From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E82203B2A4 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:31:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2d21a68dd3bso52293581fa.1 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 23:31:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1709019114; x=1709623914; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=EaYqqrCB12ed1dvM8PcBAGmsSfcHOZORCyA3PQG/s0E=; b=QmtM6mDjbeSX0dD64ocJcCv7i5hQO5NhmNRHSKcdLSM/mSWEi4eXi4XN/b/8Sg2Ump QZkXGXd7tz8oN43Y376MWQ99VkYvnUCjXfelQYRgRMFxOE7car4p8txs7yi7+FxlZkhH sg8+6Fax9UY76HQsNUTfvHZrA/MZhvmjeZWzsr+5g1OEPFbA/MEGGLEsMy75QF4yhSZS eQTyHlpeLwW+CJ/5aG3C8MRUbr1A/wHvLt9z0XHo3w2bt1Ks4hU7JsYxJGQkcLiE+h3Y /tt1g14nhJP/a19KglUjW2eyyQJAbou3l3mc00DIKRvGOW8YCAoY609Y3RA8bDZuvnua enag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709019114; x=1709623914; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EaYqqrCB12ed1dvM8PcBAGmsSfcHOZORCyA3PQG/s0E=; b=v7PlCNghfilOuYpS0L4WJju89pItq14bQsHFDd0GfIVhHkNsitGVCIHrZkHgeayL19 3Xb8n/0XEl4VeVFnSPL4VhByjeZB+WfdY/j+S2IBb+lSgDtIZxPg556beUbKbsoF59ns SpafKbJfjOmtFQLBaOZ559nQWzJkbfH0VkRPmhK+DlzbqM3LpASA2mYvUqVRq0ab+SsK JIYVStwUGyNSwdWWFqTdWu77HwPqQ8RkP+NoP682Vo9pwgNQjDGcjd73iMCwNhOEyJsT vSjUoBUjIDgeXBKsxRD58FOfvILw1iUoJWYVmhR6qQpDogMLkTT8Dp04J438Sggh4opd Da2w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUyMZxWwXrU4g6SB4v2lbBvVcUxHpGPzwTlvMHyzD0C+QnCl7jWpQRJ34dosUc5nqcmyVWkM+uvLFVlNKfAL8uzx/ef+dvmFSLH9C7wZk8= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx1YKIbeL1oMsfV+kO2I8KyOdw6mvfIa4UOmiSCqKGU/FOkq7Ps F6olF9zrmBVx71FJbe83jc9hBCOl53RA0qO8BgP+xh/07wtXcDAS5/XVKkpW5vXIVKULMHjVMiw 66t9+0ViPf0aa6G77ug1taCY3BX0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEYVt2WAsXBOE0u4lVziEVLsZM7m+2x18e3xuc/eCtz3GUdhtpLgS1beo4FextIM19RmaBMrPKLEcaqzvNUM7g= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:221a:b0:2d2:86d3:b8dd with SMTP id y26-20020a05651c221a00b002d286d3b8ddmr5139220ljq.34.1709019113498; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 23:31:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <28ro46p9-5620-9qr2-829q-3s0on13q6po6@ynat.uz> <857a228c-cf02-4a2c-98cb-771f71f070d0@auckland.ac.nz> <851pqo7s-pq89-pnp6-o999-o0721n3s19r8@ynat.uz> <7c39f363-e988-410d-b284-bfda6163d089@auckland.ac.nz> <30p29846-8p5p-6134-r48o-1qr7o3n324p2@ynat.uz> In-Reply-To: <30p29846-8p5p-6134-r48o-1qr7o3n324p2@ynat.uz> From: Dave Taht Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:31:41 -0500 Message-ID: To: David Lang Cc: Ulrich Speidel , Dave Taht via Starlink Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Starlink] starlink business peering 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, 27 Feb 2024 07:31:57 -0000 Starlink has described how to peer with them extensively now. It is still kind of confusing to me - say I had fios to the business, and a AS that met their requirements, I could also somehow dual home that AS to my starlink terminal, and it would be a business class service required? https://starlink-enterprise-guide.readme.io/docs/peering-with-starlink On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 1:21=E2=80=AFAM David Lang via Starlink wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Ulrich Speidel wrote: > > > All good points ... see below. > > > > On 27/02/2024 2:13 pm, David Lang wrote: > >> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Ulrich Speidel wrote: > >> > >>> On 27/02/2024 12:19 pm, David Lang wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote: > >> > >>>> There are large areas with poor or non-existant cell coverage. > >>>> > >>>> Outside the US, scaling of Starlink can happen just by providing cov= erage > >>>> to locations that don't yet have coverage with no additional satelli= tes. > >>> But what's the population of these areas? Generally quite sparse. (Or > >>> politically disinclined to accept Starlink service) > >> > >> per square mile? low. But there are a LOT of square miles, and those