<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/01/2023 6:02 am, Jonathan Bennett
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAHtUBuhk=V5Eff5P-gkx1s2W3tzL8eFZ711yWb+wvdqBbJ=fcw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
It'd be interesting to hear from Jonathan what the
availability of home <br>
broadband is like in the Dallas area. I note that it's at a
lower <br>
latitude (33N) than Auckland, but the difference isn't huge.
I notice <br>
two teleports each about 160 km away, which is also not too
bad. I also <br>
note Starlink availability in the area is restricted at the
moment - <br>
oversubscribed? But if Jonathan gets good data rates, then
that means <br>
that competition for bird capacity can't be too bad - for
whatever reason.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>I'm in Southwest Oklahoma, but Dallas is the nearby
Starlink gateway. In cities, like Dallas, and Lawton where I
live, there are good broadband options. But there are also
many people that live outside cities, and the options are
much worse. The low density userbase in rural Oklahoma and
Texas is probably ideal conditions for Starlink.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ah. So what actually happens here is that you're relatively close to
the Springer teleport (~120 km), and the IP address that Starlink
assigns to you gets geolocated to Dallas. Given lack of current
Starlink availability in the region that isn't correlating with
population density like in other parts of the US, we're probably
talking lots of satellite capacity for very few users here. Plus the
extra fibre latency down to Dallas is peanuts. Which explains your
data. You're at 34-something north, which is not that different from
Auckland. <br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAHtUBuhk=V5Eff5P-gkx1s2W3tzL8eFZ711yWb+wvdqBbJ=fcw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Clear view of the sky is king for Starlink reliability.
I've got my dishy mounted on the back fence, looking up over
an empty field, so it's pretty much best-case scenario here.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>So-so. Your dishy probably orients itself north-facing, but
you'll still be talking via your closest teleport or teleports, so
Springer or Dumas.</p>
<p>If Starlink can talk to satellites that are straight overhead, it
will - I've attached a photo of my current setup at home, dishy
south-facing onto my roof. I've pinged for almost a day now in
this configuration and have < 1% loss. Practically all loss
events are one-offs, i.e., outages are under 2 s.</p>
<p>Before that, I had the dishy on the ground in the same position,
and had around 2% ping loss. So being able to see more of the sky
makes a bit of a difference obviously, but it's not huge. Internet
was "usable" in both configurations.</p>
--
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel
School of Computer Science
Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
The University of Auckland
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz">u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/">http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/</a>
****************************************************************
</pre>
</body>
</html>