From: Ulrich Speidel <u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz>
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:32:19 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cad74a29-66f3-4799-b84d-544f4c519794@auckland.ac.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw5=+eJj+zis1fb9H_tr5UeBYC3LcC3K9y2XvCvsdB1i6w@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3973 bytes --]
Right now, Starlink have reached capacity in quite a number of places.
The availability map on Starlink's home page shows that Starlink is
"sold out" in many places, including London, Manila, Rio de Janeiro,
Seattle, Portland, Sacramento (California), Edmonton, San Diego, Austin
(Texas), Mexico City, Guadalajara, Brisbane, Accra, Lagos, Nairobi,
Lusaka, Harare, and many more:
https://www.starlink.com/us/map
This isn't surprising given the fact that Dishys to date only use
Ku-band, there's only 2 GHz of it for user downlink, and you can't use
the same beam frequency in adjacent cells.
SpaceX have a modification application before the FCC that, if
successful, would allow them to:
* Up power flux density on the ground. This'd allow satellites to
transmit with higher power. Note that none of the current beam
transmitters on the satellites have sufficient EIRP to hit the
current PFD limits across the entire Ku-band. But the Gen. 2 ones
are supposedly only by a factor of about 2.7 off, so with Starship
able to carry heavier sats, there might be room for a bit of growth.
* Use satellites down to 20 deg above the horizon instead of the
current 25 deg (this mightn't look like much, but if my calculations
aren't wrong, means that they'd see about 43% more of the orbital
sphere with that increase alone).
SpaceX have tried for a long time to get into lower orbital height
shells. This makes sense from their perspective: Each satellite's beam
footprint becomes smaller, which makes frequency re-use easier. Path
loss decreases, and a ground station sees a smaller fraction of
satellites in that shell, so they can argue that since the ground now
sees transmissions from fewer satellites, EPFD limits are less critical,
which allows them to up power. Makes for a couple of bits more per
symbol perhaps. Latency goes down a little, too, and they now have the
numbers in terms of satellites, so it doesn't matter so much that these
shells need a larger number of sats to work.
Now there are drawbacks also: The lower the orbits go, the more residual
atmospheric drag there will be, and this expresses itself in either
shorter sat lifespan or the need to carry more fuel, which either means
they'll need to launch at a faster rate or with fewer sats per launch.
It's also a bit more crowded in lower space, as this is where a lot of
earth observation spacecraft sit (if you want to take detailed pics of
the Earth's surface, you want it to be as close to your camera lens as
you can have it), and some of those aren't there for open source public
good science.
On 23/11/2024 11:33 am, Dave Taht via Starlink wrote:
> To me, the additional speeds don't matter all that much.
>
> I am presently in gale force winds, my boat rocking, and my latency
> stable, and only about 50mbit down:
> https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=a14b4467-16d7-4b6e-8736-1593813d6eda
>
> Maybe a little less packet loss would help, as my last (hour long)
> videoconference broke up twice, and bbr is seriously outperforming
> cubic. In addition for aiming for higher speeds, improving density and
> reliability would be nice, but otherwise I am a pretty happy camper
> with the service I have, compared to 5g.
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 2:16 PM Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> https://cordcuttersnews.com/starlink-internet-speeds-could-skyrocket-to-2-gigabits-per-second-spacex-president-says/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>
--
****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5634 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-22 23:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-22 22:16 Hesham ElBakoury
2024-11-22 22:33 ` Dave Taht
2024-11-22 23:32 ` Ulrich Speidel [this message]
2024-11-23 1:13 ` Brandon Butterworth
2024-11-23 6:05 ` David Lang
2024-11-23 13:30 ` Ulrich Speidel
2024-11-23 18:29 ` Michael Richardson
2024-11-23 20:05 ` Dave Taht
2024-11-24 3:39 ` Ulrich Speidel
2024-11-25 14:51 ` Sascha Meinrath
2024-11-25 16:59 ` David Lang
2024-11-25 17:20 ` Steve Stroh
2024-11-25 17:29 ` Dave Taht
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cad74a29-66f3-4799-b84d-544f4c519794@auckland.ac.nz \
--to=u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz \
--cc=starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox