Starlink : Speed Discussion

[su27k]

reddit dug up some speed test results for Starlink: https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

I assume the speed test site/server can determine which ISP provider the user is using by analyzing the data user sent?

[M.E.T.]

reddit dug up some speed test results for Starlink: https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

I assume the speed test site/server can determine which ISP provider the user is using by analyzing the data user sent?

30-50Mbs is what I get on fixed line in an Australian city, and it is more than sufficient for multiple HD Netflix streams at the same time, plus a couple of laptops and/or cellphones using WI-FI too.

If they can get those speeds as an average they are in business.

[dondar]

reddit dug up some speed test results for Starlink: https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

I assume the speed test site/server can determine which ISP provider the user is using by analyzing the data user sent?

try this test on your connection. A number of times, at different times. Get surprised.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

reddit dug up some speed test results for Starlink: https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

I assume the speed test site/server can determine which ISP provider the user is using by analyzing the data user sent?

try this test on your connection. A number of times, at different times. Get surprised.

Such speed tests are highly dependent on the server being contacted and it's loading. So the actual data rate of the Starlink segment may be  >>60mbps. But the servers are temporarily loaded and doing load sharing of it's data retrieval capability and it's local network connection. You need to do side by side near simultaneous speed tests one through Starlink and the other through a similar ISP with 100Mbps+ speeds. Then do that same test multiple times and get the graphs for both shown against each other. If Starlink is as advertised they should be very similar.

[dondar]

reddit dug up some speed test results for Starlink: https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

I assume the speed test site/server can determine which ISP provider the user is using by analyzing the data user sent?

try this test on your connection. A number of times, at different times. Get surprised.

Such speed tests are highly dependent on the server being contacted and it's loading. So the actual data rate of the Starlink segment may be  >>60mbps. But the servers are temporarily loaded and doing load sharing of it's data retrieval capability and it's local network connection. You need to do side by side near simultaneous speed tests one through Starlink and the other through a similar ISP with 100Mbps+ speeds. Then do that same test multiple times and get the graphs for both shown against each other. If Starlink is as advertised they should be very similar.

I sit on 1G fiber connection in the NL (and up to 600Mbit connection to US). My connections to this server vary from 2Mbit to 35Mbit. Every time I get different number. This test measures basically dynamic routing time, which is meh for anybody who is "not a gamer".
btw. I pay 420euro per year for it.

[launchwatcher]

Disagree. Low latency services is still a small part of their total revenue. Backbone companies are MUCH smaller than you’d think. Cogent Communications, one of the biggest internet backbone providers, has a market cap of just $4 billion, 50 times smaller than Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T. Even a smaller regional player like Cox communications has a market cap 5 times that size. Consumers are where the real money is.

Cogent is something of an outlier -- they have a history of engaging in peering disputes with other providers and aren't currently considered a global Tier 1 provider because they have a few holes in their routing table.

Telia or CenturyLink would be better examples.

[su27k]

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

44.8 Mbps down, 4.58 Mbps up, 75 ms ping

[guckyfan]

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?

[Frogstar_Robot]

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?

There is an FAQ for that https://www.speedtest.net/about/knowledge/faq#server

I get 35, 8.5, 18ms on my nominal 40Mbit fibre, so Starlink is similar apart from ping time, bad luck gamers

[guckyfan]

So it is a ping to a speedtest server. Completely dependent on where such servers are and certainly higher than the pings to the first access point.

[tbellman]

So it is a ping to a speedtest server. Completely dependent on where such servers are and certainly higher than the pings to the first access point.

And very dependant on where, and with whom, Starlink has established peering and/or transit to other providers at this point in time.  They might not have built out their presence at many Internet Exchanges yet, since they are so new in the game.  With a bit of bad luck, the speedtest server could be just next to you, but traffic needs to take a detour across half the USA to reach a peering point with the target network.

(I have seen instances where traffic between two points here in Europe took a detour across the Atlantic to the USA...  Although that has been due to temporary breakage, not the "normal" way.)

[launchwatcher]

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.

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

[meberbs]

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.

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.

As I understand it, the speed test results are being reported from anonymized logs on the servers used, not coming from the actual users.

[niwax]

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.

[Frogstar_Robot]

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.

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.

[joek]

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.

As I understand it, the speed test results are being reported from anonymized logs on the servers used, not coming from the actual users.

Yes.  If you use speedtest they collect the information (essentially crowd-sourcing) but only make visible anonymized (e.g., no end-user IP's) or aggregated information.

