Starlink : Speed Discussion

[meberbs]

Problem is that info would have to come from someone in the beta. That would be a violation of the strict NDA to post it.

Not necessarily, unless the NDA prohibits those users from using services such as speedtest.

You seem to have misread my post. This was referring to the traceroute utility that was mentioned, not information from speedtest. The next part of my post explained how speedtest data we have seen would not indicate violation of NDAs, because it is 3rd parties sharing information, which there is no good way to prevent them from collecting.

[meberbs]

And on Windows, there is an equivalent utility called tracert.

I think there is some confusion how Starlink and maybe the internet operates. If the speedtest picks a server near the upstream downlink, e.g Hawthorne, then the results will be representative.

An additional delay for the satellite round trip of around 60ms sounds about right.

3000 km extra travel distance would be around 10 ms. The time for the spacecraft on board delay should be single digit ms, if that. 60 ms does not sound about right. Poor selection of "closest" server, or other routing problems that others have mentioned, such as peering agreements still being worked area reasonable explanations though.

[Frogstar_Robot]

And on Windows, there is an equivalent utility called tracert.

I think there is some confusion how Starlink and maybe the internet operates. If the speedtest picks a server near the upstream downlink, e.g Hawthorne, then the results will be representative.

An additional delay for the satellite round trip of around 60ms sounds about right.

3000 km extra travel distance would be around 10 ms. The time for the spacecraft on board delay should be single digit ms, if that. 60 ms does not sound about right. Poor selection of "closest" server, or other routing problems that others have mentioned, such as peering agreements still being worked area reasonable explanations though.

Oh yeah, my bad

In the Reddit thread there is a comment :

Two of my contacts have received their Starlinks in upper latitude regions. They are reporting 100-150 and 250-400 down speeds and 30-60ms pings. Apparently SpaceX is testing speed limits too randomly, meaning people in same latitude may get different speeds - to test different tier plans in future. Sorry I cannot share more details as it may put my contacts at risk of NDA breach.

So that extends the sample size only slightly but with different results - maybe expected from SpaceX test method.

However, they seem to be meeting the FCC requirement for <100ms pings from what we have seen.

[Mandella]

Reddit found another speed test result: https://www.speedtest.net/result/9842319776

44.8 Mbps down, 4.58 Mbps up, 75 ms ping

I am somewhat confused about what this is testing. To what point is that ping? Some server near the end user or  really the access point, the first point the user reaches?

It's the round-trip time to the speedtest server that this test used.   speedtest.net attempts to automatically find a server near the client -- but it doesn't always pick the same one, and you can override the choice.   Given the newness of Starlink it may have chosen poorly.

So far, all the published results have shown the detected IP somewhere near Hawthorne. This might simply be because whatever IP range they're using has been registered to SpaceX at the same address, which would also result in speed tests potentially sending a signal halfway across the country because they believe that's where the user is. I wouldn't trust these numbers until beta users are allowed to share details publicly.

And this is also why no-one should be sharing this information at all. Starlink does not even have a complete shell yet, and they've warned their beta uses that service will be very rocky for an extended period as they refine their signal processing system. All numbers are meaningless right now as we don't know enough about the service behind them. For all we know SpaceX could be experimenting with routing really long pathways to determine upper ping limits.

By all means when the service is close to release tear them up if need be, but speculation now is not just premature but actively counterproductive.

Now if you will excuse me, I must return to the Roadside Rocketry threads to see what new sheet of metal has been dragged into the yard...

[launchwatcher]

There's a utility called traceroute available on Linux and other Unix-style systems.  This will automatically tell you the ping times to all the intermediate nodes along the route to a given destination.  The traceroute output from someone using Starlink would clear up all these issues.

While traceroute can be useful, some caution should be used in interpreting its output, especially if you are attempting to use it to probe the characteristics of a network you don't control. 

Traceroute relies on sending packets that trip an error path in intermediate routers designed to prevent packets from getting stuck in a forwarding loop.   The error path is usually built as a low-priority slow path; timing numbers are best interpreted as upper bounds on actual packet round-trip travel time.   it is not unusual to see it report a higher round-trip time for intermediate hops than the end system (I just saw one where it showed 64 milliseconds to hop 6 but only 36 milliseconds to the destination two hops further away).

And it's also worth noting that the IP addresses and the DNS names attached to the intermediate hops may appear to identify geographic locations but there's no guarantee that they're accurate.

[king1999]

More Starlink speed tests from here. Please delete this message if not allowed. All below FCC's latency of 100ms to get the money for rural Internet development.

https://www.telecompetitor.com/first-spacex-starlink-satellite-broadband-speeds-revealed/

[zubenelgenubi: Attach image files. Do not embed them.]

[RedLineTrain]

Not sure that we can believe those speeds and ping times (and whether they are completely representative), but even if true, this information may not be useful for all purposes.

My ISP is a wireless provider using phased array antennas.  The headline bandwidth is 200 Mbits symmetrical.  But it is so heavily managed to only provide the bandwidth that you need, that the speed tests normally show about 50 Mbits down.  Haven't had a problem with the bandwidth provided, so these are basically just notional speeds for me.

Starlink could be the same.

[wannamoonbase]

Not sure that we can believe those speeds and ping times (and whether they are completely representative), but even if true, this information may not be useful for all purposes.

My ISP is a wireless provider using phased array antennas.  The headline bandwidth is 200 Mbits symmetrical.  But it is so heavily managed to only provide the bandwidth that you need, that the speed tests normally show about 50 Mbits down.  Haven't had a problem with the bandwidth provided, so these are basically just notional speeds for me.

Starlink could be the same.

We're probably seeing early info and who knows what combination of hardware they are using on the ground side.

I'd guess these early numbers are likely the lower end of performance and that it will improve with more satellites and as they figure out how to optimize the network.

It's pretty cool to see any data because it seems that this is going to be a real service, soon.

[king1999]

Not sure that we can believe those speeds and ping times (and whether they are completely representative), but even if true, this information may not be useful for all purposes.

My ISP is a wireless provider using phased array antennas.  The headline bandwidth is 200 Mbits symmetrical.  But it is so heavily managed to only provide the bandwidth that you need, that the speed tests normally show about 50 Mbits down.  Haven't had a problem with the bandwidth provided, so these are basically just notional speeds for me.

Starlink could be the same.

We're probably seeing early info and who knows what combination of hardware they are using on the ground side.

I'd guess these early numbers are likely the lower end of performance and that it will improve with more satellites and as they figure out how to optimize the network.

It's pretty cool to see any data because it seems that this is going to be a real service, soon.

Agreed. These numbers are not conclusive, but they at least give you somewhat a baseline. I would say they were pretty impressive, considering the number of sats they have up there.

[Mandella]

Not sure that we can believe those speeds and ping times (and whether they are completely representative), but even if true, this information may not be useful for all purposes.

My ISP is a wireless provider using phased array antennas.  The headline bandwidth is 200 Mbits symmetrical.  But it is so heavily managed to only provide the bandwidth that you need, that the speed tests normally show about 50 Mbits down.  Haven't had a problem with the bandwidth provided, so these are basically just notional speeds for me.

Starlink could be the same.

We're probably seeing early info and who knows what combination of hardware they are using on the ground side.

I'd guess these early numbers are likely the lower end of performance and that it will improve with more satellites and as they figure out how to optimize the network.

It's pretty cool to see any data because it seems that this is going to be a real service, soon.

Yeah I agree if this is the early round of optimizing it doesn't look bad, but at the same time without understanding all the mitigating factors influencing the system at this point it's pretty useless to conjecture about the final service.

Not that that is going to stop anybody.

I will say that even if the speeds and bandwidth stay exactly the same that will be just fine with me. Beats the heck out of what I've got now here in the sticks.

[su27k]

The discovery from reddit is making rounds on media:

Arstechnica: SpaceX Starlink speeds revealed as beta users get downloads of 11 to 60Mbps

Latency tests are affected by the distance between the user and the server. The Ookla tests revealed on Reddit showed the tests going to servers in Los Angeles and Seattle; SpaceX's beta tests are slated for the northern US and southern Canada, but a Stop the Cap story says that testers so far are in rural areas of Washington state only.

PcMag: How Fast is SpaceX's Satellite Internet? Beta Tests Show it Hitting Up to 60 Mbps

As for whether the speed tests are real, Ookla told PCMag: "These tests do appear to be legitimate. In general, the information about a connection that is visible to a user during a test is rigorously vetted by our QA (quality assurance) team."

[mulp]

The target market is people getting service worse than 3mb down, 700kb up. 80% of US land area still served only by twisted pair. Then there is Canada, Mexico,...

[spacenut]

I've noticed the speed so far for Starlink is very low compared to my cable provider.  Will the speed increase with more satellites?

[meberbs]

I've noticed the speed so far for Starlink is very low compared to my cable provider.  Will the speed increase with more satellites?

We have no idea what real speeds are, the limited data we have may be slowed by 3rd party intermediaries, especially if they haven't finished working out routing details and peering agreements. Also they may be testing various methods of constraints such as enabling different speed tiers. We already know from the testing that was done with the military and from SpaceX statements that the possible connection speeds are much greater.

Also if comparing to current cable provider service, pretty much all of the upload speeds are significantly better than what I can get, unless I paid for completely excessive download speed. (One computer I have has a USB wifi adapter so it would show as just 20 mbits/s down at best on speed test data like this.)

[abaddon]

I've noticed the speed so far for Starlink is very low compared to my cable provider.  Will the speed increase with more satellites?

How fast is your cable provider?  I get 200 down and I don't expect Starlink would be able to better that.

That's on my primary connection (cable).  On my DSL (backup/redundant) I get 12 down, which Starlink should be able to easily eclipse.

[jerwah]

I've noticed the speed so far for Starlink is very low compared to my cable provider.  Will the speed increase with more satellites?

You're not the target market though, at least right now.

I have 500k (not m, k) dsl and poor cell coverage that gets me 1.5Mb when I really need to download the latest Tank Watcher posts as long as the phone is in the right spot in the house. GEO isn't an option (mountain in the way). I know everyone wants to break the cable monopolies but I'd be happy with any monopoly right now.

[Mandella]

I've noticed the speed so far for Starlink is very low compared to my cable provider.  Will the speed increase with more satellites?

It cannot be stressed enough that, if you already have decent cable Starlink is not aimed at you.

Starlink will probably always be below good cable in both bandwidth and caps. It is aimed at rural dwellers whose only choice for broadband is GEO satellite or cellular, where it competes wonderfully.

A *lot* of people are going to be very vocally disappointed by this, so brace yourself.

[wannamoonbase]

I've noticed the speed so far for Starlink is very low compared to my cable provider.  Will the speed increase with more satellites?

It cannot be stressed enough that, if you already have decent cable Starlink is not aimed at you.

Starlink will probably always be below good cable in both bandwidth and caps. It is aimed at rural dwellers whose only choice for broadband is GEO satellite or cellular, where it competes wonderfully.

A *lot* of people are going to be very vocally disappointed by this, so brace yourself.

Completely agree.  Someone with Fiber is going to try this and complain.  Like so many products from Elon there will be people that complain all while he building a multi hundred billion dollar company around it.

5 years from now Starlink could have a global foot print with tens of millions of customers over land and sea.  It won't be google fiber fast but it will be fast and it will connect the entire plant.

[thirtyone]

It cannot be stressed enough that, if you already have decent cable Starlink is not aimed at you.

Starlink will probably always be below good cable in both bandwidth and caps. It is aimed at rural dwellers whose only choice for broadband is GEO satellite or cellular, where it competes wonderfully.

A *lot* of people are going to be very vocally disappointed by this, so brace yourself.

SpaceX does some great stuff and has this way of doing quite a few things in more innovative ways than other people have done, but there's only so much further you can do from expectation. Remember the metric for LEO constellations - the measure of success is "it doesn't go bankrupt." Point is, each satellite, even at megaconstellation size, will cover extremely large swaths of land. If Starlink is even moderately popular, I find it difficult to believe that any one user could possibly eat up that large of a fraction of each satellite's bandwidth at any particular time.

Most people actively online might find these speeds mediocre. Starlink is not for you. It's for people who probably barely want to browse forums like this or haven't found it because decent broadband is just not available. This may come as a surprise to people outside of the US, but there are quite a few areas, even in large cities in the US, where getting even one mbps is a hassle. I know of quite a few places in my city where honestly idiotic zoning restrictions and ordinances have prevented certain blocks and regions from having high speed internet. The only option is either sub-megabit DSL over old phone lines or 3G, which is also far away because of course the cell providers couldn't get past the red tape to run fiber anywhere close to the housing complex. There's also existing satellite, but of course that's incredibly expensive and just as slow. I know quite a few people who would be absolutely elated to get 60mbps in these areas.

Remember, the Internet is a sample inherently biased against people with poor Internet connectivity, so you're not likely to hear as many anecdotes about that here =P

Side note, because there's so much confusing PR over 5G - 5G will absolutely NOT solve any of these sorts of connectivity problems in the US. There's a reason extremely high density urban areas like cities in China have implemented it first - it helps in extremely congested regions where you just have crazy numbers of people in say a single subway station. My impression is the biggest innovation that comes from 5G standards is the use of mmWave radio, which inherently has shorter range but more bandwidth. In a lot of areas of the US where coverage is poor, the problem is that you have populated areas far away from infrastructure, and newer, shorter range wireless standards really don't help. If you could build a 5G tower in those regions, then I suspect it's likely you could just run wired Internet directly to those areas as well. This is where Starlink would *really* help.

[spacenut]

I get 200 and down also.  Depends on the time of day in my neighborhood.  My stepson lives out in the country and only gets about 5-6.  He signed up for Starlink.  Hope it is faster.