[Starlink] Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Starlink] Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[the keyboard of geoff goodfellow]

*Starlink has nearly a dozen retail partners in the US, including Best Buy
and Walmart, illustrating the company's desire to make the satellite
service less of a niche, rural play. However, Starlink's subs still skew to
rural areas.*
EXCERPT:

The Starlink satellite broadband service remains largely relegated to rural
areas and does not yet represent a major, direct competitor to wireline
broadband service providers and fixed wireless access (FWA) offerings in
urban areas.


But Starlink's expanding presence at retail sites – along with some recent
price cuts – indicates the company isn't content for the service to be
limited as a niche offering.


Jeff Moore, principal of Wave7 Research and a watcher of marketing trends
across the mobile, satellite and broadband landscapes, discovered back in
March that Starlink was being sold broadly at Best Buy stores.


"Since March, every single Best Buy that we have checked in every state has
had a highly visible display for Starlink," Moore said, adding that most
tend to be "endcap" displays placed at the end of aisles.


And Starlink has been broadening its retail footprint. Citing
Starlink's evolving
list of retail partners
<https://www.starlink.com/support/article/8a90222d-7c32-edd7-51f6-f696ece07105>,
Moore points out that the service is also being sold by a mix of big-box
stores and smaller outlets, including Home Depot, Nebraska Furniture Mart,
West Marine, Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Microcom, Thor Industries, Tractor
Supply, Winegard Company and Walmart.


But Starlink's retail presence is not exactly uniform. According to Wave7's
in-person checks, Walmart, for example, has Starlink displays at some
stores but not in others.

Moore also points out that Starlink's retail presence is not limited to
rural areas. "We're not seeing it slice that way at all," he said.

Moore said Home Depot is getting more aggressive with Starlink, even if its
displays are not exactly "glittering jewels of commercialism."

"They're sort of non-descript displays. If you know what you're looking
for, you can find it," he said.

That said, Starlink is a "priority" for Home Depot this year and "sales
have been strong," Moore said, citing information from what he says is a
well-placed source familiar with the chain. However, the lion's share of
those sales have been online rather than in-store, he added.

So, what to make of Starlink's increased focus on retail? Moore thinks it's
a way for Starlink to gravitate away from being a "niche" product into more
of a mass-market product.

Retail partnerships give Starlink another sales channel without having to
shell out millions to erect its own physical storefronts. However, the
retail experience, particularly at big-box stores, can be lackluster.

Roger Entner, founder and analyst at Recon Analytics, said his data shows
that satisfaction with the sales process at big-box retailers is "abysmal,"
driving negative net promoter scores (NPS). Meanwhile, most Starlink sales
occur online.


*Who are Starlink's customers?*
Starlink, which relies on a constellation of low-Earth orbit (LEO)
satellites, reported in July that it has more than 2 million active
customers in the US. By comparison, its geosynchronous (GEO) satellite
broadband competitors – Hughes Network Systems and Viasat – are much
smaller and losing subscribers.

Hughes lost 34,000 subs in Q2 2025, ending with 819,000. Viasat's base of
fixed broadband subs has dipped to 172,000. Just this week, EchoStar execs
said Hughes Network Systems is pivoting to the enterprise market
<https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/echostar-execs-dish-on-company-s-forced-pivot-and-the-path-forward>
as the residential side of its satellite business remains in decline.

"Hughes and Viasat are still running TV advertising. They're still a
competitive and viable option but losing share pretty rapidly." Moore said.

Some Viasat and Hughes customers are defecting to Starlink, but most of
Starlink's customers are leaving small rural telcos and cable operators for
the satellite operator, Entner said. Overall, more than 85% of Starlink's
customers come from rural areas, while the rest are suburban, according to
Recon Analytics data.


*Service and equipment price cuts*...

[...]
https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/starlink-looking-less-niche-as-its-retail-presence-expands

-- 
Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com
living as The Truth is True

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Inemesit Affia]

Starlink is *advertised* as a rural product as opposed to relegated to one.
It's available to be used everywhere just like tractors and cow milking
machines.

In Africa, most users are urban. I'm willing to bet there are more
urban+suburban users in the USA and Australia.

There are many pockets of unavailability and unreliability.

I remember seeing a user in a new skyscraper. No mobile service there.

The benefit for users having retail(including online) availability IMO is
getting hardware & replacements on short notice. Same day or next day.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 5:55 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> *Starlink has nearly a dozen retail partners in the US, including Best Buy
> and Walmart, illustrating the company's desire to make the satellite
> service less of a niche, rural play. However, Starlink's subs still skew to
> rural areas.*
> EXCERPT:
>
> The Starlink satellite broadband service remains largely relegated to rural
> areas and does not yet represent a major, direct competitor to wireline
> broadband service providers and fixed wireless access (FWA) offerings in
> urban areas.
>
>
> But Starlink's expanding presence at retail sites – along with some recent
> price cuts – indicates the company isn't content for the service to be
> limited as a niche offering.
>
>
> Jeff Moore, principal of Wave7 Research and a watcher of marketing trends
> across the mobile, satellite and broadband landscapes, discovered back in
> March that Starlink was being sold broadly at Best Buy stores.
>
>
> "Since March, every single Best Buy that we have checked in every state has
> had a highly visible display for Starlink," Moore said, adding that most
> tend to be "endcap" displays placed at the end of aisles.
>
>
> And Starlink has been broadening its retail footprint. Citing
> Starlink's evolving
> list of retail partners
> <
> https://www.starlink.com/support/article/8a90222d-7c32-edd7-51f6-f696ece07105
> >,
> Moore points out that the service is also being sold by a mix of big-box
> stores and smaller outlets, including Home Depot, Nebraska Furniture Mart,
> West Marine, Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Microcom, Thor Industries, Tractor
> Supply, Winegard Company and Walmart.
>
>
> But Starlink's retail presence is not exactly uniform. According to Wave7's
> in-person checks, Walmart, for example, has Starlink displays at some
> stores but not in others.
>
> Moore also points out that Starlink's retail presence is not limited to
> rural areas. "We're not seeing it slice that way at all," he said.
>
> Moore said Home Depot is getting more aggressive with Starlink, even if its
> displays are not exactly "glittering jewels of commercialism."
>
> "They're sort of non-descript displays. If you know what you're looking
> for, you can find it," he said.
>
> That said, Starlink is a "priority" for Home Depot this year and "sales
> have been strong," Moore said, citing information from what he says is a
> well-placed source familiar with the chain. However, the lion's share of
> those sales have been online rather than in-store, he added.
>
> So, what to make of Starlink's increased focus on retail? Moore thinks it's
> a way for Starlink to gravitate away from being a "niche" product into more
> of a mass-market product.
>
> Retail partnerships give Starlink another sales channel without having to
> shell out millions to erect its own physical storefronts. However, the
> retail experience, particularly at big-box stores, can be lackluster.
>
> Roger Entner, founder and analyst at Recon Analytics, said his data shows
> that satisfaction with the sales process at big-box retailers is "abysmal,"
> driving negative net promoter scores (NPS). Meanwhile, most Starlink sales
> occur online.
>
>
> *Who are Starlink's customers?*
> Starlink, which relies on a constellation of low-Earth orbit (LEO)
> satellites, reported in July that it has more than 2 million active
> customers in the US. By comparison, its geosynchronous (GEO) satellite
> broadband competitors – Hughes Network Systems and Viasat – are much
> smaller and losing subscribers.
>
> Hughes lost 34,000 subs in Q2 2025, ending with 819,000. Viasat's base of
> fixed broadband subs has dipped to 172,000. Just this week, EchoStar execs
> said Hughes Network Systems is pivoting to the enterprise market
> <
> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/echostar-execs-dish-on-company-s-forced-pivot-and-the-path-forward
> >
> as the residential side of its satellite business remains in decline.
>
> "Hughes and Viasat are still running TV advertising. They're still a
> competitive and viable option but losing share pretty rapidly." Moore said.
>
> Some Viasat and Hughes customers are defecting to Starlink, but most of
> Starlink's customers are leaving small rural telcos and cable operators for
> the satellite operator, Entner said. Overall, more than 85% of Starlink's
> customers come from rural areas, while the rest are suburban, according to
> Recon Analytics data.
>
>
> *Service and equipment price cuts*...
>
> [...]
>
> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/starlink-looking-less-niche-as-its-retail-presence-expands
>
> --
> Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com
> living as The Truth is True
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Frantisek Borsik]

Starlink will become that 2nd or 3rd connectivity option for many, in the
coming years - and Kuiper, presumably others, as well. Especially with the
introduction of that standby $5 program. They might bring other tiers for
something like that in the future.

And for some, especially in the rural areas, it will be the one and only
option (not crazy expensive and hard to get.)