All we can tell from this is that someone used speedtest to test a connection to a Starlink speedtest server and that--based on speedtest's geo-location information--the user was < 50 miles from the server.

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.

Generally agree with trusting the numbers.  However, as can be seen from the snip, speedtest thinks the user-server are < 50 miles apart. (For grins-giggles tried to test against that server but it is not listed by speedtest on their web interface, nor does it appear to be visible through the CLI version.)

Attached snip credit reddit user Smoke-away.

[tbellman]

However, as can be seen from the snip, speedtest thinks the user-server are < 50 miles apart.

My emphasis.  The ways that speedtest.net uses to determine the user's geographical location are however not very reliable for a brand new ISP which is only in beta-test with a small number of users spread all over the US.  The beta-testers may all be within the same small range of IP addresses, even though they are spread from Los Angeles to Brownsville to Boston to Seattle.  Speedtest, and the geolocation services like MaxMind, are very likely to clump together all current Starlink users to a single location today.

This is especially likely if Starlink have not yet built out their infrastructure to put people in different IP ranges depending on their location (since there are so few users at the moment).  Or have not yet established peering with enough number of networks in enough number of places around the US.  Or simply have not kicked MaxMind and their ilks hard enough to get correct information into the geolocation databases...

(If you read the NANOG, North American Network Operators' Group, email list, a recurring problem people have is that Netflix/Disney+/Hulu/et.c suddenly thinks their network is in outer Mongolia instead of in the US, and refuses to serve content to their customers.)

It's way too early to draw any conclusions about how well the Starlink network will work when they open up to real customers.

[ChrisWilson68]

It's way too early to draw any conclusions about how well the Starlink network will work when they open up to real customers.

Very true, and not just because of issues with how speed tests work.  This is not the final Starlink product.  The Starlink service is still under development.  They have started testing it on a small number of users, but as anyone who knows SpaceX knows, they like to test while they're still in development and rapidly trying many things.

The only thing we'll know from any data we find out about the Starlink beta test program is a lower bound on the level of service they will provide once they open this up to real customers.

[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. 

[Faerwald]

I get 30Mbps down and 1.5 Mbps up on a fiber connection... and that is the only available service in my area. My 4G phone connection is faster but there is not enough data allowance on that.

When I need to deal with their help desk they just sound arrogant and annoyed they have to deliver a service.
When I made the appointment for witj the technician they didnt show and they didnt even notify me.

I cannot wait to boot my current ISP even if I get no additional speed.

[RedLineTrain]

It appears that the speed spigot has been turned on a bit more.  Today, so far we are seeing as high as 91 Mbps down and 27 Mbps up.

https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

[RedLineTrain]

And now it looks like the speeds have taken another step upward.  As high as 105 Mbps and often 100+ Mbps.

https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

[RedLineTrain]

And now 122 Mbps...

(Sorry for the rapid-fire posts, but SpaceX must have really made a breakthrough on speeds.)

https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

[king1999]

And now 122 Mbps...

(Sorry for the rapid-fire posts, but SpaceX must have really made a breakthrough on speeds.)

https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

You may need to post screenshots next time. They all went down now.

[Nomadd]

 I'm not exactly sure what this thread is good for. Anybody who didn't sleep through 3rd grade math for two years, and has any idea how ISPs work knows that these early tests have pretty much nothing to do with a mature, highly subscribed system. And I've been seeing some pretty nonsensical proclamations by pretend experts.
 
 I use to test systems by downloading files from some oddball site called nasaspaceflight.com. It had the most reliably consistent service I knew. Then it got big and I found out what Chris did to people who wasted his bandwidth, so I abused some other site instead.

[RedLineTrain]

I'm not exactly sure what this thread is good for.

To track Starlink's speed progress and to discuss it.  Who knows, we may see some tests that diverge from the expectations of the pretend experts.  Or we may have page after page of fruitless arguments over what is written in the tea leaves.

Seems in keeping with the rest of the site.

[RedLineTrain]

And now 122 Mbps...

(Sorry for the rapid-fire posts, but SpaceX must have really made a breakthrough on speeds.)

https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

You may need to post screenshots next time. They all went down now.

The 122 Mbps test is still in the log, so no need for a screenshot.  But if you want to learn more about that particular test, below is a link to the test.

https://testmy.net/db/Hwm-K0S7E

[abaddon]

I'm not exactly sure what this thread is good for. Anybody who didn't sleep through 3rd grade math for two years, and has any idea how ISPs work knows that these early tests have pretty much nothing to do with a mature, highly subscribed system. And I've been seeing some pretty nonsensical proclamations by pretend experts.
 
 I use to test systems by downloading files from some oddball site called nasaspaceflight.com. It had the most reliably consistent service I knew. Then it got big and I found out what Chris did to people who wasted his bandwidth, so I abused some other site instead.

Sure, and Starship prototype testing has nothing to do with a mature, highly refined system.  Should we not care how early Sharship testing goes?

I love your posts, but this one is disappointing and does not contribute value to this thread.  And I'm a professional in high-speed low-latency networked applications, so I have at least some inkling of what I'm talking about.

[launchwatcher]

From the starlink FCC filing thread, relevant to observed performance during the beta test:

SpaceX's beta testing uses conditions
designed to support on-going optimization and testing of the network that make network
performance measurements worse, not better. For example, all the user terminals were
configured to transmit debug data continuously, even if the beta customer didn't have any
regular internet traffic, forcing every terminal to continuously utilize the beam.

Moreover, these results are based on beta-test software frame grouping settings that
do not yet reflect performance using the software designed to optimize performance for
commercial use. Until recently, the network had been grouping user terminals in groups
of 8 per radio-frame, instead of the 20 terminals per radio-frame the system supports. This
operating choice is to support on-going optimization and testing of the network but has the
consequence of introducing 2.5 times longer delay between radio-frames for a given user
in a fully loaded cell, corresponding to the smaller group sizes. Importantly, this software
feature has just been enabled and is specifically designed to optimize speeds in highly
populated cells, increasing throughput by approximately 2.5 times.

In addition to the datapoints representing SpaceX's aggregate performance, SpaceX
analyzed the last week of measurements for a community of 30 high-usage customers. As
shown in Figure 1, these measurements, totaling 1,048,576 datapoints, indicated a
95th percentile latency of 42 ms and percentile latency of 30 ms between end users and
the point of presence connecting to the Internet. These measurements confirm the SpaceX
network is capable of allocating resources efficiently such that latency remains consistent
whether the measurement point is the overall network or individual groups of customers.

[Mandella]

From the starlink FCC filing thread, relevant to observed performance during the beta test:

SpaceX's beta testing uses conditions
designed to support on-going optimization and testing of the network that make network
performance measurements worse, not better. For example, all the user terminals were
configured to transmit debug data continuously, even if the beta customer didn't have any
regular internet traffic, forcing every terminal to continuously utilize the beam.

Moreover, these results are based on beta-test software frame grouping settings that
do not yet reflect performance using the software designed to optimize performance for
commercial use. Until recently, the network had been grouping user terminals in groups
of 8 per radio-frame, instead of the 20 terminals per radio-frame the system supports. This
operating choice is to support on-going optimization and testing of the network but has the
consequence of introducing 2.5 times longer delay between radio-frames for a given user
in a fully loaded cell, corresponding to the smaller group sizes. Importantly, this software
feature has just been enabled and is specifically designed to optimize speeds in highly
populated cells, increasing throughput by approximately 2.5 times.

In addition to the datapoints representing SpaceX's aggregate performance, SpaceX
analyzed the last week of measurements for a community of 30 high-usage customers. As
shown in Figure 1, these measurements, totaling 1,048,576 datapoints, indicated a
95th percentile latency of 42 ms and percentile latency of 30 ms between end users and
the point of presence connecting to the Internet. These measurements confirm the SpaceX
network is capable of allocating resources efficiently such that latency remains consistent
whether the measurement point is the overall network or individual groups of customers.

Thanks for crossposting that. I haven't been following the filing thread.

So, basically Starlink is in debug mode right now, as everyone should have assumed.

I do think that network congestion is unavoidably going to bring performance down dramatically when everyone logs in at once for whatever reason, but Starlink is still going to be head and shoulders above regular satellite, or gods forbid rural cellular...

[su27k]

Speedtest article about Starlink speeds: Starlink: Bridging the Digital Divide or Shooting for the Stars?

In both the U.S. and Canada, Starlink provided competitive or better service at the minimum (25/3/100) tier. In the U.S., 86.7% of Starlink users met this threshold, compared with 83.2% of those on all other fixed broadband providers. Although the FCC’s criteria don’t apply north of the border, 85.6% of Canadian Starlink users met the Minimum threshold, compared with 77.8% for all other providers. Starlink showed a smaller proportion of users meeting the baseline and above baseline tiers than all other providers combined.

