From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52DD43B29E; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:00:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.2.69]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5EF1AE7BA; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:00:27 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang To: Jim Forster cc: David Lang , Dave Taht , Dave Taht via Starlink , "Luis A. Cornejo" , libreqos In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9q304pqs-778s-2s16-455s-604qnn43082q@ynat.uz> References: <4p971809-5o95-q69q-3r86-48r742ro3215@ynat.uz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [Starlink] [LibreQoS] Starlink cell capacity (was; tarana strikes back) X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 19:00:28 -0000 On Tue, 26 Sep 2023, Jim Forster wrote: > This is all true (as much as I understand), Worth noting as well, is that with > LEOs if one satellite is maxed out serving a cell, then getting a second > satellite to help with that cell mean adding *lots* more satellites. If > adjacent cells had very different loads then I guess nearby unloaeded > satellites could help out their busy neighbors. But areas with busy cells > close together would mean doubling the number of satellites and therefore > platform Capex. Whereas terrestrial towers can be densified in busy areas. In 2021 when SpaceX had launched 1800 satellites they said that once all of them reached operational altitude they would be able to provide global coverage. They now have >4k satellites in operation and (if fully approved) are aiming at ~10x that number eventually. That leaves a lot of additional satellites to provide additional coverage for busy cells or smaller cells. I agree terrestrial towers can be densified more easily in a specific area. I'm saying that the crossover point where the density favors terrestrial towers is significantly denser than the original author was stating. (and as more sats are launched, will move further) There's also the fact that satellite densification covers all areas, where terrestrial tower densification only covers that area. So around the already dense areas, you will have tower densification happening, pushing out, leveraging the nearby wired infrastructure. But you may see a different situation in areas where small communities are growing and you have to setup the tower and wired infrastructure from scratch. scenario: a village that is a 30 min drive from the next community and doesn't have much fiber run to it. As it grows, you can't just put in towers without also running tens of miles of fiber to the area, so densification of towers in the area is significantly harder than seeing the suburbs of a large city grow where fiber is just a couple miles away. David Lang