Author Topic: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2  (Read 1098154 times)

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9197
  • US
  • Liked: 11575
  • Likes Given: 5179
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1260 on: 04/05/2020 11:39 pm »
I disagree with calling the current state of Starlink "basic development".  They have a few hundred satellites on orbit.  Those satellites have been tested.  They have been testing user terminals (but haven't publicly released much information about that.)  This isn't starting from scratch after they start getting money from RDOF (if they even get any).  They should be able to demonstrate performance to the FCC if asked.  There isn't any guarantee that Starlink will be a success at providing the level of performance SpaceX has promoted, but they seem to be well on their way to providing a level of performance that would qualify for RDOF services (depending on exactly what level of service they bid of course, there are four speed tiers).  The one area that could potentially trip them up with RDOF is if an area that is fairly dense got included and they didn't have enough satellite density to simultaneously cover most of the population.  They could probably avoid that by carefully choosing where to bid.  The 3 year threshold is ability to serve 40% of the area's population, with the threshold increasing each year after that.

The threshold for "low latency" is 100ms.  Even if SpaceX's latencies are double what they've been claiming they'd still easily clear the bar, and not getting into the low latency category is a huge detriment when the bids are being scored.

I don't have any problem with saying the overall performance of Starlink is TBD.  Some features have been pushed back.  It will take them a while to mature the system.  However, unless something goes terribly wrong they'll be starting service in much of the U.S. in 2021 and the RDOF doesn't require service until 2024.  Programs like RDOF don't happen every year.  SpaceX can't just wait a few months for the next one to come along.  I think they are far enough along with Starlink that they should be allowed to compete, and I would hope the FCC does their due diligence to confirm SpaceX will have a good chance of meeting the levels of service they bid for.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3017
  • Likes Given: 4934
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1261 on: 04/05/2020 11:39 pm »
That entire post is garbage.
Care to explain why, in detail?

He keeps throwing around $16B like that's a number SpaceX would get, when he knows very well that no company will get anywhere near that amount.

He basically says SpaceX is lying about the ability to provide low latency service.  He then compares it to Iridium, which routes traffic over crosslinks to get to one of a small number of ground stations, resulting in higher latency.  SpaceX has already filed for more ground stations in the U.S. than Iridium uses globally.  The lack of crosslinks on the current SpaceX satellites will actually enforce lower latency.

He keeps saying the system is untested.  From a deployed consumer user terminal perspective that may be true, but SpaceX has obviously been testing the network (as has DoD) and know what kind of performance they're getting.

He says the terminals will need mechanical steering, which is just not true.  (Mechanical steering means continually following the satellites as they move across the sky, not a one-time setup routine to point it in a good direction.)

He says features such as crosslinks are "discarded", when in some cases, such as crosslinks, they are merely delayed.  I don't really doubt his claims that the satellites don't currently reallocate capacity on the fly, but that would just reduce the overall throughput (number of people served per satellite), not stop the constellation from working.

He thinks its a bad thing that SpaceX is writing their own software, and should be relying on a subcontractor like Hughes or Viasat.   That's nonsense.  It may take SpaceX longer than intended to implement all of the intended features, but there's no reason they can't produce their own software.

He says it's "truly outrageous" that SpaceX would be allowed to bid before they bring their network into service.  Well, none of the other bidders are required to have their network in service before bidding either, and he doesn't seem to be complaining about that.

This part is a real gem: "So SpaceX could then take the FCC’s money, never provide service to a single customer that the money was meant to help, and reallocate its capacity to serve other users like the DoD anywhere within the country or even the rest of the world."  The auction has rules about actually providing service.  If they aren't providing service after three years then they would be kicked out of the program and have to pay back at least some of the money.  As the program is for a ten year term a company can't get all of that allocated funding without actually providing service.  If he thinks SpaceX can reallocate its capacity from rural America to "the rest of the world" then Mr. Farrrar apparently doesn't have a very good understanding of how LEO constellations work.

He's basically saying, throughout the post, that SpaceX will not be able to get their network performance within the criteria for the auction and will commit fraud if they get funding.  It's a garbage post.

Sir, I have a collection of garbage that I am very fond of, and I take strong exception to it being categorized with that article.

Doing a higher level of analysis, this article misrepresents (SX will get the whole 16B), and more insidious (I love dat word!), the author takes every operational element he can get his widdle mind wapped awound (google Elmer Fudd) and finds the most disingenuous negative interpretation he can come up with.

The cleanest example of this last was missed by Gongora. Probably because he was too busy understandably foaming at the mouth. Here it is.

In testing, the Air Force didn’t even use an Elon Musk DNA impregnated antenna! (There might be a bit of paraphrasing there) They used their own antenna.  DuH.

Have you ever certified aircraft electronics? If they had the electronics to hook up they would have used it. They had an antenna that looked like it would work and they probably insisted on using it for the test. The shame! The Horror! They figured they could get some extra mileage out of something that those of us who pay taxes in the US, already paid for. Now those tax dollars can go to SLS. Grumble, grumble.

Gongora, in the future try not to dis my garbage. Thank you.

Phil
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3017
  • Likes Given: 4934
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1262 on: 04/05/2020 11:58 pm »
He says it's "truly outrageous" that SpaceX would be allowed to bid before they bring their network into service.  Well, none of the other bidders are required to have their network in service before bidding either, and he doesn't seem to be complaining about that.
As far as I can tell, most or all of the other RDOF competitors will be using terrestrial network buildouts, which is a well-established technology that hardly needs feasibility demonstration.  GEO services like Viasat are likely to be at a severe disadvantage and may not even end up bidding depending on how the latency rules shake out.  https://www.telecompetitor.com/fcc-proposes-bidding-procedures-for-october-rdof-auction/

Is the post a little hyperbolic?  Sure.  Is it utterly without merit ("garbage") based on what we know and don't know about Starlink?  I think that's an overstatement.  I don't think the federal government subsidizing Starlink's basic development and deployment was what the intent of RDOF was.  If Starlink was the panacea some claim, it would simply win in the marketplace, not have to slurp from the government trough.

I'm not expecting to get a lot of traction on this site with this view, but it's been hard for me to separate the reality from the hype for Starlink.

I have a limited but not universal acceptance of government troughs. If the government is intent on setting up a trough and you qualify, sip away. If you don’t, your competitor will.  The problem is unnecessary troughs, not the sipping.

Opinion: the article was a pure smear piece.

Time to get back on topic.

Phil
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Online ccdengr

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1263 on: 04/06/2020 12:14 am »
Time to get back on topic.
How is rationally discussing the shortcomings of an article about Starlink off-topic?  I learned a lot about Starlink in this exchange.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8539
  • Highway Whatever
  • Liked: 58070
  • Likes Given: 1130
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1264 on: 04/06/2020 12:34 am »
 I might be about ten years behind things here. Is the only thing really needed for IP phone service just the voice call getting a higher COS, allowing just about any voice system to plug into the data pipe and make calls? I seem to remember some shenanigans by certain ISPs in not allowing competing phone systems the class of service they needed to work right.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9197
  • US
  • Liked: 11575
  • Likes Given: 5179
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1265 on: 04/06/2020 12:50 am »
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4825
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 2559
  • Likes Given: 3259
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1266 on: 04/06/2020 01:21 am »
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?

That is my understanding.  With mobile providers allowing Wi-Fi calling so they’re only a half step from it anyway.
Superheavy + Starship the final push to launch commit!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36113
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20459
  • Likes Given: 10613
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1267 on: 04/06/2020 01:22 am »
It’s worth noting that basically all broadband providers already basically do VoIP for their bundled phone services, although perhaps not IP per se but over their own network layer. They’re able to hook up 911 service to that just fine. I don’t foresee this part being a major problem for SpaceX.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Hummy

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 172
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1268 on: 04/06/2020 01:36 am »
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?

T-Mobile US charges $0.60/line for E911 compliance but also $3.18/line to cover other telco expenses they believe imposed on them by regulations.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9197
  • US
  • Liked: 11575
  • Likes Given: 5179
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1269 on: 04/06/2020 01:43 am »
The trickier bit with the phone service over satellite could be dealing with hundreds of 911 jurisdictions from every gateway.  Cable/local telco/wireless all have local equipment.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6070
  • Liked: 8638
  • Likes Given: 840
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1270 on: 04/06/2020 03:48 am »
Regarding the FCC subsidy, it does look like that Starlink is not offering service and haven't demonstrated high speed/low latency is a very common talking point among its competitors. If you read the filings, pretty much every filing from its competitors mentioned something like this, so it's not just Tim Farrar, he's just parroting what terrestrial fiber companies are saying.

I also noticed SpaceX's filing shows beginning of service in US is end of 2020, I don't know if this is a change from previous filings, but it certainly doesn't help with the narrative. I think Elon mentioned last year that they needed 6(?) launches to start minimal service in the US, they should be able to do that soon, so what is the delay? Gateways? Terminals? Software?

I wonder if it's possible for them to start service in a limited region (for example Boca Chica) first? Something like a beta test, it would help a lot with their case in front of FCC.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2020 03:49 am by su27k »

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8539
  • Highway Whatever
  • Liked: 58070
  • Likes Given: 1130
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1271 on: 04/06/2020 03:59 am »
 911 for fixed location stuff like Starlink hardwired or WiFi phones should be easy. You just route it to the local service, and location for the incoming call can just be a little data packet with GPS and/or street address. That gets setup in whatever voip gateway you're using. It's much more complicated for roaming gear like cell phones. Then it has to be routed by some godawful overdesigned, overpriced monstrosity of a system the government came up with to route the calls and give the user location.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2233
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1272 on: 04/06/2020 04:24 am »
The trickier bit with the phone service over satellite could be dealing with hundreds of 911 jurisdictions from every gateway.  Cable/local telco/wireless all have local equipment.

E911 services for cellphones and fixed VoIP lines have been dealing with sort of stuff for a while now.

E911+ starlink terminal needing line of sight to the sky for sats+GPS, thus knowing location, would make things fairly simple, though that would be via Starlink's own VoIP service connecting the right info to the E911 regional gateway (not dissimilar to how cellphone carriers have a central registry reporting the phones current tower and rough location via triangulation, plus a means to tickle the phone to activate GPS and report location when an emergency call starts). Anything doing straight VoIP over the top wouldn't have access to terminal location directly, so things would be done in a roundabout way.

Offline vsatman

Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1273 on: 04/06/2020 07:35 am »

I also noticed SpaceX's filing shows beginning of service in US is end of 2020,
 so what is the delay? Gateways? Terminals? Software?
I wonder if it's possible for them to start service in a limited region (for example Boca Chica) first?

the best region for initial service  is near 53 degrees paralell . Here is   biggest dencity satellite per km2
I mean  -
Gateway isn`t problem , you need only time for its deploy
User terminal - main problem is  price . Since 2017 you have on market Kymeta.  it`s work , but its price is 25000 USD.
Main problem (but invisible ) software or Network Management System,  what will  coordinate trafic exchange via satellite  between user terminal  and gateway .
Its very complicated for geostacionary satellite , but for LEO we have 2 additional problems: position in sky and distance between terminal and satellite  permanently changed..

And date of  start of service  - it`s  really now goes to end of year 2020??
PS Sorry for my English...

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3017
  • Likes Given: 4934
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1274 on: 04/06/2020 11:24 am »
I might be about ten years behind things here. Is the only thing really needed for IP phone service just the voice call getting a higher COS, allowing just about any voice system to plug into the data pipe and make calls? I seem to remember some shenanigans by certain ISPs in not allowing competing phone systems the class of service they needed to work right.


Any system can be gamed. If SL is just doing the data pipe, short of kickbacks or over subscription they have no incentive to throttle anybody’s phone service.
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4402
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3017
  • Likes Given: 4934
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1275 on: 04/06/2020 11:33 am »
Isn't the biggest thing for phone service hooking into the 911 system?


There was speculation a long while back that ground stations would have built in gps. This is a seed from which 911 can be made to work.


Is there anything in VOIP or whatever protocol using these days, to address 911? Does Skype do 911?
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7992
  • Liked: 6532
  • Likes Given: 2927
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1276 on: 04/06/2020 01:55 pm »
If Starlink was the panacea some claim, it would simply win in the marketplace, not have to slurp from the government trough.

What marketplace? The government has to subsidize rural broadband in the first place, because otherwise it does not and would not exist - why do you think that is?

Hint: it's not because the terrestrial providers are falling all over themselves to tap that highly profitable marketplace.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7992
  • Liked: 6532
  • Likes Given: 2927
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1277 on: 04/06/2020 01:58 pm »
And date of  start of service  - it`s  really now goes to end of year 2020??

"in 2020" and "by the end of 2020" mean the same thing. There is no change here, despite what some garbage posters are claiming. Q4 2020 has always been the target for Starlink, as far as I can tell. If you have any evidence that SpaceX actually planned an earlier service date, please link it.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4825
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 2559
  • Likes Given: 3259
Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1278 on: 04/06/2020 02:18 pm »
And date of  start of service  - it`s  really now goes to end of year 2020??

"in 2020" and "by the end of 2020" mean the same thing. There is no change here, despite what some garbage posters are claiming. Q4 2020 has always been the target for Starlink, as far as I can tell. If you have any evidence that SpaceX actually planned an earlier service date, please link it.

Q4 starts Oct 1, that doesn't feel that far away and who knows what the eventual impact of COVID-19 has on everything being ready and in place.  These are not normal times, schedules and plans across all industries are up in the air now.

I'm sure there are ways to manage the costs of the customers receiving antenna.  Perhaps it remains the property of Starlink and must be returned or there is a loss of deposit or a fee and a monthly rental on the antenna in the same way Comcast charges $10 a month for life on a cable modem.  It's not ideal but there are ways.

Can't wait.
Superheavy + Starship the final push to launch commit!

Offline vsatman

Re: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #1279 on: 04/06/2020 02:47 pm »
Q4 2020 has always been the target for Starlink, as far as I can tell. If you have any evidence that SpaceX actually planned an earlier service date, please link it.

//SpaceX is confident it can start offering broadband service in the United States via its Starlink constellation in mid-2020, the company’s president and chief operating officer Gwynne Shotwell said Oct. 22, 2019.
“We’ll continue to upgrade the network until mid to late next year,” said Shotwell.
//https://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-to-start-offering-starlink-broadband-services-in-2020/

Tags: pole flip 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0