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik


*In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025

https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/


https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:21 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Starlink is *advertised* as a rural product as opposed to relegated to one.
> It's available to be used everywhere just like tractors and cow milking
> machines.
>
> In Africa, most users are urban. I'm willing to bet there are more
> urban+suburban users in the USA and Australia.
>
> There are many pockets of unavailability and unreliability.
>
> I remember seeing a user in a new skyscraper. No mobile service there.
>
> The benefit for users having retail(including online) availability IMO is
> getting hardware & replacements on short notice. Same day or next day.
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 5:55 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> > *Starlink has nearly a dozen retail partners in the US, including Best
> Buy
> > and Walmart, illustrating the company's desire to make the satellite
> > service less of a niche, rural play. However, Starlink's subs still skew
> to
> > rural areas.*
> > EXCERPT:
> >
> > The Starlink satellite broadband service remains largely relegated to
> rural
> > areas and does not yet represent a major, direct competitor to wireline
> > broadband service providers and fixed wireless access (FWA) offerings in
> > urban areas.
> >
> >
> > But Starlink's expanding presence at retail sites – along with some
> recent
> > price cuts – indicates the company isn't content for the service to be
> > limited as a niche offering.
> >
> >
> > Jeff Moore, principal of Wave7 Research and a watcher of marketing trends
> > across the mobile, satellite and broadband landscapes, discovered back in
> > March that Starlink was being sold broadly at Best Buy stores.
> >
> >
> > "Since March, every single Best Buy that we have checked in every state
> has
> > had a highly visible display for Starlink," Moore said, adding that most
> > tend to be "endcap" displays placed at the end of aisles.
> >
> >
> > And Starlink has been broadening its retail footprint. Citing
> > Starlink's evolving
> > list of retail partners
> > <
> >
> https://www.starlink.com/support/article/8a90222d-7c32-edd7-51f6-f696ece07105
> > >,
> > Moore points out that the service is also being sold by a mix of big-box
> > stores and smaller outlets, including Home Depot, Nebraska Furniture
> Mart,
> > West Marine, Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Microcom, Thor Industries, Tractor
> > Supply, Winegard Company and Walmart.
> >
> >
> > But Starlink's retail presence is not exactly uniform. According to
> Wave7's
> > in-person checks, Walmart, for example, has Starlink displays at some
> > stores but not in others.
> >
> > Moore also points out that Starlink's retail presence is not limited to
> > rural areas. "We're not seeing it slice that way at all," he said.
> >
> > Moore said Home Depot is getting more aggressive with Starlink, even if
> its
> > displays are not exactly "glittering jewels of commercialism."
> >
> > "They're sort of non-descript displays. If you know what you're looking
> > for, you can find it," he said.
> >
> > That said, Starlink is a "priority" for Home Depot this year and "sales
> > have been strong," Moore said, citing information from what he says is a
> > well-placed source familiar with the chain. However, the lion's share of
> > those sales have been online rather than in-store, he added.
> >
> > So, what to make of Starlink's increased focus on retail? Moore thinks
> it's
> > a way for Starlink to gravitate away from being a "niche" product into
> more
> > of a mass-market product.
> >
> > Retail partnerships give Starlink another sales channel without having to
> > shell out millions to erect its own physical storefronts. However, the
> > retail experience, particularly at big-box stores, can be lackluster.
> >
> > Roger Entner, founder and analyst at Recon Analytics, said his data shows
> > that satisfaction with the sales process at big-box retailers is
> "abysmal,"
> > driving negative net promoter scores (NPS). Meanwhile, most Starlink
> sales
> > occur online.
> >
> >
> > *Who are Starlink's customers?*
> > Starlink, which relies on a constellation of low-Earth orbit (LEO)
> > satellites, reported in July that it has more than 2 million active
> > customers in the US. By comparison, its geosynchronous (GEO) satellite
> > broadband competitors – Hughes Network Systems and Viasat – are much
> > smaller and losing subscribers.
> >
> > Hughes lost 34,000 subs in Q2 2025, ending with 819,000. Viasat's base of
> > fixed broadband subs has dipped to 172,000. Just this week, EchoStar
> execs
> > said Hughes Network Systems is pivoting to the enterprise market
> > <
> >
> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/echostar-execs-dish-on-company-s-forced-pivot-and-the-path-forward
> > >
> > as the residential side of its satellite business remains in decline.
> >
> > "Hughes and Viasat are still running TV advertising. They're still a
> > competitive and viable option but losing share pretty rapidly." Moore
> said.
> >
> > Some Viasat and Hughes customers are defecting to Starlink, but most of
> > Starlink's customers are leaving small rural telcos and cable operators
> for
> > the satellite operator, Entner said. Overall, more than 85% of Starlink's
> > customers come from rural areas, while the rest are suburban, according
> to
> > Recon Analytics data.
> >
> >
> > *Service and equipment price cuts*...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/starlink-looking-less-niche-as-its-retail-presence-expands
> >
> > --
> > Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com
> > living as The Truth is True
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Inemesit Affia]

I expect if starship is successful and Amazon mounts a challenge, well see
the most expensive Starlink Residential  plan be around the US (wired)
average. I believe that's around $70

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 7:46 PM Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Starlink will become that 2nd or 3rd connectivity option for many, in the
> coming years - and Kuiper, presumably others, as well. Especially with the
> introduction of that standby $5 program. They might bring other tiers for
> something like that in the future.
>
> And for some, especially in the rural areas, it will be the one and only
> option (not crazy expensive and hard to get.)
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
> *In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025
>
> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:21 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> Starlink is *advertised* as a rural product as opposed to relegated to
>> one.
>> It's available to be used everywhere just like tractors and cow milking
>> machines.
>>
>> In Africa, most users are urban. I'm willing to bet there are more
>> urban+suburban users in the USA and Australia.
>>
>> There are many pockets of unavailability and unreliability.
>>
>> I remember seeing a user in a new skyscraper. No mobile service there.
>>
>> The benefit for users having retail(including online) availability IMO is
>> getting hardware & replacements on short notice. Same day or next day.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 5:55 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via
>> Starlink
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> > *Starlink has nearly a dozen retail partners in the US, including Best
>> Buy
>> > and Walmart, illustrating the company's desire to make the satellite
>> > service less of a niche, rural play. However, Starlink's subs still
>> skew to
>> > rural areas.*
>> > EXCERPT:
>> >
>> > The Starlink satellite broadband service remains largely relegated to
>> rural
>> > areas and does not yet represent a major, direct competitor to wireline
>> > broadband service providers and fixed wireless access (FWA) offerings in
>> > urban areas.
>> >
>> >
>> > But Starlink's expanding presence at retail sites – along with some
>> recent
>> > price cuts – indicates the company isn't content for the service to be
>> > limited as a niche offering.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jeff Moore, principal of Wave7 Research and a watcher of marketing
>> trends
>> > across the mobile, satellite and broadband landscapes, discovered back
>> in
>> > March that Starlink was being sold broadly at Best Buy stores.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Since March, every single Best Buy that we have checked in every state
>> has
>> > had a highly visible display for Starlink," Moore said, adding that most
>> > tend to be "endcap" displays placed at the end of aisles.
>> >
>> >
>> > And Starlink has been broadening its retail footprint. Citing
>> > Starlink's evolving
>> > list of retail partners
>> > <
>> >
>> https://www.starlink.com/support/article/8a90222d-7c32-edd7-51f6-f696ece07105
>> > >,
>> > Moore points out that the service is also being sold by a mix of big-box
>> > stores and smaller outlets, including Home Depot, Nebraska Furniture
>> Mart,
>> > West Marine, Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Microcom, Thor Industries,
>> Tractor
>> > Supply, Winegard Company and Walmart.
>> >
>> >
>> > But Starlink's retail presence is not exactly uniform. According to
>> Wave7's
>> > in-person checks, Walmart, for example, has Starlink displays at some
>> > stores but not in others.
>> >
>> > Moore also points out that Starlink's retail presence is not limited to
>> > rural areas. "We're not seeing it slice that way at all," he said.
>> >
>> > Moore said Home Depot is getting more aggressive with Starlink, even if
>> its
>> > displays are not exactly "glittering jewels of commercialism."
>> >
>> > "They're sort of non-descript displays. If you know what you're looking
>> > for, you can find it," he said.
>> >
>> > That said, Starlink is a "priority" for Home Depot this year and "sales
>> > have been strong," Moore said, citing information from what he says is a
>> > well-placed source familiar with the chain. However, the lion's share of
>> > those sales have been online rather than in-store, he added.
>> >
>> > So, what to make of Starlink's increased focus on retail? Moore thinks
>> it's
>> > a way for Starlink to gravitate away from being a "niche" product into
>> more
>> > of a mass-market product.
>> >
>> > Retail partnerships give Starlink another sales channel without having
>> to
>> > shell out millions to erect its own physical storefronts. However, the
>> > retail experience, particularly at big-box stores, can be lackluster.
>> >
>> > Roger Entner, founder and analyst at Recon Analytics, said his data
>> shows
>> > that satisfaction with the sales process at big-box retailers is
>> "abysmal,"
>> > driving negative net promoter scores (NPS). Meanwhile, most Starlink
>> sales
>> > occur online.
>> >
>> >
>> > *Who are Starlink's customers?*
>> > Starlink, which relies on a constellation of low-Earth orbit (LEO)
>> > satellites, reported in July that it has more than 2 million active
>> > customers in the US. By comparison, its geosynchronous (GEO) satellite
>> > broadband competitors – Hughes Network Systems and Viasat – are much
>> > smaller and losing subscribers.
>> >
>> > Hughes lost 34,000 subs in Q2 2025, ending with 819,000. Viasat's base
>> of
>> > fixed broadband subs has dipped to 172,000. Just this week, EchoStar
>> execs
>> > said Hughes Network Systems is pivoting to the enterprise market
>> > <
>> >
>> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/echostar-execs-dish-on-company-s-forced-pivot-and-the-path-forward
>> > >
>> > as the residential side of its satellite business remains in decline.
>> >
>> > "Hughes and Viasat are still running TV advertising. They're still a
>> > competitive and viable option but losing share pretty rapidly." Moore
>> said.
>> >
>> > Some Viasat and Hughes customers are defecting to Starlink, but most of
>> > Starlink's customers are leaving small rural telcos and cable operators
>> for
>> > the satellite operator, Entner said. Overall, more than 85% of
>> Starlink's
>> > customers come from rural areas, while the rest are suburban, according
>> to
>> > Recon Analytics data.
>> >
>> >
>> > *Service and equipment price cuts*...
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >
>> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/starlink-looking-less-niche-as-its-retail-presence-expands
>> >
>> > --
>> > Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com
>> > living as The Truth is True
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> > To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>
>

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Ulrich Speidel]

Worth looking a bit beyond the marketing, the gushing influencers, and 
the various bloggers.

