1. 15

  2. 7

    To be totally honest, one can learn a lot about the current limitations of today’s Starlink by wading through the HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26760735, than by reading the linked puff-piece.

    Things I learned

    • the cell restriction is to prevent congestion at the current level of satellite coverage
    • the hardware is sold at a loss, but is not guaranteed to continue working. You’ll have to be prepared to shell out for new hardware in a relatively short time.

    To me, this is an intensely US submission. I think the US is the only country with the requisite combination of customers:

    • rural/remote location
    • high income to spend on this stuff

    As a citizen of a country with working broadband infrastructure (granted, without the enormous distances that are a reality in the US), I’m kinda pissed that Starlink is plastering the night sky with satellites so that rich preppers can watch Netflix.

    (Edit: wording)

    1. 2

      so that rich preppers can watch Netflix

      Ignorance of the US or just bad hyperbole?

      1. 1

        What’s the ignorance?

        • that there’s no significant market of preppers in the US?
        • that they don’t watch Netflix?

        Just kidding, of course it’s hyperbole, but I happen to think it’s quite good.

      2. 1

        Every new technology starts out as expensive and gets cheaper. Fast sattelite internet that works anywhere in the world is clearly useful for the same broad set of reasons widespread availability of wired broadband is useful, or widespread availability of 56k dial up internet was useful decades ago compared to that previous status quo. I’m sure there are things the people living in places around the world with poor physical infrastructure could do with such internet connections that are more ethical with respect to your value system than watching Netflix while living in a rural area to mitigate the potential effects of emergencies in dense urban areas.

        1. 2

          Starlink (and its investors) are obviously betting that the first adopters will be the ones who cover the initial R&D and deployment costs and they will be able to offer a cheaper service that can reach more people later. That’s not a totally stupid bet, although the long list of failed ventures for satellite connectivity does make one pause.

          If Starlink makes it so that, say, a farmer in the interior of Congo-Kinshasa can get broadband for the same price or cheaper as they can now get cellphone service, that would be a net good! But if Starlink flames out and we have to wait for 20 years for their satellites to fall out of orbit, I’ll still be miffed.

      3. 6

        Author starts off setting up the cousin’s situation, with current up/down speeds for comparison and then it turns out the Starlink doesn’t even work… What’s the point of that whole bit then?

        Then we get the Starlink speeds without a non-satellite comparison. 😔

        1. 5

          Author starts off setting up the cousin’s situation, with current up/down speeds for comparison and then it turns out the Starlink doesn’t even work

          That’s not really accurate - it turns out the cousin’s house is outside the author’s cell - there’s no reason to expect that if the cousin ordered a set, they wouldn’t get the same speed (or better, given possibly better line of sight).

          So, we get a meaningful speed comparison, and a meaningful warning about cell size.

          Ed: in fact, looks like they could run a fiber between the houses, and improve the cousin’s internet, by sharing the connection.

          1. 2

            I don’t think anyone would expect “cells” for satellite Internet. At least not me.

            And yes, I’d like to get info on the connection in the rural situation of the cousin, or skip completely the long section about it.

            1. 1

              Running the fiber for more than 100km isn’t going to be cheap

              1. 1

                It’s probably against Starlink’s ToS too.

            2. 4

              The point is that this was on the HN front page and people like Elon’s stuff…

              1. 1

                When asking “What’s the point of that whole bit then?”, you can target either the post, or the submission.

                Your answer is about the submission and probably not useful to the original comment that target (from what I understand) the post, which isn’t helping lobsters to be a good place to exchange about tech related stuff (which this is about).

                1. 2

                  I think the post is on-topic but low-quality. I have not flagged it, indeed, my comment has caused it to gain prominence.

                  I stand by my supposition that it was submitted because it spent time on HN’s front page and got traction there.

                  1. 1

                    I haven’t read the post myself yet, but certainty if someone’s experience with the much touted StarLink is that “it didn’t work at all”, then that’s useful information for the comments to discuss, and for me to read.

                    1. 1

                      TL;DR, author’s property could not get the required sky coverage, so they drive 100M to their cousin, who was outside the units cell, went back, bolted the unit to a roof, got connectivity, but will feed back on speeds later.

              2. 1

                Content creation, most exposure equals more money. Another typical YouTuber.