poor when you start | talking to them. I imagine -that- is why people in rural areas | feel a disconnect with people in cities. | themitigating wrote: | Life is better when they have access to electricity, | internet, roads, and other public services that are | subsidized by the government. | | More importantly these are the people who are more likely to | complain about government handouts and socialism. | martyvis wrote: | You eat food right? It doesn't grow in the supermarket? Maybe | you take vacations outside of the city and you expect the | people who provide the services you use there to have a life | and access to the internet. | djmips wrote: | I feel like the land and building cost in my city dwarf the | utility difference. | testing7787 wrote: | [deleted] | Broken_Hippo wrote: | "I love how people want to live in rural areas to save money" | | They aren't saving money, though. Everything gets weird if you | live in a rural area - or heck, a small town. Sometimes housing | is cheaper, sure, and then you realize that while you don't | have a water bill, you _do_ now have to get your septic system | pumped regularly, keep bottled water around because your well | pump doesn 't work when there is a power outage, and you have | to drive everywhere. I imagine that Amazon has made it slightly | cheaper because you can drive less. If you don't want to drive, | good luck: You can't take your bike on the fastest route and | the country roads are poorly maintained. | | And I'm really happy the government makes up for the utilities. | You might live in the country, but if you don't have | electricity and internet service, your time is going to be more | isolated and miserable. Folks living in the countryside | shouldn't have to be without because of crushing costs, | especially when we consider that a portion these folks are | producing food for the rest of us. | themitigating wrote: | Based on voting patterns most people in rural areas don't | like government spending and handouts | matthewfcarlson wrote: | Right? There was an article here earlier about running fiber in | rural Michigan. Kudos to the dude doing it and I agree that | internet access is important. But 30k per house seems like a | very wonky investment. At 100$ a month that would be 25 years | to pay back, which could be feasible depending on what we are | doing for internet in 25 years. Still seems ridiculous. If you | wanted to pay 30k per household to build super fast internet | for everyone in Seattle or Austin, people would laugh you out | of the room. | calgoo wrote: | It's all about where you pass the cables. If you need to dig | up the street then 30k is not a lot of money to do the | installation. If you can install the cables on already | existing poles, then that reduces the cost a lot. | | It's also cheaper to do a group of homes then it is to do 1 | as the cost of bringing the workers, the machinery and the | permits is spread across all clients. That's why we hear a | lot of cases where someone has a fiber cable passing close by | but the cable company did not see enough profit to finish the | last mile (or they asked at the time of building and not | enough homes signed up at the time). | newjersey wrote: | I don't get it. Why is fiber to the home so expensive? I | think in principle, it makes sense for us to pay for rural | broadband the same way we paid for rural electricity. The | problem is some companies took the money but didn't deliver | the results, no? | | > In 1936, the REA was made permanent through the Rural | Electrification Act. It was granted an initial budget of $50 | million for the first two years, then $40 million a year for | the following decade ($550 million in 1936 is approximately | $10.3 billion today). Jul 12, 2021 | | snippet answer from Google search https://www.google.com/sear | ch?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+muc... | | I can't imagine how our government can justify subsidizing | anything other than fiber to the home in the current year. As | far as I know, there is very little ongoing maintenance cost | and glass fiber is much cheaper than copper, no? Coax people | are saying they can get symmetric gigabit up and down with | docsis but I will believe it when I see it (low latency | symmetric gigabit up and down, no data caps, reasonable | pricing). Until then, we shouldn't give them any money. | bityard wrote: | > Why is fiber to the home so expensive? | | I guess it costs more than you think to hire someone to dig | a hole, put something in it, and then cover it back up | again. | | I paid a guy almost $2000 to fix a few feet of sewer line | in my front yard. Very little work to do once the old line | was dug up, the main costs were in pulling various permits, | renting the equipment, hiring crew, etc. Now multiply that | by a few miles and $30k starts to look like a bargain. | wmf wrote: | Any kind of utility is expensive; fiber is no worse than | electricity, water, or gas. The difference is that all | those utilities were installed before we shot ourselves in | the foot with 10,000 pages of regulations written by | incumbent monopoly lobbyists. | bombcar wrote: | Which is why a lot of fiber roll-outs happen when | electrical, water, or gas lines are already being | replaced. | jcims wrote: | What's the increase in property value by now appealing to | tech/knowledge workers? Would you personally move to a place | that only offered shitty DSL? | | I almost pulled the trigger on a $30k quote from Centurylink | to run fiber to my home but they proved incapable of | backhauling anywhere near what i was looking for. I didn't | give a shit about its amortized cost. | bityard wrote: | This might be an odd notion considering the average HN | commenter but hear me out. It's _just_ possible the guy | running that ISP isn't doing it to grow into a VC-backed | unicorn with an exit strategy of getting scooped up by a | FAANG in 5 years. | | He doesn't want to _lose_ money on it, but he's an engineer | and has evaluated the risks and costs and found them | acceptable. He's doing it because because the incumbent ISP | won't, because it's a challenge, and because he wants to to | serve his community. Or so I've been able to gather. | stephen_greet wrote: | But running an ISP requires a metric ton of capital | upfront. No matter the motivation, how do you get that | capital? | chmod600 wrote: | Downvoted because (a) sarcasm isn't helpful; (b) generalized | criticism of unnamed people rather than specific ideas. | themitigating wrote: | I don't have to name specific people to make a general | critical statement about a situation. However, if you'd like | me to be more specific and not