99% of the folk who keep reporting on Starlink don't consider three 
aspects that are absolutely key:

 1. What areas new connectivity is being sold to.
 2. What the existing user density in these areas is.
 3. How much data rate you need when push comes to shove.

The simple fact is that Starlink uses Ku band spectrum for end user 
downlink. That spectrum is limited (as in "Hertz", or about 2 GHz, to be 
more specific, and further constrained by licensing issues in quite a 
few places). Support by existing hardwaree aside, going further down in 
frequency isn't really an option as there are existing services there. 
Going further up, and you'll increasingly find that weather makes life 
really difficult with consumer-sized antennas.

So to squeeze the combined bit rates of all of your users through this 
spectrum, Starlink needs power. It needs that power in space, where the 
only way to generate it is with solar cells that are in the dark for 
half the orbit. Assuming for a moment that Starlink is able to produce 
enough power on its fleet for enough beams to point at enough cells, it 
also needs the ability to project that power to the receivers on the 
ground. This is where EPFD limits come in - there's an international 
agreed-upon legal limit on how much power satellites can project onto 
the ground, and with it's Gen 2 sats, Starlink is already right up 
against that limit.

Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes a 
hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity 
Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink has 
to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites they 
launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the capacity 
per user there has to go down. Law of nature.

But it's a little more constrained even: Enter wider area needs, beams, 
and enter competition. Even if a particular sub-band of the Ku band 
spectrum isn't in use in a cell for downlink at a given moment, it 
doesn't actually mean that it's available for use there. That's (a) 
because the beams that are currently pointing at the cell already reach 
the EPFD limit, (b) because a beam operating on that frequency might 
already be in use in a cell nearby downlinking to users there, and leak 
enough signal over into our target cell to ensure the sub-band can't be 
used there because it would interfere, (c) because you mightn't have a 
satellite with an available beam to service the cell (this is the ONLY 
problem more sats can fix) and (d) because the likes of Kuiper & Co. 
also need / want / are entitled to some of that Ku band spectrum. It's 
not like you can launch a new LEO system and simply set up shop in a 
completely different part of the spectrum.

So what does this mean?

 From a commercial perspective, Starlink wants to make money, of course. 
But that requires them to have something to sell.

In truly rural areas with low user density, where Starlink has spare 
capacity in the spectrum, this is a no-brainer - there is something to 
sell, and new users fill gaps there without impacting on what's 
available to existing ones. In rural towns with a few ten thousand 
people per cell and poop fibre and mobile infrastructure, that capacity 
isn't a given - so just selling full-rate plans with Dishys there is 
moving the system towards capacity. In cities and suburbia, it's a mixed 
picture depending on the local infrastructure. Where there's strong 
competition from cheap fibre and people tend to live in apartments that 
can't see the sky, Starlink's a hard sell, but even there a marketing 
drive might net more users than the system can really support simply 
because the market in each cell there is large.

There is plenty of indication that Starlink has been grappling with 
capacity for a while now. We saw them discover their heart for the 
"rural" NZ farmer a couple of years ago, including a lot of townsfolk in 
secondary cities here, whereas the lifestyle blocks around Auckland 
(where all the IT managers live beyond the reach of fibre) were 
mysteriously classified as "urban" and ineligible for the substantial 
rural discount on new Dishys. We've seen "sold out" signs go up on the 
availability map. We've seen minimum download rates drop in many areas. 
We've seen one-off congestion surcharges and now discounted lower 
capacity plans - smaller slices off the total capacity cake.

This isn't trying to blame Starlink - it's a fantastic system - but like 
the rest of us have to live within what the spectrum and physics 
provide, and the better we as users understand where the limitations 
are, the better the decisions we can make for our own connectivity. And 
that might at times actually leave capacity for people who need it more 
than we do.

On 18/09/2025 7:04 am, Inemesit Affia via Starlink wrote:
> I expect if starship is successful and Amazon mounts a challenge, well see
> the most expensive Starlink Residential  plan be around the US (wired)
> average. I believe that's around $70
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 7:46 PM Frantisek Borsik<frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Starlink will become that 2nd or 3rd connectivity option for many, in the
>> coming years - and Kuiper, presumably others, as well. Especially with the
>> introduction of that standby $5 program. They might bring other tiers for
>> something like that in the future.
>>
>> And for some, especially in the rural areas, it will be the one and only
>> option (not crazy expensive and hard to get.)
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>
>>
>> *In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025
>>
>> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>>
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:21 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Starlink is *advertised* as a rural product as opposed to relegated to
>>> one.
>>> It's available to be used everywhere just like tractors and cow milking
>>> machines.
>>>
>>> In Africa, most users are urban. I'm willing to bet there are more
>>> urban+suburban users in the USA and Australia.
>>>
>>> There are many pockets of unavailability and unreliability.
>>>
>>> I remember seeing a user in a new skyscraper. No mobile service there.
>>>
>>> The benefit for users having retail(including online) availability IMO is
>>> getting hardware & replacements on short notice. Same day or next day.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 5:55 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via
>>> Starlink
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *Starlink has nearly a dozen retail partners in the US, including Best
>>> Buy
>>>> and Walmart, illustrating the company's desire to make the satellite
>>>> service less of a niche, rural play. However, Starlink's subs still
>>> skew to
>>>> rural areas.*
>>>> EXCERPT:
>>>>
>>>> The Starlink satellite broadband service remains largely relegated to
>>> rural
>>>> areas and does not yet represent a major, direct competitor to wireline
>>>> broadband service providers and fixed wireless access (FWA) offerings in
>>>> urban areas.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Starlink's expanding presence at retail sites – along with some
>>> recent
>>>> price cuts – indicates the company isn't content for the service to be
>>>> limited as a niche offering.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff Moore, principal of Wave7 Research and a watcher of marketing
>>> trends
>>>> across the mobile, satellite and broadband landscapes, discovered back
>>> in
>>>> March that Starlink was being sold broadly at Best Buy stores.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Since March, every single Best Buy that we have checked in every state
>>> has
>>>> had a highly visible display for Starlink," Moore said, adding that most
>>>> tend to be "endcap" displays placed at the end of aisles.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And Starlink has been broadening its retail footprint. Citing
>>>> Starlink's evolving
>>>> list of retail partners
>>>> <
>>>>
>>> https://www.starlink.com/support/article/8a90222d-7c32-edd7-51f6-f696ece07105
>>>>> ,
>>>> Moore points out that the service is also being sold by a mix of big-box
>>>> stores and smaller outlets, including Home Depot, Nebraska Furniture
>>> Mart,
>>>> West Marine, Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Microcom, Thor Industries,
>>> Tractor
>>>> Supply, Winegard Company and Walmart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But Starlink's retail presence is not exactly uniform. According to
>>> Wave7's
>>>> in-person checks, Walmart, for example, has Starlink displays at some
>>>> stores but not in others.
>>>>
>>>> Moore also points out that Starlink's retail presence is not limited to
>>>> rural areas. "We're not seeing it slice that way at all," he said.
>>>>
>>>> Moore said Home Depot is getting more aggressive with Starlink, even if
>>> its
>>>> displays are not exactly "glittering jewels of commercialism."
>>>>
>>>> "They're sort of non-descript displays. If you know what you're looking
>>>> for, you can find it," he said.
>>>>
>>>> That said, Starlink is a "priority" for Home Depot this year and "sales
>>>> have been strong," Moore said, citing information from what he says is a
>>>> well-placed source familiar with the chain. However, the lion's share of
>>>> those sales have been online rather than in-store, he added.
>>>>
>>>> So, what to make of Starlink's increased focus on retail? Moore thinks
>>> it's
>>>> a way for Starlink to gravitate away from being a "niche" product into
>>> more
>>>> of a mass-market product.
>>>>
>>>> Retail partnerships give Starlink another sales channel without having
>>> to
>>>> shell out millions to erect its own physical storefronts. However, the
>>>> retail experience, particularly at big-box stores, can be lackluster.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Entner, founder and analyst at Recon Analytics, said his data
>>> shows
>>>> that satisfaction with the sales process at big-box retailers is
>>> "abysmal,"
>>>> driving negative net promoter scores (NPS). Meanwhile, most Starlink
>>> sales
>>>> occur online.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Who are Starlink's customers?*
>>>> Starlink, which relies on a constellation of low-Earth orbit (LEO)
>>>> satellites, reported in July that it has more than 2 million active
>>>> customers in the US. By comparison, its geosynchronous (GEO) satellite
>>>> broadband competitors – Hughes Network Systems and Viasat – are much
>>>> smaller and losing subscribers.
>>>>
>>>> Hughes lost 34,000 subs in Q2 2025, ending with 819,000. Viasat's base
>>> of
>>>> fixed broadband subs has dipped to 172,000. Just this week, EchoStar
>>> execs
>>>> said Hughes Network Systems is pivoting to the enterprise market
>>>> <
>>>>
>>> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/echostar-execs-dish-on-company-s-forced-pivot-and-the-path-forward
>>>> as the residential side of its satellite business remains in decline.
>>>>
>>>> "Hughes and Viasat are still running TV advertising. They're still a
>>>> competitive and viable option but losing share pretty rapidly." Moore
>>> said.
>>>> Some Viasat and Hughes customers are defecting to Starlink, but most of
>>>> Starlink's customers are leaving small rural telcos and cable operators
>>> for
>>>> the satellite operator, Entner said. Overall, more than 85% of
>>> Starlink's
>>>> customers come from rural areas, while the rest are suburban, according
>>> to
>>>> Recon Analytics data.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Service and equipment price cuts*...
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/starlink-looking-less-niche-as-its-retail-presence-expands
>>>> --
>>>> Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com
>>>> living as The Truth is True
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list --starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email tostarlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list --starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email tostarlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list --starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email tostarlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

-- 
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz 
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Luis A. Cornejo]

Since Starlink controls all the wireless parts of their system. Does
anybody here know what they could do to mitigate the limits of classical
wireless comms, like Shannon-Hartley Capacity
Theorem or the interference?

Wouldn’t approaches like P-Cell or Tarana’s where noise is cancelled or
nulled from the same frequencies to allow a substantial reuse of channels
in neighboring cells? I can only assume they are doing some of it, but not
to what extent.

I wonder if Dr. Reed can weigh in specially with something like Orbital
Angular Momentum advances or more cooperative Tx/Rx that he has mentioned
before? “Smarter” transceivers if you will.

https://deepplum.com/some-thoughts-on-orbital-angular-momentum-oam-for-future-radio/

-Luis

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 6:02 PM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Worth looking a bit beyond the marketing, the gushing influencers, and
> the various bloggers.
>
> 99% of the folk who keep reporting on Starlink don't consider three
> aspects that are absolutely key:
>
>  1. What areas new connectivity is being sold to.
>  2. What the existing user density in these areas is.
>  3. How much data rate you need when push comes to shove.
>
> The simple fact is that Starlink uses Ku band spectrum for end user
> downlink. That spectrum is limited (as in "Hertz", or about 2 GHz, to be
> more specific, and further constrained by licensing issues in quite a
> few places). Support by existing hardwaree aside, going further down in
> frequency isn't really an option as there are existing services there.
> Going further up, and you'll increasingly find that weather makes life
> really difficult with consumer-sized antennas.
>
> So to squeeze the combined bit rates of all of your users through this
> spectrum, Starlink needs power. It needs that power in space, where the
> only way to generate it is with solar cells that are in the dark for
> half the orbit. Assuming for a moment that Starlink is able to produce
> enough power on its fleet for enough beams to point at enough cells, it
> also needs the ability to project that power to the receivers on the
> ground. This is where EPFD limits come in - there's an international
> agreed-upon legal limit on how much power satellites can project onto
> the ground, and with it's Gen 2 sats, Starlink is already right up
> against that limit.
>
> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes a
> hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity
> Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink has
> to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites they
> launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the capacity
> per user there has to go down. Law of nature.
>
> But it's a little more constrained even: Enter wider area needs, beams,
> and enter competition. Even if a particular sub-band of the Ku band
> spectrum isn't in use in a cell for downlink at a given moment, it
> doesn't actually mean that it's available for use there. That's (a)
> because the beams that are currently pointing at the cell already reach
> the EPFD limit, (b) because a beam operating on that frequency might
> already be in use in a cell nearby downlinking to users there, and leak
> enough signal over into our target cell to ensure the sub-band can't be
> used there because it would interfere, (c) because you mightn't have a
> satellite with an available beam to service the cell (this is the ONLY
> problem more sats can fix) and (d) because the likes of Kuiper & Co.
> also need / want / are entitled to some of that Ku band spectrum. It's
> not like you can launch a new LEO system and simply set up shop in a
> completely different part of the spectrum.
>
> So what does this mean?
>
>  From a commercial perspective, Starlink wants to make money, of course.
> But that requires them to have something to sell.
>
> In truly rural areas with low user density, where Starlink has spare
> capacity in the spectrum, this is a no-brainer - there is something to
> sell, and new users fill gaps there without impacting on what's
> available to existing ones. In rural towns with a few ten thousand
> people per cell and poop fibre and mobile infrastructure, that capacity
> isn't a given - so just selling full-rate plans with Dishys there is
> moving the system towards capacity. In cities and suburbia, it's a mixed
> picture depending on the local infrastructure. Where there's strong
> competition from cheap fibre and people tend to live in apartments that
> can't see the sky, Starlink's a hard sell, but even there a marketing
> drive might net more users than the system can really support simply
> because the market in each cell there is large.
>
> There is plenty of indication that Starlink has been grappling with
> capacity for a while now. We saw them discover their heart for the
> "rural" NZ farmer a couple of years ago, including a lot of townsfolk in
> secondary cities here, whereas the lifestyle blocks around Auckland
> (where all the IT managers live beyond the reach of fibre) were
> mysteriously classified as "urban" and ineligible for the substantial
> rural discount on new Dishys. We've seen "sold out" signs go up on the
> availability map. We've seen minimum download rates drop in many areas.
> We've seen one-off congestion surcharges and now discounted lower
> capacity plans - smaller slices off the total capacity cake.
>
> This isn't trying to blame Starlink - it's a fantastic system - but like
> the rest of us have to live within what the spectrum and physics
> provide, and the better we as users understand where the limitations
> are, the better the decisions we can make for our own connectivity. And
> that might at times actually leave capacity for people who need it more
> than we do.
>
> On 18/09/2025 7:04 am, Inemesit Affia via Starlink wrote:
> > I expect if starship is successful and Amazon mounts a challenge, well
> see
> > the most expensive Starlink Residential  plan be around the US (wired)
> > average. I believe that's around $70
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 7:46 PM Frantisek Borsik<
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Starlink will become that 2nd or 3rd connectivity option for many, in
> the
> >> coming years - and Kuiper, presumably others, as well. Especially with
> the
> >> introduction of that standby $5 program. They might bring other tiers
> for
> >> something like that in the future.
> >>
> >> And for some, especially in the rural areas, it will be the one and only
> >> option (not crazy expensive and hard to get.)
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >>
> >>
> >> *In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025
> >>
> >> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> >>
> >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> >>
> >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> >>
> >> Skype: casioa5302ca
> >>
> >> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:21 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink <
> >> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Starlink is *advertised* as a rural product as opposed to relegated to
> >>> one.
> >>> It's available to be used everywhere just like tractors and cow milking
> >>> machines.
> >>>
> >>> In Africa, most users are urban. I'm willing to bet there are more
> >>> urban+suburban users in the USA and Australia.
> >>>
> >>> There are many pockets of unavailability and unreliability.
> >>>
> >>> I remember seeing a user in a new skyscraper. No mobile service there.
> >>>
> >>> The benefit for users having retail(including online) availability IMO
> is
> >>> getting hardware & replacements on short notice. Same day or next day.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 5:55 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via
> >>> Starlink
> >>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> *Starlink has nearly a dozen retail partners in the US, including Best
> >>> Buy
> >>>> and Walmart, illustrating the company's desire to make the satellite
> >>>> service less of a niche, rural play. However, Starlink's subs still
> >>> skew to
> >>>> rural areas.*
> >>>> EXCERPT:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starlink satellite broadband service remains largely relegated to
> >>> rural
> >>>> areas and does not yet represent a major, direct competitor to
> wireline
> >>>> broadband service providers and fixed wireless access (FWA) offerings
> in
> >>>> urban areas.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But Starlink's expanding presence at retail sites – along with some
> >>> recent
> >>>> price cuts – indicates the company isn't content for the service to be
> >>>> limited as a niche offering.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeff Moore, principal of Wave7 Research and a watcher of marketing
> >>> trends
> >>>> across the mobile, satellite and broadband landscapes, discovered back
> >>> in
> >>>> March that Starlink was being sold broadly at Best Buy stores.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Since March, every single Best Buy that we have checked in every
> state
> >>> has
> >>>> had a highly visible display for Starlink," Moore said, adding that
> most
> >>>> tend to be "endcap" displays placed at the end of aisles.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And Starlink has been broadening its retail footprint. Citing
> >>>> Starlink's evolving
> >>>> list of retail partners
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://www.starlink.com/support/article/8a90222d-7c32-edd7-51f6-f696ece07105
> >>>>> ,
> >>>> Moore points out that the service is also being sold by a mix of
> big-box
> >>>> stores and smaller outlets, including Home Depot, Nebraska Furniture
> >>> Mart,
> >>>> West Marine, Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Microcom, Thor Industries,
> >>> Tractor
> >>>> Supply, Winegard Company and Walmart.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But Starlink's retail presence is not exactly uniform. According to
> >>> Wave7's
> >>>> in-person checks, Walmart, for example, has Starlink displays at some
> >>>> stores but not in others.
> >>>>
> >>>> Moore also points out that Starlink's retail presence is not limited
> to
> >>>> rural areas. "We're not seeing it slice that way at all," he said.
> >>>>
> >>>> Moore said Home Depot is getting more aggressive with Starlink, even
> if
> >>> its
> >>>> displays are not exactly "glittering jewels of commercialism."
> >>>>
> >>>> "They're sort of non-descript displays. If you know what you're
> looking
> >>>> for, you can find it," he said.
> >>>>
> >>>> That said, Starlink is a "priority" for Home Depot this year and
> "sales
> >>>> have been strong," Moore said, citing information from what he says
> is a
> >>>> well-placed source familiar with the chain. However, the lion's share
> of
> >>>> those sales have been online rather than in-store, he added.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, what to make of Starlink's increased focus on retail? Moore thinks
> >>> it's
> >>>> a way for Starlink to gravitate away from being a "niche" product into
> >>> more
> >>>> of a mass-market product.
> >>>>
> >>>> Retail partnerships give Starlink another sales channel without having
> >>> to
> >>>> shell out millions to erect its own physical storefronts. However, the
> >>>> retail experience, particularly at big-box stores, can be lackluster.
> >>>>
> >>>> Roger Entner, founder and analyst at Recon Analytics, said his data
> >>> shows
> >>>> that satisfaction with the sales process at big-box retailers is
> >>> "abysmal,"
> >>>> driving negative net promoter scores (NPS). Meanwhile, most Starlink
> >>> sales
> >>>> occur online.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *Who are Starlink's customers?*
> >>>> Starlink, which relies on a constellation of low-Earth orbit (LEO)
> >>>> satellites, reported in July that it has more than 2 million active
> >>>> customers in the US. By comparison, its geosynchronous (GEO) satellite
> >>>> broadband competitors – Hughes Network Systems and Viasat – are much
> >>>> smaller and losing subscribers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hughes lost 34,000 subs in Q2 2025, ending with 819,000. Viasat's base
> >>> of
> >>>> fixed broadband subs has dipped to 172,000. Just this week, EchoStar
> >>> execs
> >>>> said Hughes Network Systems is pivoting to the enterprise market
> >>>> <
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/echostar-execs-dish-on-company-s-forced-pivot-and-the-path-forward
> >>>> as the residential side of its satellite business remains in decline.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Hughes and Viasat are still running TV advertising. They're still a
> >>>> competitive and viable option but losing share pretty rapidly." Moore
> >>> said.
> >>>> Some Viasat and Hughes customers are defecting to Starlink, but most
> of
> >>>> Starlink's customers are leaving small rural telcos and cable
> operators
> >>> for
> >>>> the satellite operator, Entner said. Overall, more than 85% of
> >>> Starlink's
> >>>> customers come from rural areas, while the rest are suburban,
> according
> >>> to
> >>>> Recon Analytics data.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *Service and equipment price cuts*...
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/starlink-looking-less-niche-as-its-retail-presence-expands
> >>>> --
> >>>> Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com
> >>>> living as The Truth is True
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Starlink mailing list --starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email tostarlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Starlink mailing list --starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> To unsubscribe send an email tostarlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list --starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email tostarlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>
> --
> ****************************************************************
> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>
> School of Computer Science
>
> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>
> The University of Auckland
> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
> ****************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Inemesit Affia]

