Forget 5G wireless, SpaceX and T-Mobile want to offer Zero-G coverage...

[server]

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:12:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Forget 5G wireless, SpaceX and T-Mobile want to offer Zero-G coverage
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/forget-5g-wireless-spacex-and-t-mobile-want-to-offer-zero-g-coverage/
Big phased array antennas..

While space based systems are useful for planes, cruse ships and very
rural villages, this is not usably for delivering broad band internet
to even modertely densely populated areas.

The real problem is the available number of radio frequencies (RF)
available. You can not allocate a single frequency worldwide for a
single signal. The same frequency must be reused at different
locations for other signals. By limiting a signal to a small
geographical area, the same frequency can be reuse more times, thus
increasing the number of signals word wide.

This is the idea behind all cellular systems. In fact the same
principle was already used with TV-channels and audio broadcasts since
the 1920\'s.

A single broadband internet connection requires similar RF-bandwidths
as a traditional TV-channel (5-10 MHz) which 100 km coverage. If there
are a million internet users in that area, all RF frequencies would
have been overloaded a long time ago.

To allow such per user bandwidths, the cell size will have to be
reduced significantly. In 5 G (and 6 G), the cell area could be as
small as the area illuminated by a single street lamp. This has also
the advantage that the hand set transmit power can be reduced,
minimizing battery consumption.

In satellite internet using phased arrays in some MIMO (Multiple Input
Multiple Output) will help make small multiple beams and hence produce
smaller cell sizes, the satellite antennas sizes proposed are too
small so it is hard to make cell sizes much smaller than 1 km. Thus,
only a limited number of customers can be serviced in that cell.

 

[server]

On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 16:34:12 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:12:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Forget 5G wireless, SpaceX and T-Mobile want to offer Zero-G coverage
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/forget-5g-wireless-spacex-and-t-mobile-want-to-offer-zero-g-coverage/
Big phased array antennas..

While space based systems are useful for planes, cruse ships and very
rural villages, this is not usably for delivering broad band internet
to even modertely densely populated areas.

The real problem is the available number of radio frequencies (RF)
available. You can not allocate a single frequency worldwide for a
single signal. The same frequency must be reused at different
locations for other signals. By limiting a signal to a small
geographical area, the same frequency can be reuse more times, thus
increasing the number of signals word wide.

This is the idea behind all cellular systems. In fact the same
principle was already used with TV-channels and audio broadcasts since
the 1920\'s.

A single broadband internet connection requires similar RF-bandwidths
as a traditional TV-channel (5-10 MHz) which 100 km coverage. If there
are a million internet users in that area, all RF frequencies would
have been overloaded a long time ago.

To allow such per user bandwidths, the cell size will have to be
reduced significantly. In 5 G (and 6 G), the cell area could be as
small as the area illuminated by a single street lamp. This has also
the advantage that the hand set transmit power can be reduced,
minimizing battery consumption.

In satellite internet using phased arrays in some MIMO (Multiple Input
Multiple Output) will help make small multiple beams and hence produce
smaller cell sizes, the satellite antennas sizes proposed are too
small so it is hard to make cell sizes much smaller than 1 km. Thus,
only a limited number of customers can be serviced in that cell.

You can pump a terabit/sec over a small fiber bundle, so a microcell
can have all the bandwidth it needs. And it can ricochet to a bunch of
other overlapping microcells. Cheap dishes can spread data locally
too.

Satellite internet is useful to really rural locations, but I\'d expect
the economics to be bad unless government funded.

About half the world\'s population doesn\'t have internet access.
Satellites could get a lot of them low-bandwidth connections.

 

[server]

On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 08:51:04 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 16:34:12 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:12:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Forget 5G wireless, SpaceX and T-Mobile want to offer Zero-G coverage
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/forget-5g-wireless-spacex-and-t-mobile-want-to-offer-zero-g-coverage/
Big phased array antennas..

While space based systems are useful for planes, cruse ships and very
rural villages, this is not usably for delivering broad band internet
to even modertely densely populated areas.

The real problem is the available number of radio frequencies (RF)
available. You can not allocate a single frequency worldwide for a
single signal. The same frequency must be reused at different
locations for other signals. By limiting a signal to a small
geographical area, the same frequency can be reuse more times, thus
increasing the number of signals word wide.