Given this data, it's safe to say Starlink could be a cost-effective solution that dramatically improves rural broadband access without having to lay thousands of miles of fiber.

[Hog]

I'm not exactly sure what this thread is good for. Anybody who didn't sleep through 3rd grade math for two years, and has any idea how ISPs work knows that these early tests have pretty much nothing to do with a mature, highly subscribed system. And I've been seeing some pretty nonsensical proclamations by pretend experts.
 
 I use to test systems by downloading files from some oddball site called nasaspaceflight.com. It had the most reliably consistent service I knew. Then it got big and I found out what Chris did to people who wasted his bandwidth, so I abused some other site instead.

Sure, and Starship prototype testing has nothing to do with a mature, highly refined system.  Should we not care how early Sharship testing goes?

I love your posts, but this one is disappointing and does not contribute value to this thread.  And I'm a professional in high-speed low-latency networked applications, so I have at least some inkling of what I'm talking about.

Emphasis mine.
Nomad's injection of humour gave this thread increased value.

[su27k]

Some great speed statistics for Starlink: How Starlink’s Satellite Internet Stacks Up Against HughesNet and Viasat around the Globe

The satellite internet race is heating up, with more competitors serving more areas than even a quarter ago. We’re back with a broader look at internet network performance for satellite providers across the globe based on Q2 2021 data from Speedtest Intelligence™.

Quick summary from subtitles of the article:

Starlink speeds beat competitors in the U.S., can’t top fixed broadband

Canada: Starlink beats fixed broadband download speeds

France: Where the fastest Starlink download speeds are

Germany: Starlink far surpasses local fixed broadband

New Zealand: Starlink is faster than fixed broadband

United Kingdom: Starlink beats fixed broadband providers

It's also interesting to see that US has the best fixed broadband speed among western countries, quite contrary to the picture media is painting about how bad US broadband infrastructure is.

[RonM]

It's also interesting to see that US has the best fixed broadband speed among western countries, quite contrary to the picture media is painting about how bad US broadband infrastructure is.

US broadband is only available in urban areas and to people who can afford it. The US is a vast country with rural communities unable to get broadband because it would be too expensive to setup via traditional cable or fiberoptic cable. Tens of millions of Americans cannot access broadband. Starlink is designed to tap into this large market.

[su27k]

Starlink - The Billionaire Elon Musks’ Dream for Broadband from Space is Still in Infancy Yet Gaining Popularity Among Consumers

Speedcheck carried out a series of speed tests over the last couple of months to measure the performance of Starlink, which is now in the beta testing phase. This article looks into what Starlink is doing and how it differentiates itself from other satellite, fixed and wireless broadband service providers.

The results are convincing, and we have seen modest figures in the range of 50.5 Mbps download speed, 14 Mbps upload speed, and 52.5 ms latency. We have also carried out tests in the US and Canada and found identical results. The US's median upload and download speeds were 13 Mbps and 50 Mbps, respectively, with 57ms latency. And the median download and upload speeds in Canada were 49 Mbps and 14 Mbps, respectively, with 52 ms latency.

[Bob Niland]

RonM: … The US is a vast country with rural communities unable to get broadband because it would be too expensive to setup via traditional cable or fiberoptic cable. Tens of millions of Americans cannot access broadband. Starlink is designed to tap into this large market. …

I'm one of those customers. Here's the back-story, and some crystal ball gazing.

Dial-up was never faster than 28K here. ISDN, DSL, cable & fiber never made it here. The GEO services are still the sad joke that they always were.

What we do have is two providers on the old Motorola Canopy terrestrial RF tech, and/or 4G cellular IP (5G may be too weak here). The RF tech hasn't seen any real upgrades in a decade. It's a footnote business for the regional ISPs, who offer mainly fiber & cable in the larger communities.

For anyone with line-of-site to the terrestrial RF towers, they offer 2Mbps & 5Mbps at $55 or $70/mo. It's reasonably reliable, with a couple of outages a year (during which we fallback to cellular IP). For $25 more, Starlink represents an order of magnitude jump in performance, and I expect many to jump on it when Sx opens it to general availability here.

Because Starlink will be so appealing to so many customers on the existing RF, I'm frankly expecting RF subscriptions to sink, and the regional ISPs to deprecate and eventually abandon the RF tech. Thus, although I don't really need the extra bandwidth, I'm planning to switch to Starlink on my schedule, and not wait until the RF goes the way of landline.

[Redclaws]

It's also interesting to see that US has the best fixed broadband speed among western countries, quite contrary to the picture media is painting about how bad US broadband infrastructure is.