Starlink has a number of users per square km it can serve, more in some latitudes less in others.

I've been expecting service for regular end users or at least users that can afford business plans using other wireless bands, but that has not happened so far.

There's certainly a desire in the company to compete at lower prices (and there's enough margin).

In the past few months we've seen higher average speeds in most markets and markets where they aren't taking more users (will other providers see that as a clue to serve better).

I still see people bring up the claims that Starlink will serve no more than 500k users in 2025 when it has over 6 million. But they are still far from the 30 million they aspire to.

Let's see how many users they snag in the Indian subcontinent.

Having capacity issues means prices are too low.

When I originally envisioned the roll out, I'd assumed they'd price themselves higher than the (satellite) competition at first and then do promotional pricing in markets they couldn't bridge and do maybe exclusively the current business plans in areas of the highest capacity.

We've seen the Community Gateway bridge this for some users and it's evident some users aren't paying that sticker pricing because I don't know how Fiber (post lay) will cost you more.

Sep 18, 2025 12:02:52 AM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>:

> Worth looking a bit beyond the marketing, the gushing influencers, and the various bloggers.
> 
> 99% of the folk who keep reporting on Starlink don't consider three aspects that are absolutely key:
> 
> 1. What areas new connectivity is being sold to.
> 2. What the existing user density in these areas is.
> 3. How much data rate you need when push comes to shove.
> 
> The simple fact is that Starlink uses Ku band spectrum for end user downlink. That spectrum is limited (as in "Hertz", or about 2 GHz, to be more specific, and further constrained by licensing issues in quite a few places). Support by existing hardwaree aside, going further down in frequency isn't really an option as there are existing services there. Going further up, and you'll increasingly find that weather makes life really difficult with consumer-sized antennas.
> 
> So to squeeze the combined bit rates of all of your users through this spectrum, Starlink needs power. It needs that power in space, where the only way to generate it is with solar cells that are in the dark for half the orbit. Assuming for a moment that Starlink is able to produce enough power on its fleet for enough beams to point at enough cells, it also needs the ability to project that power to the receivers on the ground. This is where EPFD limits come in - there's an international agreed-upon legal limit on how much power satellites can project onto the ground, and with it's Gen 2 sats, Starlink is already right up against that limit.
> 
> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes a hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink has to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites they launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the capacity per user there has to go down. Law of nature.
> 
> But it's a little more constrained even: Enter wider area needs, beams, and enter competition. Even if a particular sub-band of the Ku band spectrum isn't in use in a cell for downlink at a given moment, it doesn't actually mean that it's available for use there. That's (a) because the beams that are currently pointing at the cell already reach the EPFD limit, (b) because a beam operating on that frequency might already be in use in a cell nearby downlinking to users there, and leak enough signal over into our target cell to ensure the sub-band can't be used there because it would interfere, (c) because you mightn't have a satellite with an available beam to service the cell (this is the ONLY problem more sats can fix) and (d) because the likes of Kuiper & Co. also need / want / are entitled to some of that Ku band spectrum. It's not like you can launch a new LEO system and simply set up shop in a completely different part of the spectrum.
> 
> So what does this mean?
> 
> From a commercial perspective, Starlink wants to make money, of course. But that requires them to have something to sell.
> 
> In truly rural areas with low user density, where Starlink has spare capacity in the spectrum, this is a no-brainer - there is something to sell, and new users fill gaps there without impacting on what's available to existing ones. In rural towns with a few ten thousand people per cell and poop fibre and mobile infrastructure, that capacity isn't a given - so just selling full-rate plans with Dishys there is moving the system towards capacity. In cities and suburbia, it's a mixed picture depending on the local infrastructure. Where there's strong competition from cheap fibre and people tend to live in apartments that can't see the sky, Starlink's a hard sell, but even there a marketing drive might net more users than the system can really support simply because the market in each cell there is large.
> 
> There is plenty of indication that Starlink has been grappling with capacity for a while now. We saw them discover their heart for the "rural" NZ farmer a couple of years ago, including a lot of townsfolk in secondary cities here, whereas the lifestyle blocks around Auckland (where all the IT managers live beyond the reach of fibre) were mysteriously classified as "urban" and ineligible for the substantial rural discount on new Dishys. We've seen "sold out" signs go up on the availability map. We've seen minimum download rates drop in many areas. We've seen one-off congestion surcharges and now discounted lower capacity plans - smaller slices off the total capacity cake.
> 
> This isn't trying to blame Starlink - it's a fantastic system - but like the rest of us have to live within what the spectrum and physics provide, and the better we as users understand where the limitations are, the better the decisions we can make for our own connectivity. And that might at times actually leave capacity for people who need it more than we do.
> 
> On 18/09/2025 7:04 am, Inemesit Affia via Starlink wrote:
>> I expect if starship is successful and Amazon mounts a challenge, well see
>> the most expensive Starlink Residential  plan be around the US (wired)
>> average. I believe that's around $70
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 7:46 PM Frantisek Borsik<frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Starlink will become that 2nd or 3rd connectivity option for many, in the
>>> coming years - and Kuiper, presumably others, as well. Especially with the
>>> introduction of that standby $5 program. They might bring other tiers for
>>> something like that in the future.
>>> 
>>> And for some, especially in the rural areas, it will be the one and only
>>> option (not crazy expensive and hard to get.)
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>> 
>>> Frank
>>> 
>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025
>>> 
>>> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>> 
>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>> 
>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>> 
>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>> 
>>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:21 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink <
>>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Starlink is *advertised* as a rural product as opposed to relegated to
>>>> one.
>>>> It's available to be used everywhere just like tractors and cow milking
>>>> machines.
>>>> 
>>>> In Africa, most users are urban. I'm willing to bet there are more
>>>> urban+suburban users in the USA and Australia.
>>>> 
>>>> There are many pockets of unavailability and unreliability.
>>>> 
>>>> I remember seeing a user in a new skyscraper. No mobile service there.
>>>> 
>>>> The benefit for users having retail(including online) availability IMO is
>>>> getting hardware & replacements on short notice. Same day or next day.
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025, 5:55 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via
>>>> Starlink
>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> *Starlink has nearly a dozen retail partners in the US, including Best
>>>> Buy
>>>>> and Walmart, illustrating the company's desire to make the satellite
>>>>> service less of a niche, rural play. However, Starlink's subs still
>>>> skew to
>>>>> rural areas.*
>>>>> EXCERPT:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Starlink satellite broadband service remains largely relegated to
>>>> rural
>>>>> areas and does not yet represent a major, direct competitor to wireline
>>>>> broadband service providers and fixed wireless access (FWA) offerings in
>>>>> urban areas.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> But Starlink's expanding presence at retail sites – along with some
>>>> recent
>>>>> price cuts – indicates the company isn't content for the service to be
>>>>> limited as a niche offering.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jeff Moore, principal of Wave7 Research and a watcher of marketing
>>>> trends
>>>>> across the mobile, satellite and broadband landscapes, discovered back
>>>> in
>>>>> March that Starlink was being sold broadly at Best Buy stores.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Since March, every single Best Buy that we have checked in every state
>>>> has
>>>>> had a highly visible display for Starlink," Moore said, adding that most
>>>>> tend to be "endcap" displays placed at the end of aisles.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> And Starlink has been broadening its retail footprint. Citing
>>>>> Starlink's evolving
>>>>> list of retail partners
>>>>> <
>>>>> 
>>>> https://www.starlink.com/support/article/8a90222d-7c32-edd7-51f6-f696ece07105
>>>>>> …
>>>>> Moore points out that the service is also being sold by a mix of big-box
>>>>> stores and smaller outlets, including Home Depot, Nebraska Furniture
>>>> Mart,
>>>>> West Marine, Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Microcom, Thor Industries,
>>>> Tractor
>>>>> Supply, Winegard Company and Walmart.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> But Starlink's retail presence is not exactly uniform. According to
>>>> Wave7's
>>>>> in-person checks, Walmart, for example, has Starlink displays at some
>>>>> stores but not in others.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Moore also points out that Starlink's retail presence is not limited to
>>>>> rural areas. "We're not seeing it slice that way at all," he said.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Moore said Home Depot is getting more aggressive with Starlink, even if
>>>> its
>>>>> displays are not exactly "glittering jewels of commercialism."
>>>>> 
>>>>> "They're sort of non-descript displays. If you know what you're looking
>>>>> for, you can find it," he said.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That said, Starlink is a "priority" for Home Depot this year and "sales
>>>>> have been strong," Moore said, citing information from what he says is a
>>>>> well-placed source familiar with the chain. However, the lion's share of
>>>>> those sales have been online rather than in-store, he added.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, what to make of Starlink's increased focus on retail? Moore thinks
>>>> it's
>>>>> a way for Starlink to gravitate away from being a "niche" product into
>>>> more
>>>>> of a mass-market product.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Retail partnerships give Starlink another sales channel without having
>>>> to
>>>>> shell out millions to erect its own physical storefronts. However, the
>>>>> retail experience, particularly at big-box stores, can be lackluster.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Roger Entner, founder and analyst at Recon Analytics, said his data
>>>> shows
>>>>> that satisfaction with the sales process at big-box retailers is
>>>> "abysmal,"
>>>>> driving negative net promoter scores (NPS). Meanwhile, most Starlink
>>>> sales
>>>>> occur online.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Who are Starlink's customers?*
>>>>> Starlink, which relies on a constellation of low-Earth orbit (LEO)
>>>>> satellites, reported in July that it has more than 2 million active
>>>>> customers in the US. By comparison, its geosynchronous (GEO) satellite
>>>>> broadband competitors – Hughes Network Systems and Viasat – are much
>>>>> smaller and losing subscribers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hughes lost 34,000 subs in Q2 2025, ending with 819,000. Viasat's base
>>>> of
>>>>> fixed broadband subs has dipped to 172,000. Just this week, EchoStar
>>>> execs
>>>>> said Hughes Network Systems is pivoting to the enterprise market
>>>>> <
>>>>> 
>>>> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/echostar-execs-dish-on-company-s-forced-pivot-and-the-path-forward
>>>>> as the residential side of its satellite business remains in decline.
>>>>> 
>>>>> "Hughes and Viasat are still running TV advertising. They're still a
>>>>> competitive and viable option but losing share pretty rapidly." Moore
>>>> said.
>>>>> Some Viasat and Hughes customers are defecting to Starlink, but most of
>>>>> Starlink's customers are leaving small rural telcos and cable operators
>>>> for
>>>>> the satellite operator, Entner said. Overall, more than 85% of
>>>> Starlink's
>>>>> customers come from rural areas, while the rest are suburban, according
>>>> to
>>>>> Recon Analytics data.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Service and equipment price cuts*...
>>>>> 
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> https://www.lightreading.com/satellite/starlink-looking-less-niche-as-its-retail-presence-expands
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com
>>>>> living as The Truth is True
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Starlink mailing list --starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email tostarlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list --starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email tostarlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list --starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email tostarlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> 
> -- 
> ****************************************************************
> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
> 
> School of Computer Science
> 
> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
> 
> The University of Auckland
> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
> ****************************************************************
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Michael Richardson]

{resending without signature, since new list can't cope with attachments yet}

Luis A. Cornejo via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
    > Since Starlink controls all the wireless parts of their system. Does
    > anybody here know what they could do to mitigate the limits of
    > classical wireless comms, like Shannon-Hartley Capacity Theorem or the
    > interference?

I don't know much about this part.
I am kinda hijacking this thread, but I think there is a connection.
Dr.Pan gave a talk about Starlink measurements last week in Ottawa.
(The time slot was way too short.  Very nice talk)

I was thinking about the many places where bandwidth can go up and down, both
for Starlink's various mis-attachment situations, but also for OneWeb's Polar
orbit mechanism.  (I didn't know it was doing that).
And just getting redirected to a different downlink/base-station, and then
have to cross over Starlink's internal network to the same exit point.
(Too bad MobileIP never took off)

I think the only thing worse than bufferbloat is varying bandwidth rates.
That's because the only way to use that bandwidth is to introduce bufferbloat :-)
It was the cablemodem burst mechanism that clued Jim into bufferbloat.

So my related question is, if they could mitigate, they likely can't do it
continuously, so things will up/down.  The IETF now has a SCONE WG, with the
aim of inserting signals into QUIC traffic about bandwidth available.
Yes, meddling by middle boxes.  Ick.

Could Starlink even do this given the lack of L3 processing along the
entire link?  At least according to Dr. Pan's diagrams.
(An L2 hop could well mess with packets too).
Ideally, one or more of the satellites involved in the ISL would
know what the current bandwidth to a given terminal is, and could inform the
end system.

The two questions:
1. are the limits/conditions stable enough for long enough that the available
   bandwidth could be communicated back to the uplink?

2. assuming, yes, what would the best place to do the SCONE marking?

    >> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes
    >> a hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity
    >> Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink
    >> has to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites
    >> they launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the
    >> capacity per user there has to go down. Law of nature.

And users will need to know what they have on a minute-by-minute basis so
that they avoid screwing themselves, let alone their neighbours.
Packets going up the link, then being dropped, is just wasted.

ps:
I have been watching: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb
where they have powered up 50+ year old Apollo Transponders.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[J Pan]

Thanks Michael for attending my talk. my slides are at
http://tinyurl.com/leosatnet and we are looking for hosts around the
world to help us http://tinyurl.com/starlinkuser . cheers.  -j
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:45 AM Michael Richardson via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> {resending without signature, since new list can't cope with attachments yet}
>
> Luis A. Cornejo via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>     > Since Starlink controls all the wireless parts of their system. Does
>     > anybody here know what they could do to mitigate the limits of
>     > classical wireless comms, like Shannon-Hartley Capacity Theorem or the
>     > interference?
>
> I don't know much about this part.
> I am kinda hijacking this thread, but I think there is a connection.
> Dr.Pan gave a talk about Starlink measurements last week in Ottawa.
> (The time slot was way too short.  Very nice talk)
>
> I was thinking about the many places where bandwidth can go up and down, both
> for Starlink's various mis-attachment situations, but also for OneWeb's Polar
> orbit mechanism.  (I didn't know it was doing that).
> And just getting redirected to a different downlink/base-station, and then
> have to cross over Starlink's internal network to the same exit point.
> (Too bad MobileIP never took off)
>
> I think the only thing worse than bufferbloat is varying bandwidth rates.
> That's because the only way to use that bandwidth is to introduce bufferbloat :-)
> It was the cablemodem burst mechanism that clued Jim into bufferbloat.
>
> So my related question is, if they could mitigate, they likely can't do it
> continuously, so things will up/down.  The IETF now has a SCONE WG, with the
> aim of inserting signals into QUIC traffic about bandwidth available.
> Yes, meddling by middle boxes.  Ick.
>
> Could Starlink even do this given the lack of L3 processing along the
> entire link?  At least according to Dr. Pan's diagrams.
> (An L2 hop could well mess with packets too).
> Ideally, one or more of the satellites involved in the ISL would
> know what the current bandwidth to a given terminal is, and could inform the
> end system.
>
> The two questions:
> 1. are the limits/conditions stable enough for long enough that the available
>    bandwidth could be communicated back to the uplink?
>
> 2. assuming, yes, what would the best place to do the SCONE marking?
>
>     >> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes
>     >> a hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity
>     >> Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink
>     >> has to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites
>     >> they launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the
>     >> capacity per user there has to go down. Law of nature.
>
> And users will need to know what they have on a minute-by-minute basis so
> that they avoid screwing themselves, let alone their neighbours.
> Packets going up the link, then being dropped, is just wasted.
>
> ps:
> I have been watching: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb
> where they have powered up 50+ year old Apollo Transponders.
>
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Marc Blanchet]

> Le 25 sept. 2025 à 13:45, Michael Richardson via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> a écrit :
> 
> {resending without signature, since new list can't cope with attachments yet}
> 
> Luis A. Cornejo via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> And just getting redirected to a different downlink/base-station, and then
> have to cross over Starlink's internal network to the same exit point.
> (Too bad MobileIP never took off)

MobileIP required cooperative routers "everywhere". And did not really address the fact that a transport connection is based on the four-tuple. Transport mobility (aka QUIC 0RTT connection migration) is the right level where mobility should happen. And this is way more easy when the identifier of the connection is not the four-tuple but just a random id within the connection.

> 
> I think the only thing worse than bufferbloat is varying bandwidth rates.
> That's because the only way to use that bandwidth is to introduce bufferbloat :-)
> It was the cablemodem burst mechanism that clued Jim into bufferbloat.
> 
> So my related question is, if they could mitigate, they likely can't do it
> continuously, so things will up/down.  The IETF now has a SCONE WG, with the
> aim of inserting signals into QUIC traffic about bandwidth available.

But scone is a 1.5 RTT mechanism and it requires updated L3 forwarders in the path. 

Remains to be seen if this will have enough traction for LEO constellations.

Marc.