This is the idea behind all cellular systems. In fact the same
principle was already used with TV-channels and audio broadcasts since
the 1920\'s.

A single broadband internet connection requires similar RF-bandwidths
as a traditional TV-channel (5-10 MHz) which 100 km coverage. If there
are a million internet users in that area, all RF frequencies would
have been overloaded a long time ago.

To allow such per user bandwidths, the cell size will have to be
reduced significantly. In 5 G (and 6 G), the cell area could be as
small as the area illuminated by a single street lamp. This has also
the advantage that the hand set transmit power can be reduced,
minimizing battery consumption.

In satellite internet using phased arrays in some MIMO (Multiple Input
Multiple Output) will help make small multiple beams and hence produce
smaller cell sizes, the satellite antennas sizes proposed are too
small so it is hard to make cell sizes much smaller than 1 km. Thus,
only a limited number of customers can be serviced in that cell.

You can pump a terabit/sec over a small fiber bundle,

For more than two decades it has been possible to transfer that amount
in a _single_ fiber using DWDM (80 wavelengths with 10 GB/s each). At
certain IR wavelengths, the fiber losses are so small that you require
an optical (Erbiun) amplifier only every 100 km. Nice for making
transatlantic optical cables.

so a microcell
can have all the bandwidth it needs.

The losses at IR are much greater in free air than in ffibers due to
the atmospheric gases.

And it can ricochet to a bunch of
other overlapping microcells.

IR distribution might be viable within a room or above your seat in a
pane.

Cheap dishes can spread data locally
too.

How do you constantly aim the antenna when either station is moving ?
I haven\'t hear of MIMO antennas for IR

Satellite internet is useful to really rural locations, but I\'d expect
the economics to be bad unless government funded.

Since about 70 % of Earth is covered by water, the LEO satellites
spend most of the time over water, servicing planes and ships. During
part of the orbit when it is over land, it can service rural areas.

About half the world\'s population doesn\'t have internet access.
Satellites could get a lot of them low-bandwidth connections.

When the paying customers are in planes and ships, third world
countries van be served by excess satellite capacity cheaply.

 

[server]

On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:57:22 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 08:51:04 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 16:34:12 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:12:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Forget 5G wireless, SpaceX and T-Mobile want to offer Zero-G coverage
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/forget-5g-wireless-spacex-and-t-mobile-want-to-offer-zero-g-coverage/
Big phased array antennas..

While space based systems are useful for planes, cruse ships and very
rural villages, this is not usably for delivering broad band internet
to even modertely densely populated areas.

The real problem is the available number of radio frequencies (RF)
available. You can not allocate a single frequency worldwide for a
single signal. The same frequency must be reused at different
locations for other signals. By limiting a signal to a small
geographical area, the same frequency can be reuse more times, thus
increasing the number of signals word wide.

This is the idea behind all cellular systems. In fact the same
principle was already used with TV-channels and audio broadcasts since
the 1920\'s.

A single broadband internet connection requires similar RF-bandwidths
as a traditional TV-channel (5-10 MHz) which 100 km coverage. If there
are a million internet users in that area, all RF frequencies would
have been overloaded a long time ago.

To allow such per user bandwidths, the cell size will have to be
reduced significantly. In 5 G (and 6 G), the cell area could be as
small as the area illuminated by a single street lamp. This has also
the advantage that the hand set transmit power can be reduced,
minimizing battery consumption.

In satellite internet using phased arrays in some MIMO (Multiple Input
Multiple Output) will help make small multiple beams and hence produce
smaller cell sizes, the satellite antennas sizes proposed are too
small so it is hard to make cell sizes much smaller than 1 km. Thus,
only a limited number of customers can be serviced in that cell.

You can pump a terabit/sec over a small fiber bundle,

For more than two decades it has been possible to transfer that amount
in a _single_ fiber using DWDM (80 wavelengths with 10 GB/s each). At
certain IR wavelengths, the fiber losses are so small that you require
an optical (Erbiun) amplifier only every 100 km. Nice for making
transatlantic optical cables.

so a microcell
can have all the bandwidth it needs.

The losses at IR are much greater in free air than in ffibers due to
the atmospheric gases.

And it can ricochet to a bunch of
other overlapping microcells.

IR distribution might be viable within a room or above your seat in a
pane.

Cheap dishes can spread data locally
too.

How do you constantly aim the antenna when either station is moving ?
I haven\'t hear of MIMO antennas for IR


Satellite internet is useful to really rural locations, but I\'d expect
the economics to be bad unless government funded.

Since about 70 % of Earth is covered by water, the LEO satellites
spend most of the time over water, servicing planes and ships. During
part of the orbit when it is over land, it can service rural areas.


About half the world\'s population doesn\'t have internet access.
Satellites could get a lot of them low-bandwidth connections.

When the paying customers are in planes and ships, third world
countries van be served by excess satellite capacity cheaply.

I wasn\'t suggesting that the last mile be optical, just that the way
the typical town connects to the world is better by fiber than
satellite. Local connections will be gen6 style RF microcells.

I expect a single RF network will replace the various messes we have
now, for tv, phones, internet, utilities, security, everything.

A minority of any population will have outscale talents and
productivity. Educating them and connecting them can have enormous
benefits. Connecting a population to the world also has profound
political effects, which is why thugs want to censor the internet.

It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-09-04 16:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:57:22 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 08:51:04 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2022 16:34:12 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 13:12:17 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

Forget 5G wireless, SpaceX and T-Mobile want to offer Zero-G coverage
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/08/forget-5g-wireless-spacex-and-t-mobile-want-to-offer-zero-g-coverage/
Big phased array antennas..

While space based systems are useful for planes, cruse ships and very
rural villages, this is not usably for delivering broad band internet
to even modertely densely populated areas.

The real problem is the available number of radio frequencies (RF)
available. You can not allocate a single frequency worldwide for a
single signal. The same frequency must be reused at different
locations for other signals. By limiting a signal to a small
geographical area, the same frequency can be reuse more times, thus
increasing the number of signals word wide.

This is the idea behind all cellular systems. In fact the same
principle was already used with TV-channels and audio broadcasts since
the 1920\'s.

A single broadband internet connection requires similar RF-bandwidths
as a traditional TV-channel (5-10 MHz) which 100 km coverage. If there
are a million internet users in that area, all RF frequencies would
have been overloaded a long time ago.

To allow such per user bandwidths, the cell size will have to be
reduced significantly. In 5 G (and 6 G), the cell area could be as
small as the area illuminated by a single street lamp. This has also
the advantage that the hand set transmit power can be reduced,
minimizing battery consumption.

In satellite internet using phased arrays in some MIMO (Multiple Input
Multiple Output) will help make small multiple beams and hence produce
smaller cell sizes, the satellite antennas sizes proposed are too
small so it is hard to make cell sizes much smaller than 1 km. Thus,
only a limited number of customers can be serviced in that cell.

You can pump a terabit/sec over a small fiber bundle,

For more than two decades it has been possible to transfer that amount
in a _single_ fiber using DWDM (80 wavelengths with 10 GB/s each). At
certain IR wavelengths, the fiber losses are so small that you require
an optical (Erbiun) amplifier only every 100 km. Nice for making
transatlantic optical cables.

so a microcell
can have all the bandwidth it needs.

The losses at IR are much greater in free air than in ffibers due to
the atmospheric gases.

And it can ricochet to a bunch of
other overlapping microcells.

IR distribution might be viable within a room or above your seat in a
pane.

Cheap dishes can spread data locally
too.

How do you constantly aim the antenna when either station is moving ?
I haven\'t hear of MIMO antennas for IR


Satellite internet is useful to really rural locations, but I\'d expect
the economics to be bad unless government funded.

Since about 70 % of Earth is covered by water, the LEO satellites
spend most of the time over water, servicing planes and ships. During
part of the orbit when it is over land, it can service rural areas.


About half the world\'s population doesn\'t have internet access.
Satellites could get a lot of them low-bandwidth connections.

When the paying customers are in planes and ships, third world
countries van be served by excess satellite capacity cheaply.

I wasn\'t suggesting that the last mile be optical, just that the way
the typical town connects to the world is better by fiber than
satellite. Local connections will be gen6 style RF microcells.

I expect a single RF network will replace the various messes we have
now, for tv, phones, internet, utilities, security, everything.
[...]

So we can be sure that when something breaks, everything is down.
A bit of diversity is good.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:28:15 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<vtc9hhdnpgptbkueb44b9b68pl9og8b5u7@4ax.com>:

>It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.