be sarcastic- I find right | wing Republicans who decry government handouts and whatever | they believe "socialism" is because some receive farm | subsidies and others have utilities subsidized through rural | improvement programs by the government. For those that aren't | political but live in rural areas, please remove them from my | list. | | If you want to reply that city people also take advantage of | government programs remember they aren't going around angry | all the time about government spending and welfare. It's the | hypocrisy that brings out my sarcastic side. | bityard wrote: | Do you believe that all rural citizens are republicans? | themitigating wrote: | " For those that aren't political but live in rural | areas, please remove them from my list." | beart wrote: | Edit: I was reading two different articles and got them mixed | up, so I apologize. I thought I was on this one | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32411493 | | The rest of this post will probably be very confusing. | | I understand the sentiment. However, real life is more complex | than that. For example, this article in particular is talking | about an area around Ann Arbor. I have a friend who lives in | this area (in a rural house). He's a tech worker. His neighbor | is a tech worker. His brother around the corner used to be a | tech worker. I've been to the gun range near his house several | times, and each time it is populated by a diverse (age, race, | sex) group of people. | | On the flip side, there are folks (without children) at the | local school board meeting trying to have certain books | removed. A council in the area recently got into trouble for | misallocating covid funds as personal bonuses. | | It's a constant battle, but painting everyone in a rural area | with the same brush is a mistake. | TinkersW wrote: | People do not live in rural areas "to save money". | bityard wrote: | This feels quite a lot like asking why should healthy people | subsidize the sick, poor, and old? | jeffbee wrote: | A federal fund to agglomerate dispersed people into small | villages where the utilities can be provided at a reasonable | price is a better use of tax funds than massive subsidies for | existing settlement patterns. We already had another article on | here today about how the feds are throwing ~$10k per household | at some Michigan ISP to hook up people who live miles from | anywhere. | emkoemko wrote: | where do you live that rural costs less? electricity costs way | more then in a city, heating if you get gas line way more if | not you pay a lot for heating oil, i have to pay like 200$ for | electricity even if i didn't use a watt... | danjoredd wrote: | "After careful legal, technical, and policy review, we are | rejecting these applications. Consumers deserve reliable and | affordable high-speed broadband," | | So make ATT and other ISPs serve the rural market, FTC! The | hypocrisy in this statement is laughable since rural customer's | only choice is dial-up, HughesNet(which is worse than Starlink) | and mobile hot-spots. I think there is more to this than that | statement. | refulgentis wrote: | That's exactly what the grants in question are for | | And no, there isn't more to it, the only reason we're even here | is because they had to play along with Starlink's initial | application that had too optimistic numbers because it's not | their job to question pie in the sky numbers, but instead, to | tentatively approve it until it's proven false. | wmf wrote: | Technically, RDOF ISPs have until 2028 to provide the promised | service but Starlink's application was denied because their Ookla | speed tests are slightly low in 2022. Appearances matter. If they | provisioned slightly fewer customers per cell they might have | passed. | TheRealPomax wrote: | "Cory Hauer, LTD Broadband's CEO, told Fierce it is "extremely | disappointed in the FCC staff decision" and is evaluating next | steps. He added "I don't believe the FCC fully appreciated the | benefits LTD Broadband would bring to hundreds of thousands of | rural Americans."" | | Except of course the facts suggest the exact opposite, where the | FCC very much appreciated the benefits that you "would" bring, so | much so as to select you as one of two potential contract | recipients, but has determined that you lied during the bid and | in reality can't bring what you claimed you'd be able to bring. | zw123456 wrote: | I explain it this way; think of it as a cellular network in the | sky, except in a terrestrial cellular network, the cell sites are | stationary and connected via fiber and you are moving in your car | or walking (or you can). With LEOS, each satellite is like a cell | site, like a 5G one with phased array antennas, the satellite is | moving and you are stationary and the satellited are connected to | each other via free space optics but the backhaul is obviously | RF, but the hand offs between satellites is over FSO. In fact, | R17 of 3GPP standards now has provisions in it for 5G direct from | the LEOS to the user. None deploy yet. but in a couple of years, | that could be interesting. | | Each satellite paints a spot on the ground using the beamforming | capabilities of the phased array antenna. The capacity of that | spot is of course limited by Shannon limit, where C ~ B * S C = | capacity (think Mbps) B = spectrum (think Mhz) S = SINR (Singal | to noise ratio) | | If you have a smaller spot on the ground, then the spectrum is | shared amoung fewer users. If you have more powerful transmitters | and or better antennas, then your C will be better. | | Right now based on the specifications I have seen publicly, | Amazon's Kuiper (their LEOS) will have higher capacity than | starlink because it will have half the "spot" diameter. That is | due to better antennas mostly, more array elements mean narrower | beam width. | syntaxing wrote: | Been using T-mobile ISP, I have some complaints but overall, it | does the job. I feel like some money should be put into 5G towers | instead. Country wide 5G access + countrywide broadband. Overall | a net win IMO. | justapassenger wrote: | And as a bonus 5G towers don't fall of the sky after few years | and require constant total rebuilding of them. | wmf wrote: | Technically, RDOF ISPs have until 2028 to provide the promised | service but Starlink's application was denied because their Ookla | speed tests are slightly low in 2022. Appearances matter. If they | provisioned slightly fewer customers per cell they might have | passed. | malfist wrote: | Promising 20mbps and delivering 9 is not "a bit low". I want | starlink to succeed, and I wish they'd gotten the the criteria | to get this