> Yes, meddling by middle boxes.  Ick.
> 
> Could Starlink even do this given the lack of L3 processing along the
> entire link?  At least according to Dr. Pan's diagrams.
> (An L2 hop could well mess with packets too).
> Ideally, one or more of the satellites involved in the ISL would
> know what the current bandwidth to a given terminal is, and could inform the
> end system.
> 
> The two questions:
> 1. are the limits/conditions stable enough for long enough that the available
>   bandwidth could be communicated back to the uplink?
> 
> 2. assuming, yes, what would the best place to do the SCONE marking?
> 
>>> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes
>>> a hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity
>>> Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink
>>> has to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites
>>> they launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the
>>> capacity per user there has to go down. Law of nature.
> 
> And users will need to know what they have on a minute-by-minute basis so
> that they avoid screwing themselves, let alone their neighbours.
> Packets going up the link, then being dropped, is just wasted.
> 
> ps:
> I have been watching: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb
> where they have powered up 50+ year old Apollo Transponders.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Spencer Sevilla]

Strongly agree w/Marc here.

Also worth mentioning, I’m not 100% sure if it’s QUIC or not (its been a long time since I did this study) but pretty much all the OTT messenging/calling apps out there already handle IP address mobility just fine, and those are probably the longest-lived connections seen in most consumer contexts.

> On Sep 25, 2025, at 11:31, Marc Blanchet via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Le 25 sept. 2025 à 13:45, Michael Richardson via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> a écrit :
>> 
>> {resending without signature, since new list can't cope with attachments yet}
>> 
>> Luis A. Cornejo via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> And just getting redirected to a different downlink/base-station, and then
>> have to cross over Starlink's internal network to the same exit point.
>> (Too bad MobileIP never took off)
> 
> MobileIP required cooperative routers "everywhere". And did not really address the fact that a transport connection is based on the four-tuple. Transport mobility (aka QUIC 0RTT connection migration) is the right level where mobility should happen. And this is way more easy when the identifier of the connection is not the four-tuple but just a random id within the connection.
> 
>> 
>> I think the only thing worse than bufferbloat is varying bandwidth rates.
>> That's because the only way to use that bandwidth is to introduce bufferbloat :-)
>> It was the cablemodem burst mechanism that clued Jim into bufferbloat.
>> 
>> So my related question is, if they could mitigate, they likely can't do it
>> continuously, so things will up/down.  The IETF now has a SCONE WG, with the
>> aim of inserting signals into QUIC traffic about bandwidth available.
> 
> But scone is a 1.5 RTT mechanism and it requires updated L3 forwarders in the path. 
> 
> Remains to be seen if this will have enough traction for LEO constellations.
> 
> Marc.
> 
>> Yes, meddling by middle boxes.  Ick.
>> 
>> Could Starlink even do this given the lack of L3 processing along the
>> entire link?  At least according to Dr. Pan's diagrams.
>> (An L2 hop could well mess with packets too).
>> Ideally, one or more of the satellites involved in the ISL would
>> know what the current bandwidth to a given terminal is, and could inform the
>> end system.
>> 
>> The two questions:
>> 1. are the limits/conditions stable enough for long enough that the available
>>  bandwidth could be communicated back to the uplink?
>> 
>> 2. assuming, yes, what would the best place to do the SCONE marking?
>> 
>>>> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes
>>>> a hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity
>>>> Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink
>>>> has to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites
>>>> they launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the
>>>> capacity per user there has to go down. Law of nature.
>> 
>> And users will need to know what they have on a minute-by-minute basis so
>> that they avoid screwing themselves, let alone their neighbours.
>> Packets going up the link, then being dropped, is just wasted.
>> 
>> ps:
>> I have been watching: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb
>> where they have powered up 50+ year old Apollo Transponders.
>> 
>> --
>> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
>> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
>> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net>

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[David Lang]

Spencer Sevilla wrote:

> Also worth mentioning, I’m not 100% sure if it’s QUIC or not (its been a long 
> time since I did this study) but pretty much all the OTT messenging/calling 
> apps out there already handle IP address mobility just fine, and those are 
> probably the longest-lived connections seen in most consumer contexts.

what are you meaning by IP mobility?

1. a connection can shift from one IP to another

2. an endpoint IP can move from one network to another

mobileIP was #2, I think you are talking about #1

David Lang

>> On Sep 25, 2025, at 11:31, Marc Blanchet via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Le 25 sept. 2025 à 13:45, Michael Richardson via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> a écrit :
>>>
>>> {resending without signature, since new list can't cope with attachments yet}
>>>
>>> Luis A. Cornejo via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>> And just getting redirected to a different downlink/base-station, and then
>>> have to cross over Starlink's internal network to the same exit point.
>>> (Too bad MobileIP never took off)
>>
>> MobileIP required cooperative routers "everywhere". And did not really address the fact that a transport connection is based on the four-tuple. Transport mobility (aka QUIC 0RTT connection migration) is the right level where mobility should happen. And this is way more easy when the identifier of the connection is not the four-tuple but just a random id within the connection.
>>
>>>
>>> I think the only thing worse than bufferbloat is varying bandwidth rates.
>>> That's because the only way to use that bandwidth is to introduce bufferbloat :-)
>>> It was the cablemodem burst mechanism that clued Jim into bufferbloat.
>>>
>>> So my related question is, if they could mitigate, they likely can't do it
>>> continuously, so things will up/down.  The IETF now has a SCONE WG, with the
>>> aim of inserting signals into QUIC traffic about bandwidth available.
>>
>> But scone is a 1.5 RTT mechanism and it requires updated L3 forwarders in the path.
>>
>> Remains to be seen if this will have enough traction for LEO constellations.
>>
>> Marc.
>>
>>> Yes, meddling by middle boxes.  Ick.
>>>
>>> Could Starlink even do this given the lack of L3 processing along the
>>> entire link?  At least according to Dr. Pan's diagrams.
>>> (An L2 hop could well mess with packets too).
>>> Ideally, one or more of the satellites involved in the ISL would
>>> know what the current bandwidth to a given terminal is, and could inform the
>>> end system.
>>>
>>> The two questions:
>>> 1. are the limits/conditions stable enough for long enough that the available
>>>  bandwidth could be communicated back to the uplink?
>>>
>>> 2. assuming, yes, what would the best place to do the SCONE marking?
>>>
>>>>> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes
>>>>> a hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity
>>>>> Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink
>>>>> has to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites
>>>>> they launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the
>>>>> capacity per user there has to go down. Law of nature.
>>>
>>> And users will need to know what they have on a minute-by-minute basis so
>>> that they avoid screwing themselves, let alone their neighbours.
>>> Packets going up the link, then being dropped, is just wasted.
>>>
>>> ps:
>>> I have been watching: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb
>>> where they have powered up 50+ year old Apollo Transponders.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
>>> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
>>> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Spencer Sevilla]

Yes, you’re correct - thanks for articulating the clarification.

> On Sep 25, 2025, at 11:53, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> 
> Spencer Sevilla wrote:
> 
>> Also worth mentioning, I’m not 100% sure if it’s QUIC or not (its been a long time since I did this study) but pretty much all the OTT messenging/calling apps out there already handle IP address mobility just fine, and those are probably the longest-lived connections seen in most consumer contexts.
> 
> what are you meaning by IP mobility?
> 
> 1. a connection can shift from one IP to another
> 
> 2. an endpoint IP can move from one network to another
> 
> mobileIP was #2, I think you are talking about #1
> 
> David Lang
> 
>>> On Sep 25, 2025, at 11:31, Marc Blanchet via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Le 25 sept. 2025 à 13:45, Michael Richardson via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> a écrit :
>>>> 
>>>> {resending without signature, since new list can't cope with attachments yet}
>>>> 
>>>> Luis A. Cornejo via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>>> And just getting redirected to a different downlink/base-station, and then
>>>> have to cross over Starlink's internal network to the same exit point.
>>>> (Too bad MobileIP never took off)
>>> 
>>> MobileIP required cooperative routers "everywhere". And did not really address the fact that a transport connection is based on the four-tuple. Transport mobility (aka QUIC 0RTT connection migration) is the right level where mobility should happen. And this is way more easy when the identifier of the connection is not the four-tuple but just a random id within the connection.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think the only thing worse than bufferbloat is varying bandwidth rates.
>>>> That's because the only way to use that bandwidth is to introduce bufferbloat :-)
>>>> It was the cablemodem burst mechanism that clued Jim into bufferbloat.
>>>> 
>>>> So my related question is, if they could mitigate, they likely can't do it
>>>> continuously, so things will up/down.  The IETF now has a SCONE WG, with the
>>>> aim of inserting signals into QUIC traffic about bandwidth available.
>>> 
>>> But scone is a 1.5 RTT mechanism and it requires updated L3 forwarders in the path.
>>> 
>>> Remains to be seen if this will have enough traction for LEO constellations.
>>> 
>>> Marc.
>>> 
>>>> Yes, meddling by middle boxes.  Ick.
>>>> 
>>>> Could Starlink even do this given the lack of L3 processing along the
>>>> entire link?  At least according to Dr. Pan's diagrams.
>>>> (An L2 hop could well mess with packets too).
>>>> Ideally, one or more of the satellites involved in the ISL would
>>>> know what the current bandwidth to a given terminal is, and could inform the
>>>> end system.
>>>> 
>>>> The two questions:
>>>> 1. are the limits/conditions stable enough for long enough that the available
>>>> bandwidth could be communicated back to the uplink?
>>>> 
>>>> 2. assuming, yes, what would the best place to do the SCONE marking?
>>>> 
>>>>>> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes
>>>>>> a hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity
>>>>>> Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink
>>>>>> has to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites
>>>>>> they launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the
>>>>>> capacity per user there has to go down. Law of nature.
>>>> 
>>>> And users will need to know what they have on a minute-by-minute basis so
>>>> that they avoid screwing themselves, let alone their neighbours.
>>>> Packets going up the link, then being dropped, is just wasted.
>>>> 
>>>> ps:
>>>> I have been watching: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb
>>>> where they have powered up 50+ year old Apollo Transponders.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
>>>> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
>>>> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net> <mailto:starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net>

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Ulrich Speidel]

On 26/09/2025 5:45 am, Michael Richardson via Starlink wrote:
> I think the only thing worse than bufferbloat is varying bandwidth rates.
> That's because the only way to use that bandwidth is to introduce bufferbloat :-)
> It was the cablemodem burst mechanism that clued Jim into bufferbloat.
>
> So my related question is, if they could mitigate, they likely can't do it
> continuously, so things will up/down.  The IETF now has a SCONE WG, with the
> aim of inserting signals into QUIC traffic about bandwidth available.
> Yes, meddling by middle boxes.  Ick.
>
> Could Starlink even do this given the lack of L3 processing along the
> entire link?  At least according to Dr. Pan's diagrams.
> (An L2 hop could well mess with packets too).
> Ideally, one or more of the satellites involved in the ISL would
> know what the current bandwidth to a given terminal is, and could inform the
> end system.
I'd expect almost any modern communication system these days to operate 
with a more complex protocol stack than just the good old textbook OSI 
... so your "L2" may actually be sitting on top of a layer running UDP 
over IP, for example. In that sense, L2 and L3 as labels mean very 
little these days, and issues at one layer can actually come about as a 
result of this complexity, having been introduced further down the stack.
>
> The two questions:
> 1. are the limits/conditions stable enough for long enough that the available
>     bandwidth could be communicated back to the uplink?

Um yes, but I wouldn't work on the assumption of shared bandwidth (in 
the sense of "sharing the same Ethernet cable" here). The 
uplink/downlink bandwidth an end user on Starlink gets is almost 
certainly determined by the assignment of a time slot or slots on a 
certain frequency (beam) subband(s). You could add other parameters to 
this (e.g., spreading code, polarisation, ...). This is an assignment 
made by Starlink's scheduler, and the only thing that's certain here is 
that for a given satellite, the maximum total number of frequency 
subbands and time slots is fixed. These have to be shared between all 
users of the satellite. Quite how many slots someone gets therefore 
depends on the number of other users and whatever they get, plus 
whatever Starlink might want / need to reserve for regulatory and other 
reasons.

Of course, every 15 seconds, things change: Existing users get handed 
over to new satellites, new users join the present one, and slots get 
redistributed. Switching to user perspective, getting handed over to a 
new satellite at the 15 second point means potentially getting a 
completely different share of bandwidth. Even staying with the same 
satellite does. Whatever the cwnd value of participating TCP sockets is 
at that point, it's not adapted to what you're dealing with here.

>
> 2. assuming, yes, what would the best place to do the SCONE marking?
>
>      >> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes
>      >> a hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity
>      >> Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink
>      >> has to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites
>      >> they launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the
>      >> capacity per user there has to go down. Law of nature.
>
> And users will need to know what they have on a minute-by-minute basis so
> that they avoid screwing themselves, let alone their neighbours.
> Packets going up the link, then being dropped, is just wasted.

Now there's also the data that's in transit from the Internet to the 
user. That'll have to hit a queue somewhere, from where it then gets 
uplinked to the satellite that serves the user it's destined for. Given 
that TCP senders out there have the RFC-given right to transmit data 
whenever they think fit, the Internet has zero control over when a TCP 
segment hits that queue, however. Now imagine that it hits that queue 
just before the user in question gets handed over to a different 
satellite ... and it doesn't make it out of the queue before the user 
gets passed on. Then where does that data go? I think it was Geoff 
Huston who told me that he'd observed packet loss at the handover times 
and that's probably what he was looking at here.

-- 
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Sebastian Moeller]

> On 25. Sep 2025, at 19:45, Michael Richardson via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> {resending without signature, since new list can't cope with attachments yet}
> 
> Luis A. Cornejo via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> Since Starlink controls all the wireless parts of their system. Does
>> anybody here know what they could do to mitigate the limits of
>> classical wireless comms, like Shannon-Hartley Capacity Theorem or the
>> interference?
> 
> I don't know much about this part.
> I am kinda hijacking this thread, but I think there is a connection.
> Dr.Pan gave a talk about Starlink measurements last week in Ottawa.
> (The time slot was way too short.  Very nice talk)
> 
> I was thinking about the many places where bandwidth can go up and down, both
> for Starlink's various mis-attachment situations, but also for OneWeb's Polar
> orbit mechanism.  (I didn't know it was doing that).
> And just getting redirected to a different downlink/base-station, and then
> have to cross over Starlink's internal network to the same exit point.
> (Too bad MobileIP never took off)
> 
> I think the only thing worse than bufferbloat is varying bandwidth rates.
> That's because the only way to use that bandwidth is to introduce bufferbloat :-)
> It was the cablemodem burst mechanism that clued Jim into bufferbloat.
> 
> So my related question is, if they could mitigate, they likely can't do it
> continuously, so things will up/down.  The IETF now has a SCONE WG, with the
> aim of inserting signals into QUIC traffic about bandwidth available.
> Yes, meddling by middle boxes.  Ick.

Regarding SCONE:
"The Standard Communication with Network Elements (SCONE) protocol is
negotiated by QUIC endpoints. This protocol provides a means for
network elements to signal the maximum available sustained
throughput, or rate limits, for flows of UDP datagrams that transit
that network element to a QUIC endpoint."

That is going nowhere productive... 
a) restricting this to QUIC is fine only if you believe that QUIC will take over all traffic soon (keep in mind what we expected for IPv6)
b) "signal the maximum available sustained throughput" on a shared network like the internet has a simple true answer "0B"...

IMHO what we will end up doing, after exhaustively attempting and failing with more ambitious schemes like SCONE is tp collect something like the maximum of current capacity use in percent of all nodes along a path and have the endpoints use this to track changes in left over capacity and try to control their rates accordingly. That is better rate-control that is still driven by the endpoints.


> Could Starlink even do this given the lack of L3 processing along the
> entire link?  At least according to Dr. Pan's diagrams.
> (An L2 hop could well mess with packets too).
> Ideally, one or more of the satellites involved in the ISL would
> know what the current bandwidth to a given terminal is, and could inform the
> end system.
> 
> The two questions:
> 1. are the limits/conditions stable enough for long enough that the available
>   bandwidth could be communicated back to the uplink?

"long enough" is a relative term... but sure if the latency/"frequency of signalling" is substantially slower than the expected capacity fluctuations then this will not gain much, but if enough of those fluctuations are "slow" compared the RTT of a flow this scheme can have overall beneficial effects.

> 
> 2. assuming, yes, what would the best place to do the SCONE marking?

In our dreams.... in reality instead use the kind of marking that has already been shown to work in the real life... if I sound disillusioned about SCONE it is because I am, we knew even before L4S was ratified, that it is "too little, too late" and again instead of doing the proven thing IETF contemplates another academic proposal. I wonder who has the actual problem of a missing advisory signal that SCONE offers to solve.

> 
>>> Let's recap: Spectrum's boxed in, and power is boxed in. That imposes
>>> a hard limit on total capacity (look up the Shannon-Hartley Capacity
>>> Theorem if you don't believe me). This capacity is all that Starlink
>>> has to share among its users in a cell. No matter how many satellites
>>> they launch or how big the rocket. Add more users in a cell, and the
>>> capacity per user there has to go down. Law of nature.
> 
> And users will need to know what they have on a minute-by-minute basis so
> that they avoid screwing themselves, let alone their neighbours.

That is what feed-back-based rate-control and some modicum of healthy (transient shock-absorber-style) buffering is for, no?

> Packets going up the link, then being dropped, is just wasted.

Sure, if we veridically knew which packts will get dropped, we could avoid sending them in the fist place ;)


> 
> ps:
> I have been watching: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-_93BVApb58SXL-BCv4rVHL-8GuC2WGb
> where they have powered up 50+ year old Apollo Transponders.
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: Starlink looking less niche as its retail presence expands

[Michael Richardson]

{oops, signed message rejected, resending}

As I understand it, the issue is that when a User Terminal changes satellites, it can wind up
going down to a "Landing Ground Station" (GS) different than it had before.
But, due to CGNAT at the GS itself, that packet can not be processed at the
local CGNAT, so it has to travel to the GS that it was allocated for the
CGNAT to work.   (Same thing, alas, with IPv6, which does not have that state!)

While we hope that the terrestrial fiber network is never congested, it does
create some annoying dependancies that are likely to show up when you least
want it.  Like during natural disasters.
Slide 7 thru 12 of Dr.Pan's presentation shows that terrestial network.
Lots of opportunities for jitter, latency, L2 bufferbloat, ...

MobileIP, had it been deployable, could have allowed the GS to send out
messages to corespondant nodes telling them that they should switch their
traffic to the new GS's Home Agent.  IPv6 at least could be less stupid.
Lots of reasons why MobileIP couldn't be done, that Marc alluded to.

Messaging apps that can change their IP will not benefit.
a) the local IP address, 192.168.1.101 hasn't changed.
b) the outside CGNAT address will not have changed, and there is no way
   (AFAIK) for the app to tell the CGNAT at the GS that it would prefer to exit there
   with a different IP.

Maybe I mis-understand what people are talking about.
Video conference calls often last more than the 15min view of a single
satellite.  The situation will be worse initially with OneWeb, as they have
fewer ground stations.