good. i think somehow i was expecting to see some resistance to this, as seen in other industries SpaceX has taken a slice from
Why? They actually launched two test stats to test the system, that was one key point for the FCC to approve it.
I think he's referencing how lobbyists petitioned government to prevent Tesla from being able to sell Teslas directly to consumers, forcing them to use showrooms.
I always wondered though who would benefit from not having more people online? If more people have access to the internet, the more money internet companies will make. It makes sense then to not lobby against any of it from the internet companies side.
In the end it benefits the internet companies that Space-X rolls out a global accessible internet that the entire world can access. There's just a Lot of data to be had and sold.
North American ISPs lobbyism doesn't seem likely for two reasons:
1.The way to access the sat internet will be hard for the common denominator.
(I have no inclination about how this works, I doubt it as easy as switching on wi-fi, you'd need an external antenna for it. I assume? Please correct me if I am wrong)
2.No ISP has interest in the technology due to cost or have plans to contract Space-X to make their own versions over the US and Canada and henceforth see no reason to intervene
Then again it certainly is questionable that they wouldn't intervene considering this could hit their local markets or potential markets in cases where there is no internet. But, I guess we'll see.
I am more surprised to not see foreign opposition, especially from companies trying to build out internet access in third world countries.
the only problem with this system is that the satellites have very short lifespans and there will be a large amount of them needed launched constantly to keep the network running. Its just inherently wasteful, though its benefits probably will outweigh the costs.
the other problem is this could cause ground based infrastructure to be ignored because this is good enough. this is a bandaid more than an actual fix
By very short lifespans do you mean they re-enter earth after a few years or do you mean they stop functioning, I had worries about space debris and how this won't help very much with the Kessler Syndrome problem. It'd be very scary to shoot up so many satellites with no way of making sure there's a way to cleanly get it to burn up on re-entry through a propulsion system.
What is the life span of a regular satellite?
In comparison with landlines and ocean cables, this is probably much much cheaper in comparison, especially as old Elon is driving down the cost of launches constantly.
Satellite internet is butts. Your round trip time is garbage and your packet loss is totally weather dependant.
Does spacex have some next generation satellites that address these issues?
They will use a phased array antenna the "size of a pizza box" to access it. Cost will be $100 - $300.
It's not currently designed for your l33t latency for snipez and 360 nosc0peZ.
It's designed to have new full planetary communications networks in the farthest reaches of the planet.
I wasn't referring to games (but those too would be affected)
Many protocols for data transfer require both ends to keep sending data back and forth to verify that the other end has received data correctly.
You can imagine how long this process can take to send a small bits of data when both ends require that it be sent exactly 1:1 with no errors.
Non loss tolerant data transfer can be very slow when ping is high and bandwidth is low. Satellites can be even worse off when actual packet loss occurs, which is likely when the sky isn't clear.
I know I was just being a dick.
Who knows really, alot of it feels extremely under wraps and I haven't found a whole bunch on the tech used myself, although it's safe to assume they aren't going to be sending up tacky bullshit with such a grand operation, it may even be modular, an be able to be replaced and upgraded if they ever sort a system out for it.
This isn't the process behind TCP, it is TCP. Starlink fixes the latency problem other satellite connections have. For weather we will have to wait and see.
these are very low orbits 1200 km which is fairly low and going to have low service lives
Was there ever clarification on that ms claim?
Sounds like it is just the first hop, 25ms round trip sounds impossible.
It will be routed between the satellites using lasers before going back down to the ground. Light in fibre optic cables doesn't travel at the speed of light, but it does in vacuum between the satellites.
Why? OneWeb is far ahead of Starlink and they have had no troubles getting authorization.
That's probably a theoretical best scenario.
Expect much higher latency than that.
the main reason google fiber had such a hard time was because AT&T/comcast and friends expand and then fight google on the territory.
with sats in the sky they can't really use that territory as a battlefield
That's absolutely insane if satellite internet ends up being competitive with ground based internet.
Google was directly challenging those companies with their own land based internet connection that was guaranteed to be faster. Satellite internet has been proposed before and has absolutely no guarantees to be cheaper and profitable, let alone faster, than land based connections.
that's the whole point of flying them like 1/2 the height of the other internet providers, they are low enough to get stronger signals down with less lag
It probably won't be faster in cities due to the density of connections (the more devices you shove onto one spectrum the more you divide the bandwidth), but it certainly could revolutionise rural areas of the US stuck with shitty DSL connections.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