It is not so easy to protect satellite links against eavesdroppers
Anybody can read your stream, and many will know how to decode it,
Some internet links on the current satellite are even unencrypted,
I can see and record what people download (tried it).
But I cannot select what I want to see unless I have the password and encryption interface
(usually users select content via a land line / phone line).

 

[a a]

On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 18:14:35 UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:28:15 -0700) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
vtc9hhdnpgptbkueb...@4ax.com>:
It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.
It is not so easy to protect satellite links against eavesdroppers
Anybody can read your stream, and many will know how to decode it,
Some internet links on the current satellite are even unencrypted,
I can see and record what people download (tried it).
But I cannot select what I want to see unless I have the password and encryption interface
(usually users select content via a land line / phone line).

Starlink\'s based slow Internet is 30 years old technology, dead horse today,
fit for Rural America only

 

[John Walliker]

On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 22:42:02 UTC+1, a a wrote:

On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 18:14:35 UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:28:15 -0700) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
vtc9hhdnpgptbkueb...@4ax.com>:
It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.
It is not so easy to protect satellite links against eavesdroppers
Anybody can read your stream, and many will know how to decode it,
Some internet links on the current satellite are even unencrypted,
I can see and record what people download (tried it).
But I cannot select what I want to see unless I have the password and encryption interface
(usually users select content via a land line / phone line).
Starlink\'s based slow Internet is 30 years old technology, dead horse today,
fit for Rural America only

Do you really think that around 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency and
the ability to stream multiple video channels at once is slow and a dead horse?

How fast is your internet connection then?

John

 

[a a]

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 11:27:29 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:

On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 22:42:02 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 18:14:35 UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:28:15 -0700) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
vtc9hhdnpgptbkueb...@4ax.com>:
It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.
It is not so easy to protect satellite links against eavesdroppers
Anybody can read your stream, and many will know how to decode it,
Some internet links on the current satellite are even unencrypted,
I can see and record what people download (tried it).
But I cannot select what I want to see unless I have the password and encryption interface
(usually users select content via a land line / phone line).
Starlink\'s based slow Internet is 30 years old technology, dead horse today,
fit for Rural America only
Do you really think that around 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency and
the ability to stream multiple video channels at once is slow and a dead horse?

How fast is your internet connection then?

John

video stream has nothing to do with Internet\'s TCP/IP packets
Internet is not about broadcasting the same content one-2-many at the same time.

Elon Musk exacly knows his Starlink is 30 years old technology which has never worked fine in the past,
so the money spent is money lost.

Tell him to invest in Fiber Rural America


--200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
per single user ?
per 100 users ?

better go for 1Tbit/s multi-fiber

 

[John Walliker]

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 10:58:09 UTC+1, a a wrote:

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 11:27:29 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 22:42:02 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 18:14:35 UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:28:15 -0700) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
vtc9hhdnpgptbkueb...@4ax.com>:
It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.
It is not so easy to protect satellite links against eavesdroppers
Anybody can read your stream, and many will know how to decode it,
Some internet links on the current satellite are even unencrypted,
I can see and record what people download (tried it).
But I cannot select what I want to see unless I have the password and encryption interface
(usually users select content via a land line / phone line).
Starlink\'s based slow Internet is 30 years old technology, dead horse today,
fit for Rural America only
Do you really think that around 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency and
the ability to stream multiple video channels at once is slow and a dead horse?

How fast is your internet connection then?

John
video stream has nothing to do with Internet\'s TCP/IP packets
Internet is not about broadcasting the same content one-2-many at the same time.

Who said anything about broadcasting. I am referring to individual users watching
a video of their choice at the time they choose. Multiple family members can
watch different HD videos at the same time all over a single satellite link.
I agree, it has little to do with TCP/IP packets. Most streaming protocols are
build on top of UDP/IP packets.

Elon Musk exacly knows his Starlink is 30 years old technology which has never worked fine in the past,
so the money spent is money lost.

It seems to work remarkably well.

Tell him to invest in Fiber Rural America

-- 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
per single user ?
per 100 users ?

Per single user.

> better go for 1Tbit/s multi-fiber
That would be a bit extreme for one user. Even those lucky people who have
1Gbit/s fibre will seldom find servers that can deliver anything like such speeds.