US broadband is only available in urban areas and to people who can afford it. The US is a vast country with rural communities unable to get broadband because it would be too expensive to setup via traditional cable or fiberoptic cable. Tens of millions of Americans cannot access broadband. Starlink is designed to tap into this large market.

The US also has pretty high broadband costs.  Our broadband infrastructure certainly isn’t terrible but it’s got gaps and is deeply non-competitive in most regions.

[envy887]

Starlink - The Billionaire Elon Musks’ Dream for Broadband from Space is Still in Infancy Yet Gaining Popularity Among Consumers

Speedcheck carried out a series of speed tests over the last couple of months to measure the performance of Starlink, which is now in the beta testing phase. This article looks into what Starlink is doing and how it differentiates itself from other satellite, fixed and wireless broadband service providers.

The results are convincing, and we have seen modest figures in the range of 50.5 Mbps download speed, 14 Mbps upload speed, and 52.5 ms latency. We have also carried out tests in the US and Canada and found identical results. The US's median upload and download speeds were 13 Mbps and 50 Mbps, respectively, with 57ms latency. And the median download and upload speeds in Canada were 49 Mbps and 14 Mbps, respectively, with 52 ms latency.

Speedcheck runs on the user device, which is really not a great way to evaluate the Starlink network speed. WiFi obstructions or congestion on the local network can easily drop speeds to the user device by a huge amount, so that it doesn't matter whether the ISP is providing 1000 Mbps or 30 Mbps to the modem, because only 30 Mbps is getting through the WiFi. Network evaluations should be done only on systems where the local network is known to not be the slowest link.

The Starlink app run both a speed check to the device, and a speed check to the router. These are the same if I'm standing right by the router (usually 80-130 Mbps), but the to-device speed varies considerably as I move around the house, often below 30 Mbps.

The average over the last 2 months or so at https://starlinkstatus.space/ is about 150 Mbps, aggregated from about 100 users. I think those users, having gone through the effort to install a program to do automated speed checks, have also mostly made sure that the device doing the speed checks is not on a slower local network.

[macpacheco]

However, as can be seen from the snip, speedtest thinks the user-server are < 50 miles apart.

My emphasis.  The ways that speedtest.net uses to determine the user's geographical location are however not very reliable for a brand new ISP which is only in beta-test with a small number of users spread all over the US.  The beta-testers may all be within the same small range of IP addresses, even though they are spread from Los Angeles to Brownsville to Boston to Seattle.  Speedtest, and the geolocation services like MaxMind, are very likely to clump together all current Starlink users to a single location today.

This is especially likely if Starlink have not yet built out their infrastructure to put people in different IP ranges depending on their location (since there are so few users at the moment).  Or have not yet established peering with enough number of networks in enough number of places around the US.  Or simply have not kicked MaxMind and their ilks hard enough to get correct information into the geolocation databases...

(If you read the NANOG, North American Network Operators' Group, email list, a recurring problem people have is that Netflix/Disney+/Hulu/et.c suddenly thinks their network is in outer Mongolia instead of in the US, and refuses to serve content to their customers.)

It's way too early to draw any conclusions about how well the Starlink network will work when they open up to real customers.

This assumes the ISP can and will sort out the IPs in neat ranges and register them to different locations.
I work for a regional ISP, all ips are registered to the same location, but they are deployed over a 300 mile radius.
I assume medium nationwide ISPs simply can't organize their ips by state, that would waste way too many.
I assume Starlink simply won't be able to do anything more than clump ips by continent, if at all.

[su27k]

Starlink Expands but Q3 2021 Performance Flattens in Some Areas

Satellite internet is making headlines across the globe as Starlink continues to launch service in new countries and Viasat plans to acquire Inmarsat. We’re here to check in on our ongoing series on satellite internet performance around the globe with fresh data from Q3 2021 to see if Starlink’s performance is holding up and how satellite internet compares to fixed broadband in 12 countries.