funding, but let's not be deceptive here. | jeffbee wrote: | Third-party observations are not mere optics. The company's | claims simply did not survive scrutiny. | ajross wrote: | They're satellites, they move. You can't "provision" customers | like that. You provide a constellation that gives some level of | coverage at some level of reliability as a function of | latitude, and that's what you get. | | Now, OK, maybe that's not going to be acceptable to regulators. | And... that's sort of a shame given the fact that satellite | services are available literally everywhere. How many people | not served by existing rural broadband RDOF recipients would | _love_ to have a subsidized Starlink antenna? | | I really don't see how this is helping anyone except a handful | of cable companies actually doing deployments. The vast bulk of | the rural subscriber base that fund is intended to assist | aren't going to get anything out of it. | bri3d wrote: | Starlink right now is a bent pipe between the dishy and a | ground station. Depending on how many customers they have in | a specific ground station's cell, they need different | backhaul capacity for that cell. | | So, in the case of Starlink, they absolutely CAN provision | customers like that, and that's EXACTLY how it works right | now - invites happen per "cell," and each "cell" has a | capacity quota. | | Recently, they've been overprovisioning "cells" for some | reason or another, and the service has slowed down, so it | objectively didn't meet the thresholds and they'll need to | bid again. This also seems reasonable. | | I say this all as a happy Starlink customer - negative | externalities to space junk and obnoxious fanbase aside, it's | way better than my previous fixed point to point WISP | experience was, and worlds better than ADSL stretched to the | bitter end of distance capability over lines from the 1970s | was. | ghaff wrote: | My experience with the Starlink at my brother's house in | Maine is that it's "OK" relative to wired broadband. Speeds | are reasonable and, while I've had a couple multi-hour | outages in the limited time I've spent up there, it's | pretty usable. I could work up there if I wanted to. | | But there are no good alternatives. ADSL was 1Mbps down | with a tailwind and it was the last house on the road that | could get it. Cell service is very sketchy, especially if | not on Verizon. HughesNet limitations are well-known. So | it's pretty much a game-changer in terms of Internet | access. | bri3d wrote: | That's been my experience too. | | Here in Colorado my service is actually pretty good - I | get 20-30mbit during crowded times, and 150-200mbit | during off hours. Outages were problematic a few months | ago but have improved and now usually coincide only with | severe thunderstorms. | | Overall, it's a literal order of magnitude better than | end-of-line ADSL and roughly a 2x gain over my old WISP | (at 2x the cost). For someone who used to have access to | a WISP, it's evolutionary. For locations with no previous | access at all, it's revolutionary. | | On the flip side, the hardware is almost offensively | silly and ridiculous (proprietary connectors and cables, | router with 0 Ethernet ports but a diagram of Mars | instead, etc.). IPv6 support disappeared sometime last | year, and everything is behind a CGNAT. And link quality | sometimes seems to depend on the dish repositioning | algorithm picking the correct inclination, which seems to | be a crapshoot depending on when it was last rebooted | rather than an ongoing correction process. | boardwaalk wrote: | > You can't "provision" customers like that. | | You might want to tell SpaceX that, because that's what | they've been doing. | | The satellites near a particular area (at any particular | point in time) have a capacity as do the local ground | station(s). | ezfe wrote: | They literally do provision customers per cell. The | satellites move in predictable orbits meaning each cell has a | specific capacity. | 1970-01-01 wrote: | >In a public notice, the FCC cited recent Ookla data | | Why is the FCC using Ookla when they built their own speed test | app? | | https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-encourages-public-use-its-s... | pwinnski wrote: | Because people independently choose to use Ookla, it's very | popular. Few people use the FCC's app, which depend on people | at the locations using it to provide data. | peeters wrote: | Because if a statistically insufficient number of people are | using that app, the data shouldn't be used for decision making. | jcrawfordor wrote: | FCC's app is a white-labeled test on contract from SamKnows. | FCC also has contracts with Ookla for use of their data. From | the FCC's perspective they seem to just be using data across | multiple vendors for more coverage, but Ookla is the biggest | player and has a lot more data points on offer than SamKnows. | vardump wrote: | One issue: I don't know about others, but personally I'm way | more likely to check Ookla's Speedtest when the connection is | bad, to see whether my connection got an issue. Not when it | works as expected. | function_seven wrote: | I never heard of FCC's own speed test app. So I tried to use | it. | | 1. Apparently I have to install an app on my phone. I can't use | a web-based tool from my desktop. (I was thinking there must be | a version for regular computer users, right?) | | 2. Thinking I missed something, I searched for "FCC speed | test". The results all point back to this app. | | 3. On a whim, I tried visiting speedtest.fcc.gov. Of course | nothing lives there. | | Why is FCC bothering with this if they're going to obscure it | behind app stores? Seems like a way to only get outlier users. | wmf wrote: | I think that app is intended to measure cellular carriers. To | measure wired broadband they used SamKnows routers instead of | an app. | kotaKat wrote: | I love how they call out Starlink's $600 equipment cost but | completely gloss over many a small-town fiber company that will | charge $200 easy for an install (or more), and completely ignores | ViaSat's $10/month equipment lease (or $300 prepaid but you don't | own it) and Hughes $15/mo lease and $99 setup or $450 upfront | payment for their dish. | Metacelsus wrote: | So who will the money go to, Comcast? | resfirestar wrote: | Comcast didn't participate in RDOF: | https://www.fiercetelecom.com/operators/comcast-adds-323-000... | pavon wrote: | The money (and the areas that were bid on) go back in the pot | for Phase II of RDOF. Starlink can bid on that if they | demonstrate adequate performance by then. | | Edit: Actually it looks like it goes back into the Universal | Service Fund (which is where RDOF got it's money), and may be | used for RDOF or other USF funded programs. | kube-system wrote: | Frontier is the big name in rural subsidies. | deltree7 wrote: | If Starlink was led by a black, trans, lesbian, woman, they | wouldn't have dared to touch this grant. | | But since it is a White Man's company, and a Billionaire to boot, | it's a political win for Democrats | dang wrote: | You can't post this kind of dross here, regardless of which | politics you prefer. | | Since you've been breaking the site guidelines repeatedly in | other places as well, I've banned the account. | | If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email | hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll | follow the rules in the future. They're here: | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. | H8crilA wrote: | Can someone explain how does Starlink go about using the | electromagnetic spectrum efficiently? 4G (and 5G even more so) | relies on small cells to spatially partition the spectrum, | therefore increasing the maximum bandwidth available in the | system. Need to serve more users without compromising per-user | throughput? Split the cells. | | Now, the cell of a satellite is enormous, and there's no way to | reduce the tx power without getting out of range of the surface | of the planet altogether. Not to mention that those satellites | are pretty damn fast so they stay over any particular user for a | very short amount of time. | | What am I missing? Or is this supposed to be a low throughput | system (when added up over all concurrent users)? | wmf wrote: | All modern satellites use multiple narrow spot beams; in | Starlink's case each beam is 22 km wide. This allows spectrum | to be reused. | H8crilA wrote: | Oh, ok. But 22km is still _a lot_ more than a typical 4G /5G | urban cell. It's basically the size of a city. Whereas I can | spot multiple stations in my city if I go for a 5-10 minute | walk. | wmf wrote: | Yes, the density of satellite is far lower than urban | cellular which is why no one is pitching satellite for | urban customers. | colejohnson66 wrote: | That, and latency. Or has that improved in the last | decade? | Dylan16807 wrote: | I wouldn't care about 40ms of latency for my phone. | | If by "last decade" you're comparing against | geostationary, then yes. The satellites are roughly a | hundred times closer. | mhandley wrote: | In principle you've got spatial diversity at both ends - on | the ground and in space. I don't mean full duplex - I mean | that the same area on the ground can in principle be | covered by multiple Starlink satellites simultaneously | using the same frequencies, so long as the satellites are | not close together. The receiving phased array can separate | the multiple signals just as it could if you used a | steerable parabolic dish, but in software. Of course there | may not be enough satellites launched yet to take advantage | of this, but eventually there should be. | wmf wrote: | I don't think the FCC will ever allow that config due to | interference with GSO. | pclmulqdq wrote: | Phased arrays and beam steering are pretty magical. Both the | satellite and the ground station can aim at each other by using | hundreds of antennas as a "lens", providing very efficient use | of the spectrum. If I had to guess, I would assume that | Starlink's beam size is about 10-50 km in radius. | MichaelCollins wrote: | There are limits to this magic. While sparse arrays of | antenna can get you very good angular resolution when | receiving signals, they're not so magical for transmission; | as your array of transmitting antenna gets sparser, the power | density of the beam also decreases proportionally. This is | why aperture synthesis is great for radio astronomy, but next | to worthless for far-field power transmission. | stagger87 wrote: | There are a lot of people that have written about this, here's | one for instance. | | http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1026762698 | wnevets wrote: | Starlink isn't capable of meeting its performance commitments, | this was the correct decision. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Starlink's constellation isn't even half completed yet. It's | likely that Starlink will get faster when they have more | satellites. Why are they judging results on incomplete data? | The other guys get until 2028 to finish their build-out -- why | doesn't Starlink? | pwinnski wrote: | They do. Once they finish their buildout and can meet the | performance required, they can re-apply. | bryanlarsen wrote: | That's a completely different round. There will be | different rules, and different competitors. They have to | recompete. | | Next year it's likely the Senate will have changed hands, | so the likelihood of the program still existing is low. | | That's like telling the winner of a sports tournament that | sorry, the prize you were promised is gone. But we might | have another tournament next year, so that's OK. | | Starlink is going to sue over this, and they'll win. By | 2028 Starlink expects to have two orders of magnitude more | capacity than they do now. 15x as many satellites, with an | order of magnitude more capacity per satellite. | Moto7451 wrote: | > Next year it's likely the Senate will have changed | hands, so the likelihood of the program still existing is | low. | | This program started under the previous administration. | Overall these subsidies have been around forever and will | likely continue. Here's a negative take on the status quo | that runs through the history up to this program: | | https://techpolicyinstitute.org/publications/broadband/ru | ral... | | Personally I think this falls into the category of "if | it's worth doing it's worth doing poorly." I actually | think that having 100/20 as a benchmark is good and that | Starlink will get there. Is it close enough to be an | improvement over Hughsnet and 56k modems? Yes. Even at 20 | up, 10 down it's more usable. | | Anything Elon Musk touches invites controversy these days | so boring policy issues like this get a new life of their | own. | | If this were Comcast being shown the door we'd all be | cheering. For example: https://arstechnica.com/tech- | policy/2022/08/man-who-built-is... | vel0city wrote: | > That's like telling the winner of a sports tournament | | But Starlink _didn 't_ win the sports tournament this | year, they didn't meet the performance obligations. | CircleSpokes wrote: | >Next year it's likely the Senate will have changed | hands, so the likelihood of the program still existing is | low. | | Why do you think this? The FCC was handing out tons of | cash to rural ISPs under Trump & a Republican congress. | Improving rural internet is popular and well supported | among the republicans since lots of rural areas are | pretty red. | megaman821 wrote: | I don't believe they had performance commitments yet. What this | is saying is they don't meet the performance criteria now and | they don't think they will meet it by 2028 because performance | is decreasing with more subscribers. I think the FCC is wrong | on this one. I would take the long bet that Starlink will | average above 100/20 by 2028. | gibolt wrote: | Agreed. We aren't even on next gen satellites (far larger) or | laser communication yet. Those should significantly improve | speed, bandwidth, and reliability. | candiddevmike wrote: | IMO satellite to satellite communication is going to be | SpaceX's equivalent of Tesla's FSD: always just around the | corner. | Dylan16807 wrote: | They've launched the lasers. You think alignment is so | hard they won't manage it in the next year? I'm not that | pessimistic. | megaman821 wrote: | Also, this is a weird program for Starlink. Why not just | subsidize the terminal cost and monthly plan to any low | income area without access to fast wired internet? When | fast wired internet makes it to that area stop offering the | subsidy. Starlink is unique that removing the subsidy | doesn't leave stranded capital assets. Then the FCC could | award all the blocks to fiber providers but if they don't | make it for another decade or so, the people will at least | have decent internet in the meantime. | thaeli wrote: | The FCC used aggregate performance across the network, which | arguably isn't accurate at depicting the performance in the | most remote cells. Starlink is unusual here in the degree to | which their service performs better in more remote areas; for | most providers, it's the reverse. So they may well be meeting | their performance commitments in the most remote areas, but | severe congestion in areas that have other service options is | hurting their averages. | | I'm not sure what the right call is here. It's very difficult | to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vastly | different technologies; this isn't Starlink exclusive, but | will probably apply to the other LEO constellations whenever | they come online in strength. | dboreham wrote: | I don't think I've ever seen 20Mbits up on my Starlink. It's | usually a solid 10-15. | xoa wrote: | This is completely wrong though, I've seen 220 down/40 up out | of it. They've apparently been trying to stay right around | their commitment level while building out as quickly as | possible, and let it slip a bit under on a third party speed | test. But that can be relatively easily remedied by reducing | subscriber growth vs new satellite launches. And literally just | today we saw another significant step towards Starship | launching with the first static fire of Raptor 2 on a full | Super Heavy booster. That'll bring far more launches of the | much more powerful Starlink v2.0 satellites. It's brand new | cutting edge technology bringing service right now to people | abandoned to dialup or ludicrously expensive lines or HEO sat | for decades. It's already been a life changer. | | Their plans for further scaling are solid and in progress. The | tech is obviously and objectively capable. The lobbying against | it has been intense for completely befuddling reasons though, | but even so this is a really disappointing decision. | [deleted] | mccorrinall wrote: | > The lobbying against it has been intense for completely | befuddling reasons though | | Citation needed. I don't see why anyone would lobby against | starlink or LTD here. Neither won. They money from the fund | is not distributed. They can reapply. | | What the hell are you talking about? If there is lobbying, | it's certainly not against Starlink or LTD getting the funds | as subsidiaries. The goals were set, starlink didn't meet | them, they don't get subsidized. Simple as that. | jeroenhd wrote: | > I've seen 220 down/40 up out of it. | | Sounds great. However, I've seen |31/|4 and |20/|10 out of | it. Anecdata doesn't prove much. | | The network is improving, the tech is capable, but the real | life performance is not up to snuff. Starlink, much like any | company Musk seems to get himself involved with, is promising | more than it can deliver, and that hurts when it comes to | subsidies. They can have their billions when their network | does what it promised to do. | xoa wrote: | > _Sounds great. However, I 've seen |31/|4 and |20/|10 out | of it. Anecdata doesn't prove much._ | | Anecdotes cannot prove population statistics, you need an | unbiased random sample for that. But anecdotes absolute | _can_ prove _limits_ though. Remember, this is what I was | responding to, emphasis added: | | > _Starlink isn 't_ CAPABLE _of meeting its performance | commitments_ | | That's what I took issue with and think is important. | Starlink is absolutely _capable_ of those speeds; I 've | seen them. So the problem isn't the technology, the problem | is balancing serving the most people (which is a public | good too) with maintaining enough performance on average | for each one, all while scaling and evolving the technology | fast. I'm assuming SpaceX could have submitted private data | showing the public results by ookla were off in some way | that would have been sufficient and that the FCC didn't | ignore that out of lobbying/politics, so I'm taking it as a | given that they did fall behind there. But it's not like | Starlink is "done", they're continuing to increase sat | numbers, build more ground stations, they're prepping to | bring online intersat optical links and have no given a | firm date for that (it's required for their marine service | to get away from coastal waters), they've got much better | sats and a solid process on the rocket to launch them. If | we didn't need someone to take on some more risk and help | accelerate things, this entire program would be meaningless | and there would be no need for government in this space at | all! I guess it feels like they're being punished for | trying to move faster when that's exactly what lots of | Americans need. We needed something better then the crap | we've had 10 years ago let alone now. | | Of course, this may be 100% the correct legal decision | depending on the exact language, administration and so on | of the program. I could easily see the FCC not doing well | on that but that doesn't mean they aren't required to stick | to it by law. But that's not what I see most people | criticizing it on, they're talking technical and societal | angles instead. And on _those_ grounds, I can be | disappointed if the