John

 

[a a]

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 13:14:18 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 10:58:09 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 11:27:29 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 22:42:02 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 18:14:35 UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:28:15 -0700) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
vtc9hhdnpgptbkueb...@4ax.com>:
It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.
It is not so easy to protect satellite links against eavesdroppers
Anybody can read your stream, and many will know how to decode it,
Some internet links on the current satellite are even unencrypted,
I can see and record what people download (tried it).
But I cannot select what I want to see unless I have the password and encryption interface
(usually users select content via a land line / phone line).
Starlink\'s based slow Internet is 30 years old technology, dead horse today,
fit for Rural America only
Do you really think that around 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency and
the ability to stream multiple video channels at once is slow and a dead horse?

How fast is your internet connection then?

John
video stream has nothing to do with Internet\'s TCP/IP packets
Internet is not about broadcasting the same content one-2-many at the same time.
Who said anything about broadcasting. I am referring to individual users watching
a video of their choice at the time they choose. Multiple family members can
watch different HD videos at the same time all over a single satellite link.
I agree, it has little to do with TCP/IP packets. Most streaming protocols are
build on top of UDP/IP packets.
Elon Musk exacly knows his Starlink is 30 years old technology which has never worked fine in the past,
so the money spent is money lost.
It seems to work remarkably well.
Tell him to invest in Fiber Rural America

-- 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
per single user ?
per 100 users ?
Per single user.
better go for 1Tbit/s multi-fiber
That would be a bit extreme for one user. Even those lucky people who have
1Gbit/s fibre will seldom find servers that can deliver anything like such speeds.

John

--200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
-> per single user ?
-> per 100 users ?

--Per single user.

what number of users can be served by a single Starlink satellite at 200Mbit/s per single user ?

and what about uplink\'s speed and served by what base station for what geolocation in Rural America, supported by baackbone\'s fiber ?

 

[John Walliker]

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 12:29:10 UTC+1, a a wrote:

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 13:14:18 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 10:58:09 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 11:27:29 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 22:42:02 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 18:14:35 UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:28:15 -0700) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
vtc9hhdnpgptbkueb...@4ax.com>:
It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.
It is not so easy to protect satellite links against eavesdroppers
Anybody can read your stream, and many will know how to decode it,
Some internet links on the current satellite are even unencrypted,
I can see and record what people download (tried it).
But I cannot select what I want to see unless I have the password and encryption interface
(usually users select content via a land line / phone line).
Starlink\'s based slow Internet is 30 years old technology, dead horse today,
fit for Rural America only
Do you really think that around 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency and
the ability to stream multiple video channels at once is slow and a dead horse?

How fast is your internet connection then?

John
video stream has nothing to do with Internet\'s TCP/IP packets
Internet is not about broadcasting the same content one-2-many at the same time.
Who said anything about broadcasting. I am referring to individual users watching
a video of their choice at the time they choose. Multiple family members can
watch different HD videos at the same time all over a single satellite link.
I agree, it has little to do with TCP/IP packets. Most streaming protocols are
build on top of UDP/IP packets.
Elon Musk exacly knows his Starlink is 30 years old technology which has never worked fine in the past,
so the money spent is money lost.
It seems to work remarkably well.
Tell him to invest in Fiber Rural America

-- 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
per single user ?
per 100 users ?
Per single user.
better go for 1Tbit/s multi-fiber
That would be a bit extreme for one user. Even those lucky people who have
1Gbit/s fibre will seldom find servers that can deliver anything like such speeds.

John
--200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
-> per single user ?
-> per 100 users ?

--Per single user.

what number of users can be served by a single Starlink satellite at 200Mbit/s per single user ?

and what about uplink\'s speed and served by what base station for what geolocation in Rural America, supported by baackbone\'s fiber ?

You would need to ask Starlink that question as I don\'t know the answer. Alternatively,
there is probably enough information out there to work it out. What I am giving you
is real data from one user in the UK which clearly contradicts your claims about
Starlink. I can ask about uplink speeds, but probably not until Wednesday. The user
I know will undoubtedly have measured them.
Something to bear in mind is that there will never be a situation where all the users
are downloading at 200Mbit/s at the same time. The whole internet (and global telephone
system) rely on the fact that most users only need peak bandwidth for a very small
proportion of the time. So long as the system bandwidth is wide enough compared to
the peak bandwidth allocated to any one user the statistics of multiple users allow
a great deal of smoothing out of peak requirements.

John

 

[a a]

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 13:43:58 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 12:29:10 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 13:14:18 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 10:58:09 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 11:27:29 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 22:42:02 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 18:14:35 UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:28:15 -0700) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
vtc9hhdnpgptbkueb...@4ax.com>:
It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.
It is not so easy to protect satellite links against eavesdroppers
Anybody can read your stream, and many will know how to decode it,
Some internet links on the current satellite are even unencrypted,
I can see and record what people download (tried it).
But I cannot select what I want to see unless I have the password and encryption interface
(usually users select content via a land line / phone line).
Starlink\'s based slow Internet is 30 years old technology, dead horse today,
fit for Rural America only
Do you really think that around 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency and
the ability to stream multiple video channels at once is slow and a dead horse?

How fast is your internet connection then?

John
video stream has nothing to do with Internet\'s TCP/IP packets
Internet is not about broadcasting the same content one-2-many at the same time.
Who said anything about broadcasting. I am referring to individual users watching
a video of their choice at the time they choose. Multiple family members can
watch different HD videos at the same time all over a single satellite link.
I agree, it has little to do with TCP/IP packets. Most streaming protocols are
build on top of UDP/IP packets.
Elon Musk exacly knows his Starlink is 30 years old technology which has never worked fine in the past,
so the money spent is money lost.
It seems to work remarkably well.
Tell him to invest in Fiber Rural America

-- 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
per single user ?
per 100 users ?
Per single user.
better go for 1Tbit/s multi-fiber
That would be a bit extreme for one user. Even those lucky people who have
1Gbit/s fibre will seldom find servers that can deliver anything like such speeds.

John
--200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
-> per single user ?
-> per 100 users ?

--Per single user.

what number of users can be served by a single Starlink satellite at 200Mbit/s per single user ?

and what about uplink\'s speed and served by what base station for what geolocation in Rural America, supported by baackbone\'s fiber ?
You would need to ask Starlink that question as I don\'t know the answer. Alternatively,
there is probably enough information out there to work it out. What I am giving you
is real data from one user in the UK which clearly contradicts your claims about
Starlink. I can ask about uplink speeds, but probably not until Wednesday. The user
I know will undoubtedly have measured them.
Something to bear in mind is that there will never be a situation where all the users
are downloading at 200Mbit/s at the same time. The whole internet (and global telephone
system) rely on the fact that most users only need peak bandwidth for a very small
proportion of the time. So long as the system bandwidth is wide enough compared to
the peak bandwidth allocated to any one user the statistics of multiple users allow
a great deal of smoothing out of peak requirements.

John

---. What I am giving you
is real data from one user in the UK which clearly contradicts your claims about
Starlink.

I don\'t care a single user in the UK since I contacted Starlink many times since was developing multi-hop laser infrastructure on the ground, simulating multi-hop in the space, as claimed by Starlink.

I don\'t care peak bandwidth since commercial users buy 200Mbit/s download for personal use.

You exactly know that Starlink is not supported by a network of ground stations, connected to the backbone, to offer
multi 200Mbit/s uplink for 1,000 users in the region,
so Starlink is 30 years old satellite Internet technology, which has never worked fine, due to limited uplink/downlink,
serving just few per cell.

So Starlink Project may fail since generating huge overheads under present state of space Internet.

Better invest in fiber Internet to provide coverage for the whole Rural America, whole UK,
since Africa offers highest speed Internet

 

[John Walliker]

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 15:07:31 UTC+1, a a wrote:

On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 13:43:58 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 12:29:10 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 13:14:18 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 10:58:09 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Monday, 5 September 2022 at 11:27:29 UTC+2, John Walliker wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 22:42:02 UTC+1, a a wrote:
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 18:14:35 UTC+2, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Sun, 04 Sep 2022 07:28:15 -0700) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
vtc9hhdnpgptbkueb...@4ax.com>:
It is harder to censor a satellite link than fiber.
It is not so easy to protect satellite links against eavesdroppers
Anybody can read your stream, and many will know how to decode it,
Some internet links on the current satellite are even unencrypted,
I can see and record what people download (tried it).
But I cannot select what I want to see unless I have the password and encryption interface
(usually users select content via a land line / phone line).
Starlink\'s based slow Internet is 30 years old technology, dead horse today,
fit for Rural America only
Do you really think that around 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency and
the ability to stream multiple video channels at once is slow and a dead horse?

