Re: [Starlink] Starlink "beam spread"

[David Lang <david@lang.hm>]

I have no problems with people making technical arguments saying that there are 
limitations on the service that Starlink can provide (I may argue technical 
specifics or point out things I think you miss, but I won't claim that you are 
arguing in bad faith), but when someone then goes beyond that and says that what 
it can provide is a level that's unacceptable to Americans or dismissing it 
because fiber is better, then I'll respond and say that the person is arguing in 
bad faith.

David Lang


On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, David P. Reed wrote:

> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 19:28:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com>
> To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
> Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm>, Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>,
>     starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink "beam spread"
> 
>
> I wasn't starting a discussion about Starlink the business. I was talking about Starlink the technology and the "dreams" that people project onto that technology.
> 
> I'm happy if the current customers are happy and remain happy. Just pointing out that there are pretty severe limitations in the physical capabilities of the technology of the satellites and dishys that will limit how many customers can be served in an area.
> 
> I was reacting to the idea Dave Taht brought up that somehow the satellites can cover "more" area per satellite, if they go to a lower total bit rate (175 vs. 240 per antenna on each satellite).
> 
> I'm a radio engineer, trained in stuff like phased array antenna designs, and power, etc. I'm also a communications protocol engineer, trained in multiplexing techniques.
> 
> I'm not saying Starlink engineers are incompetent, but I am saying that what Musk (who despite the fact that he pretends to be an engineer is not one, never has been one) has described in his visionary speeches is not what Starlink is delivering today, and that's because it basically can't be delivered.