Quick summary from subtitles of the article:

United States: Starlink fastest, speeds decreasing

Australia: Starlink outperformed Viasat and fixed broadband average

Belgium: Starlink dramatically faster than fixed broadband

Canada: Starlink performance relatively flat

France: Starlink speeds decreasing, remains faster than fixed broadband average

Germany: Starlink faster than country average for fixed broadband

New Zealand: Starlink slowed slightly, remained faster than fixed broadband average

United Kingdom: Starlink nearly twice as fast as fixed broadband average

[su27k]

Starlink Hits 100+ Mbps Download Speed in 15 Countries During Q4 2021

[jpo234]

Lots of measurements:
SpaceX Starlink Internet Experience & Performance

[su27k]

Here’s How Fast Starlink Has Gotten Over the Past Year

Speedtest Intelligence® reveals that median download speeds for Starlink dramatically increased from Q1 2021 to Q1 2022 in the U.S. and Canada, as did speeds for all fixed broadband providers combined. In the U.S., Starlink median download speeds improved roughly 38% from 65.72 Mbps in Q1 2021 to 90.55 Mbps in Q1 2022. In Canada, Starlink’s download speed leapt ahead nearly 58% from 61.84 Mbps to 97.40 Mbps during the same time period.

However, Speedtest Intelligence also showed that upload speeds for Starlink decreased at least 33% in the U.S. (16.29 Mbps in Q1 2021 to 9.33 Mbps in Q1 2022) and at least 36% in Canada (16.69 Mbps to 10.70 Mbps) during the same time period. Median latency on Starlink marginally increased from 40 ms to 43 ms in the U.S. and from 51 ms to 55 ms in Canada during the past year. For many Starlink users, we suspect these changes are negligible.

[su27k]

Starlink Speeds Drop Significantly in the US Amid Congestion Woes

Download speeds for SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet system are seeing a sharp drop for users in the US and Canada, according to Ookla’s Speedtest data.

During Q2—April to June—the median download rate for US-based Starlink users settled in at 62.53Mbps, a decrease from 90.55Mbps in Q1. Upload speeds also experienced a decline, reaching only 7.24Mbps, down from 9.33Mbps.

Meanwhile, in Canada, the median download speeds came in at 75.73Mbps, a drop from 97.40Mbps, according to Ookla’s report(Opens in a new window), which is based on data from Speedtest.net(Opens in a new window), a site anyone can use to check the speed of their internet connection.

[r1279]

Direct link to Ookla Insights Article:
Starlink Slowed in Q2, Competitors Mounting Challenges

[su27k]

Starlink Speeds Continue to Fall in the US, Canada Amid Network Congestion

For the third quarter in a row, download speeds have dropped for SpaceX’s Starlink system in the US and Canada, according to Ookla’s Speedtest.com data.

In Q3, the median download rate for Starlink subscribers in the US fell to 53Mbps, a decrease from 62.5Mbps in Q2. In Canada, the Q3 median download speeds reached only 65.8Mbps, down from 75.7Mbps.

[Tomness]

Starlink Speeds Continue to Fall in the US, Canada Amid Network Congestion

For the third quarter in a row, download speeds have dropped for SpaceX’s Starlink system in the US and Canada, according to Ookla’s Speedtest.com data.

In Q3, the median download rate for Starlink subscribers in the US fell to 53Mbps, a decrease from 62.5Mbps in Q2. In Canad it would have rankings at 100a, the Q3 median download speeds reached only 65.8Mbps, down from 75.7Mbps.

No Bucks, No Buck Rogers.  They didn't win FCC Rual Broadband Grant. So they got offer Quantity over Quality. If they had won, it would have remaining over 100 Mbps DL.

[M.E.T.]

Also, ~50Mbps is pretty fast. I have that on my home fibre connection in a city, and its enough to support two TV’s streaming Netflix at the same time as well as various mobile devices using the Wifi.

That’s plenty for some guy relying on Starlink in his cabin up in the mountains, or cruising around in his RV.

[Mandella]

My own experience with Starlink is that average speed ratings are pretty useless. Speedchecks can vary wildly minute to minute, and of course from peak to off peak. So far, it has certainly not dropped below what I was provided as routine by Viasat even at the worst of peak. And of course nighttime downloads can only take an hour or so to bring down files larger than my total bandwidth cap under Viasat.

Connectivity and lag are more useful metrics for me for daily use, and in those areas reliability has been improving for me in the US Southeast, and it wasn't terrible to begin with. Momentary obstructions or loss of signal are measured in seconds, not even noticeable when surfing or streaming, and tend to only occur hours apart. Even online gaming just registers these as lag spikes, rarely a disconnect. I've even hosted games on my home system and got no complaints from other players that did not know they were accessing a host on the other side of a satellite link.

[jasonjulius1122]

reddit dug up some speed test results for Starlink: https://testmy.net/host-history/spacex_starlink

I assume the speed test site/server can determine which ISP provider the user is using by analyzing the data user sent?

No, a speed test site/server cannot determine the user's ISP provider by analyzing the data sent.