program didn 't have some leeway. | "Needs to be ready by 2028" isn't good enough! | pclmulqdq wrote: | When someone uses the word "performance commitments," | they usually are referring to SLAs like: "performance for | 99% of subscribers 99% of the time." | | Starlink is probably below three nines of reliability on | even having a connection, and may only be at one to two | nines or so on the speed demands. Many people on Starlink | get bursts of decent speed and also stretches where the | network operates at a crawl. | | Thus, they can offer you good speed and still be | incapable of meeting performance commitments. | mangoTangoBango wrote: | Compared to 1.5/0.5 DSL its great, it's getting 60/11 about | 40mi away from SpaceX (Starlink) HQ. But compared to | municipal bidirectional gigabit fiber it's...not as great. | | Heres ping info from starlink: | | --- google.com ping statistics --- 38 packets transmitted, | 38 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip | min/avg/max/stddev = 26.879/45.073/95.627/11.582 ms | gibolt wrote: | Is anyone else delivering anything even close? Aiming | 10-100x better than competitors and missing by a small | percentage is considered failure apparently. | | Hughesnet was one of the best options prior to Starlink. | garciasn wrote: | No, but they didn't apply for this either; because, they | knew they couldn't meet the expectations set by the FCC. | carbocation wrote: | I agree with all of the aspirational statements you have made | here, but I still think this was the right choice. A | threshold was set. The threshold was not met. Sounds like | they can reapply, and if they provide the necessary service | level at that time, then they can get the $. | btilly wrote: | I would agree if the same standard was being applied to the | existing telecoms. But it isn't. | | In the last several decades, telecoms have routinely been | paid billions for projects that didn't produce, and then | won money in the next round as well. Indeed the fight isn't | usually about whether to continue this, but who should win | this round (established telecoms, municipal broadband, | etc). | | It was a surprise when Starlink won in the first place. But | it is no surprise that it is being held to a higher | standard than, say, Charter. | stephen_greet wrote: | What do you mean by "applied to the existing telecoms"? | For this RDOF subsidy, no major telecoms have been given | any money. | | It's totally fair to criticize subsidies that have been | historically given major telecom companies when they | failed to deliver (and they have). But, I don't think | it's fair to say "historically the US government has | given subsidies to telecoms that have failed to deliver, | so you should keep doing that". | xoa wrote: | Government has given hundreds of billions in broadband | funding to the giant telecoms and cable for ages for | absolute nada [EDIT, 1]. The clients I put in Starlink for | last year had a 10 meg connection for which they were | charged hundreds of dollars per month and were _fortunate_ | since a mile away it was 56k modem of HughesNet or nothing. | It 's really good tech. I've been hearing promises and | aspirations about fiber for like 17 fucking _years_. I can | completely believe that in designing and putting into being | a brand new network like that SpaceX has misjudged cell | density vs satellite density and capabilities in areas and | let the average speeds fall. But given what they 're doing | and the (non)alternatives I'd be a lot happier if there was | some leeway to bring that back up and see how v2 comes out. | Funding very promising technology that is aggressively | trying to ramp hard and has a clear 1-3 year horizon is | precisely the sort of thing government should do after all | their failures up until now. And there are others less well | off within a hundred miles who were hoping to get Starlink | if the monthly cost could be brought down by this program. | And Starlink aren't assholes like the incumbent players | either. No datacaps, zero billing crap with surprise | charges or fees, no port blocking, no bullshit in general. | Of course more speed would be better, but that should be | worth something too vs theoretically faster connections | that then punish or restrict. | | Bottom line: I don't think these $886 million now going | elsewhere are going to benefit even a single person up here | near the Canadian border in the next few years. Fiber is | still not going to appear here. The border is over 3000 | miles long. In contrast Starlink can do something now (if | you look at the Starlink map [0], there are very few filled | cells in northern New England or northern Midwest/Pacific | West up near Canada), and has the real promise of doing | better. Now that will be harder, and I do not believe | anything better is going to come of it for any of us in | that time frame. If fiber comes in 2028 wonderful, Starlink | could be cancelled then. That's a long time though to still | be on 56k/HEOsat. | | To sibling comments talking crap like "do you work for | SpaceX" if you wish to volunteer and come up to lay fiber | for us right fucking now by all means. | | ---- | | 0: https://www.starlink.com/map | | 1: I'm editing in response to tyrfing below because I | suspect I'll hit the HN reply speed cap sometime shortly. | This got tons of coverage in the 00s in particular but has | fallen away over time as these things tend to. I had a | bunch bookmarked at one point from old /. stories and the | like and actual paper books but all the sites now seem to | be dead. Here's a more recent one though that seems to | cover the gist and could be a place to start for more: "The | Book Of Broken Promises: $400 Billion Broadband Scandal" | https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-book-of-broken- | promis_b_5... | tyrfing wrote: | > Government has given hundreds of billions in broadband | funding to the giant telecoms | | Can you share a source for this? I'm very curious to see | the breakdown of funding sources. | | > there are others less well off within a hundred miles | who were hoping to get Starlink if the monthly cost could | be brought down by this program | | Why would the company receiving free money make it | cheaper, are there price caps that SpaceX wouldn't meet? | You've clearly laid out that they have no competition. | | > Funding very promising technology that is aggressively | trying to ramp hard and has a clear 1-3 year horizon | | They had 1.5 years. "1-3 year horizon" is thus clearly | misleading, since halfway through that timeframe they are | unable to meet requirements. | orangepanda wrote: | If you average AWS snowmobile out, it does about 1 Tbps. Has | some latency though. | pclmulqdq wrote: | I am hearing that lots of people are now getting under 50/15 | out of it, and nobody I know with starlink has gotten better | than 100 down. That is not really broadband. Those people may | be in regions that are oversubscribed, but that is also | partly a problem related to the price being too low. Of | course, if they raise the price, then it might not be | considered cheap enough for these subsidies either. | jcims wrote: | I've had it in central Ohio since February 2021. I would | say i average ~120M down, ~20M up. There've been a few | outages, but I've never seen a prolonged period of less | than 80M down. | | The fastest thing I can get otherwise is a 10M down, 768K | up DSL link. I had been working remote on that since 2008. | [deleted] | hedora wrote: | I get more than that on the RV plan in an oversubscribed | area (jumped the queue). | | I'd be lucky to get 5/1.5 from frontier, and their DSL | service in the area goes down every few weeks. | | This seems like a case of lobbyist-induced double | standards. | swatcoder wrote: | You think Starlink doesn't have lobbysists? | | If they failed their qualifying metrics and _did_ win the | subsidies anyway, wouldn't mirror universe hedora be here | complaining about _that_ double standard? | | To me at least, this seems less obviously suspect than | that would have. | thrwy_918 wrote: | > nobody I know with starlink has gotten better than 100 | down. That is not really broadband | | AFAIK the minimum speed for "broadband" is 25 down. | | I am a highly online person living in a large city with | many choices of ISP at many different speeds, and I still | only have a 110mbps connection. It seems strange to me to | suggest that speed is universally inadequate, though I can | understand why large households may need higher bandwidth. | ghaff wrote: | Of course that's really broadband and it's fine for what | most households use the Internet for. Maybe once you get | into multiple 4K streams you start to run into limits. But | once you get past some fairly modest point, it doesn't | change the Internet experience for most people. | wnevets wrote: | > This is completely wrong though | | are you accusing the FCC of lying or just being too | incompetent to measure network speeds? | enragedcacti wrote: | > They've apparently been trying to stay right around their | commitment level while building out as quickly as possible, | and let it slip a bit under on a third party speed test. | | They've actually been below their commitment for all of 2021 | and 2022 so far: they started 2021Q1 with a 16.29 average and | 2022Q1 had dropped to 9.33 average. That's a pretty worrying | trend and I don't think its the FCC's job to evaluate literal | rocket science to decide whether or not they believe SpaceX | will meet their obligations. | | SpaceX chose what speeds to pitch in their bid, how many | satellites and ground stations to deploy, and how many | customers to let onto their network. While I agree that | Starlink has a bright future I can't help but see this as | SpaceX clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. | | We've been far too lenient with ISPs in the past with | broadband funding, and this is what keeping them to their | word looks like. | | https://www.ookla.com/articles/starlink-hughesnet-viasat- | per... | emkoemko wrote: | ortusdux wrote: | I've done speed tests on 4 separate dishes within a 25mi | radius of my house, and I consistently got around 90 down/10 | up. The fastest test to date I've seen in my area is ~130 | down / 60 up. | spmurrayzzz wrote: | I'm not sure we can really say if their tech is "obviously | and objectively capable" at scale. We don't really know | enough about the PHY layer modulation or even the mac layer | modulation they're using. My guess has always been that they | use some flavor of OFDM, but this is a detail thats | unrevealed currently. These are incredibly important details | for the oversubscription calculus in the access network | itself. | | RDOF aims to hold providers to a much higher standard for | rural broadband, and part of that commitment is whether you | can deliver speeds across the whole network at scale, not | just relying on theoretical top line speeds. The evidence so | far per Ookla demonstrates they don't meet muster currently, | and since the tech is so new and (mostly) unvetted, it makes | sense for the FCC to play it safe here on behalf of the | consumer. | xoa wrote: | > _it makes sense for the FCC to play it safe here on | behalf of the consumer._ | | Maybe it "makes sense" to those who aren't actually one of | those consumers. But if "playing it safe" means "you get to | stay on 56k/4-1-ADSL/viasat/hughes for another 5 years and | maybe you get fiber then or maybe another administration | comes along and crushes this whole thing who knows! <3" | then no that's not great right? The more positive angle is | that this doesn't actually slow SpaceX down at all, they | aren't a public company so this doesn't mean their stock | plunges immediately and shareholders demand a course change | or anything like that, they're obviously committed to | improvements and obviously have a fair amount of private | capital to tap. So it won't necessarily slow them down much | if any, at least hopefully. But it does mean all the | growing capacity and improvements will go exclusively to | the better off who can afford the $110/mo privately in the | immediate future and that's too bad. It's more too bad as | well because even with someday tens of thousands of | Starlink v2.0 and intersat optical mesh and greatly | increased cell density, there will still be tight density | limits relatively speaking. So less well off people may | find themselves effectively shut out of Starlink due to | having to have waited until others move/pass away/get | fiber. It might not amount to much but I'd really like to | see my tax dollars helping to get them something asap on a | more even ground I guess. | | I'd be happy to be proven wrong though and for everyone to | get fiber instead! | | > _and since the tech is so new and (mostly) unvetted_ | | Shouldn't government should have more, not less, appetite | for risk of this nature? If it's risk free, the market | would already be doing it. Particularly after decades of | throwing billions down the crapper for "safe" and "proven" | tech by "reliable, established" companies which then used | it to do mergers or stock buybacks or lobbying against | municipal broadband and getting laws against it enacted in | much of the country and perhaps a few token deployments. | | I completely understand and applaud the pendulum