a= reas > >> are ones where it's very expensive per-user to run fiber (even to cell > >> towers or wireless ISP towers) > > The point though is that these sparsely populated areas aren't where th= e > > scalability issue arises. Capacity needs to be where the demand for it = is. > > I only partially agree with you here. Yes, capacity that isn't needed doe= sn't > matter, but I think that the capacity where there aren't other options ma= tters > more than in the more densly populated areas where there are other option= s (and > I say this as a starlink user living in the Los Angeles area, a fairly de= nsely > populated area) I use Starlink as a backup now, but I do periodically tes= t it > and verify that it is acceptable for work + other uses. > > >>> If you put in fibre today, you know that by upgrading the endpoints o= ver > >>> time, you can get orders of magnitude of extra bandwidth if needed. > >> > >> If you can get fibre, you should get fibre (with starlink as a possibl= e > >> backup). SpaceX has said many times that Starlink is never going to be > >> competitive to fibre > >> > >> if you can get fibre, you aren't under-connected. > > Tick. But 2 billion plus can't, or at least not yet. The question is ho= w many > > of them might Starlink & Co be able to assist in due course? > > what information do you have about the distribution of these 2B under-con= nected? > > (and as someone who just a couple years ago was on a 8m down/1m up connec= tion, > what is the definition of 'under-connected'?, see the revoking of the gra= nt to > SpaceX for providing such service after they changed the definition of mi= nimum > acceptable connectivity and then proactively declared that Starlink will = not > meet it several years out) > > >>> If you can reduce distance between satellite and ground station by a > >>> factor of 2, all else being equal, theoretically you'd also reduce > >>> footprint to a quarter, but that's assuming you don't need to worry a= bout > >>> antenna sidelobes. But say we can, and then that gives us a factor of= 4 in > >>> terms of capacity as long as our user density is the same. It also bu= ys us > >>> an extra 6 dB in received signal power and hence an extra 2 bits per > >>> symbol. That's another factor of 4 at best if you go from 1 to 3 > >>> bits/symbol. Larger antennas: Doubling antenna size gives you 3 dB in= gain > >>> or an extra bit per symbol. So that turns into a game of diminishing > >>> margins pretty quickly, too. > >> > >> add in the ability for multiple satellites to serve a single cell and = you > >> can get a noticable multiple as well > > Not in terms of capacity - but in terms of a better distribution of it. > > Already happening - most places can now "see" dozens of Starlink satell= ites > > above the horizon. > > but as I understand the reverse-engineering of the starlink system, a giv= en cell > is currently only serviced by one satellite at a time. > > >>> But now you want to serve cellphones on the ground which have smalle= r > >>> antennas by a factor of I'd say about 16:1 aperture-wise. So you need= to > >>> make your antennas in space 16 times larger just to maintain what you= had > >>> with Dishy. > >> > >> the cell service is not intended to compete with the Dishy, just be an > >> emergancy contact capability > > > > Here's how one of the local partner organisation here spins it. Much mo= re > > than just an emergency contact capability: > > > > https://one.nz/why-choose-us/spacex/ > > > > (Judge for yourself whether this instils the impression that you're goi= ng to > > get 5G level service off this. You really need to read the small print!