How fast is your internet connection then?

John
video stream has nothing to do with Internet\'s TCP/IP packets
Internet is not about broadcasting the same content one-2-many at the same time.
Who said anything about broadcasting. I am referring to individual users watching
a video of their choice at the time they choose. Multiple family members can
watch different HD videos at the same time all over a single satellite link.
I agree, it has little to do with TCP/IP packets. Most streaming protocols are
build on top of UDP/IP packets.
Elon Musk exacly knows his Starlink is 30 years old technology which has never worked fine in the past,
so the money spent is money lost.
It seems to work remarkably well.
Tell him to invest in Fiber Rural America

-- 200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
per single user ?
per 100 users ?
Per single user.
better go for 1Tbit/s multi-fiber
That would be a bit extreme for one user. Even those lucky people who have
1Gbit/s fibre will seldom find servers that can deliver anything like such speeds.

John
--200Mbit/s downlink, around 30ms latency
-> per single user ?
-> per 100 users ?

--Per single user.

what number of users can be served by a single Starlink satellite at 200Mbit/s per single user ?

and what about uplink\'s speed and served by what base station for what geolocation in Rural America, supported by baackbone\'s fiber ?
You would need to ask Starlink that question as I don\'t know the answer. Alternatively,
there is probably enough information out there to work it out. What I am giving you
is real data from one user in the UK which clearly contradicts your claims about
Starlink. I can ask about uplink speeds, but probably not until Wednesday. The user
I know will undoubtedly have measured them.
Something to bear in mind is that there will never be a situation where all the users
are downloading at 200Mbit/s at the same time. The whole internet (and global telephone
system) rely on the fact that most users only need peak bandwidth for a very small
proportion of the time. So long as the system bandwidth is wide enough compared to
the peak bandwidth allocated to any one user the statistics of multiple users allow
a great deal of smoothing out of peak requirements.

John
What I am giving you
is real data from one user in the UK which clearly contradicts your claims about
Starlink.
I don\'t care a single user in the UK since I contacted Starlink many times since was
developing multi-hop laser infrastructure on the ground, simulating multi-hop in
the space, as claimed by Starlink.

Starlink are not actually using multi-hop laser links in space at the moment.
Connections go via one satellite at a time to a nearby ground station. The locations of
these seem to be well chosen. In the southern UK they are at Goonhilly in the far southwest
and north London. Goonhilly is probably one of the best connected places in the world.
London is a majot internet exchange point.

> I don\'t care peak bandwidth since commercial users buy 200Mbit/s download for personal use.

There are many places where such speeds are not otherwise available at an affordable price.

You exactly know that Starlink is not supported by a network of ground stations, connected to the backbone, to offer
multi 200Mbit/s uplink for 1,000 users in the region,

I think you got that backwards. I know that Starlink IS supported by a network of ground stations
connected to high-bandwidth fibre links for multi-200Mbit/s links in the region of each
ground station.

so Starlink is 30 years old satellite Internet technology, which has never worked fine, due to limited uplink/downlink,
serving just few per cell.

It all depends on just how limited the uplink and downlink are. It appears that the total bandwidth
of each satellite is currently about 20Gbit/s. While the ideas are easily 30 years old or more (as
Globalstar had a similar architecture) the implementation is certainly impressive to me at least.
Given the typical traffic levels of ordinary internet users, each satellite should comfortable support a
few thousand users. After all, streaming HD video only needs a few Mbit/s. It looks a very cost
effective solution for rural areas. Here is a good article about the satellite bandwidth.

http://www.satmagazine.com/story.php?number=1026762698

So Starlink Project may fail since generating huge overheads under present state of space Internet.

Better invest in fiber Internet to provide coverage for the whole Rural America, whole UK,
since Africa offers highest speed Internet

It would be great to have fibre internet in all those places. It is available to around 40% of
UK addresses at the moment and this is likely to double in the next five years or so. There
will still be places where it is not economically viable to install fibre. There must be huge areas
of the USA where it will never be viable.
Why do you think that Africa offers the highest speed internet? Vast areas don\'t even
have a reliable electricity supply.
I do have some concerns about Starlink, particularly relating to the adverse effects on
visible and radio astronomy and the risk of collisions with such large numbers of satellites.

John