swinging | back against the decades of established monopolies trying | to water down definitions of "broadband" to meaningless so | they could market and suck subsidies with no capex | required. But all pendulums can swing back too far in the | opposite direction too, and now that rapid deployment | transitional tech is possible (Starlink and WISPs) it'd be | nice to see timelines factored in as well. There is value | to society in someone getting 50-150 via Starlink or fixed | wireless until 2028 even if fiber then makes it in and | obsoletes it. And there's parts of the US I doubt see it | even then honestly. | | Also to your sibling: | | > _They 're using a finite set of frequencies and the laws | of physics still apply_ | | This is nice of you to write but would you care to crunch | us the numbers on Shannon limit for the Ku-, Ka-, and E- | bands (ignoring V-band since nothing for that exists for | Starlink yet)? Do you actually have reason to think they're | maxing out potential bandwidth right now in 12-18 GHz or | 26.5-40 GHz right now vs that being a tech limitation that | will be improved with better phased arrays and bigger sats | like v2.0? Because it's kind of a significant amount of | spectrum. | spmurrayzzz wrote: | I very much agree with the thematic sentiment you shared | that leaving certain rural folks in the dust because they | can't hit an arbitrary 100mbps down (but maybe could get | 20mbps instead) is a flaw in this whole program. But note | that other more capable providers can bid on those census | blocks now that Starlink is in default. | | _> Do you actually have reason to think they 're maxing | out potential bandwidth right now in 12-18 GHz or 26.5-40 | GHz right now vs that being a tech limitation that will | be improved with better phased arrays and bigger sats | like v2.0?_ | | I do think its a tech limitation, yes. The capacity | limitations in many new RF solutions are unrelated to the | theoretical max of any of those bands (re: Shannon | limit). As to whether the that can be improved, that | depends on where the bottle necks are. I brought up the | mac layer note for that reason, I don't know that they're | enveloping ethernet frames over that link, but if they | are - what is the strategy there? TDMA? CDMA? There's | just not a ton of public information out there to make a | deductively valid argument that the FCC should expect it | to improve. | | (EDIT: Realized that I didn't convey my point well. It is | a tech limitation imposed by the physical limitations of | the medium itself. No matter how much spectrum you have, | you still need a modulation scheme to allow for | multiplexing over that spectrum. There are limitations | there where the implementation details really do matter.) | zamadatix wrote: | The cells are 22km and the traffic path strictly | client<->satellite<->ground station at the moment. There | isn't really any reasonable scaling concern until you start | talking about serving densely populated areas but that's | not Starlink's market nor what the RDOF targets/measures | anyways and the inability to service a user in a city as | well as a rural user shouldn't be reasoning to not provide | funding to service those rural users. | | That said I don't have a problem with the funding being | held until the conditions are demonstrably met instead of | as funding to meet them. The latter has failed too many | times with providers just pocketing money to then stop | executing once they have it. | spmurrayzzz wrote: | Well we have to square what you're positing with the | evidence right now that in the aggregate as their network | size increases, the speeds are getting substantially | worse over time on average. Lots of explanations for | that, but its still the current outcome. | | And there are definitely reasonable scaling concerns | here. They're using a finite set of frequencies and the | laws of physics still apply. Any concurrent transmissions | are going to be impacted by both their phy layer | modulation strategy, in addition to the mac layer. But we | know so little about those layers currently that its hard | to comment without being entirely speculative. | wmf wrote: | That information is out there but it's scattered and hard | to find. The real bottleneck right now seems to be that the | number of beams per satellite is higher than the number of | cells per satellite. | spmurrayzzz wrote: | I haven't seen anything official nor convincing about the | aspects I commented on. | | I've seen the write up on the individual who was able to | spin up an SDR to receive beacons from their satellites, | but that doesn't really tell you anything about how the | signal is modulated. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | 100Mb is higher performance than most people need. That's five | 4K video streams. While it's nice to push the definition of | broadband forward from ISDN speeds, it should realistically | consider the bandwidth a household can consume and that people | choosing to live in a rural environment don't need to have the | best possible service. | pavon wrote: | I agree that is overkill today, but if we are spending a | bunch of money building out new infrastructure it makes sense | to future proof it. The ISPs have ten years to complete their | rollout, and I'd like to see it provide adequate service for | at least a decade after that. Will 100Mb be overkill 20 years | from now? Think about trying to use the internet of today on | connection speeds that were common 20 years ago. | SkyPuncher wrote: | The problem is in the real world, you can't perfectly | optimize prioritization. In theory, you can run 5 4k streams | on 100Mb. However, in practice, real time data can get messed | up. | | Before switching to 1Gbps fiber, I had 100Mbps and I | frequently noticed that Zoom would lag when 2 people were | streaming at the same time. There were enough situations | where 3 clients simultaneously needed more data that | introduced latency. | Dylan16807 wrote: | 100Mbps fiber, or 100Mbps non-fiber? Because that sounds | like an upload limitation caused by a limit much smaller | than 100 or even 20. | emkoemko wrote: | 25mbit 4K ewwww this is why we don't yet have same bitrate of | 4K blurays something like 128Mbps | jetrink wrote: | The bidding process had ISPs to declare what speeds they | could deliver down to a minimum of 25/3 Mbps. SpaceX didn't | need to bid at such a high performance tier if they didn't | want to. | colechristensen wrote: | It's not that but total bandwidth capacity is limited by | constellation size, waiting for laser links between | satellites, etc. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-10 23:00 UTC)