= ) > > yeah, that does seem to imply more than it can offer. Elon has been prett= y vocal > that each cell is something like 70 miles in diameter, and the available > bandwidth needs to be shared across all users. Text messages should alway= s work, > voice will probably work, and as the system gets built out, data will hap= pen, > but will be slow due to the sharing. > > >>> That's a far cry from what is needed to get from two million or so > >>> customers to supply two billion unconnected or under-connected. For t= hat, > >>> we need a factor of 1000. > >> > >> without knowing what the user density of those under-connected are, it= 's > >> going to be really hard to get concrete arguments. > >> > >> Spacex is intending to launch ~10x as many satellites as they have now= , and > >> the full 'v2' satellites are supposed to be 10x the bandwidth of the V= 1s > >> (don't know how they compare to the v2 minis), that's a factor of 100x > >> there. > > > > It's not that easy. Adding satellites in the first instance is just add= ing > > transmitters, and unless you have spectrum to accommodate these, then e= ven if > > the satellites' on-board bandwidth is higher, it doesn't translate into= as > > much extra capacity. Spectrum comes in terms of extra Hertz, and in ter= ms of > > spatial beam separation. The former is limited in that they don't make = any > > more of it, and the latter is a matter of antenna size and getting ante= nna > > side lobes sufficiently far down. And we know that SpaceX are running c= lose > > to spectral capacity in some areas. > > I am assuming that the fact that they have planned for 10x satellites (~4= 5k > satellites up from the ~5k they have now) means that they have a plan to = be able > to use that many efficiently. I have no inside knowlege, so I am speculat= ing > about this. > > > Assuming that the spatial distribution of the under-connected is somewh= at > > similar to Starlink's current customer base in terms of densities, we n= eed > > that factor of 1000. > > I think there are a lot of early adopters for who Starlink is a luxury, n= ot a > lifeline. I think the under-connected are going to be in more sparse area= s than > the early adopters. I have friends and family in rural areas, and awarene= ss of > Starlink is only slowly penetrating there. > > I'm seeing increased use for mobile applications here in the US, includin= g in > built-up areas. > > >> Is another 10x in the under-served areas being in less dense areas rea= lly > >> that hard to believe? > >> > >> And Starlink will hopefully not be the only service, so it shouldn't h= ave > >> to serve everyone. > > So which factor in terms of capacity growth should we expect of Starlin= k & Co > > over today? > > not enough information. I agree it's something to watch, I'm just more > optomistic about it than you are. > > >>> And then you need to provision some to compete with extra capacity yo= u > >>> wanted, and then some to cope with general growth in demand per clien= t. > >>> And then you have to transmit that same viral cat video over and over > >>> again through the same pipe, too. > >> > >> True, although if you can setup a community gateway of some sort to sh= are > >> one satellite connection, you gain efficiency (less housekeeping overh= ead > >> or unused upload timeslots), and have a place that you can implement > >> caches. > > > > Indeed. Or if you provide a feed to a local ISP. But Starlink still foc= uses > > on direct to site, as does every other LEO provider FAIK. > > SpaceX is diversifying thier offerings, including boats, planes, and very > high-performance community gateways. > > I'd love to see more tech folks supporting this sort of thing. > > I would especially like to see us put together disaster kits that can tak= e one > uplink and spread it around. We've seen SpaceX being willing to donate di= shy > kits, but being able to spread the hotspot island out from direct wifi ra= nge of > the dishy to be able to cover a larger area would be worth quite a bit (a= nd > don't forget the need for power for the system) > > David Lang_______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink --=20 https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/2024_predictions/ Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos