Starlink

[bdhsfz6]

An interesting article on Starlink vs 5G:

Starlink vs. 5G: Will It Be a Better Home Internet Service?

Starlink vs. 5G: Will It Be a Better Home Internet Service?

fintelics.medium.com

For those within the ever increasing reach of cellular towers, 5G is a definite broadband option.

Elon Musk definitely has competition.

 

[dmccarty]

An interesting article on Starlink vs 5G:

Starlink vs. 5G: Will It Be a Better Home Internet Service?

Starlink vs. 5G: Will It Be a Better Home Internet Service?

fintelics.medium.com

For those within the ever increasing reach of cellular towers, 5G is a definite broadband option.

Elon Musk definitely has competition.

Except that the market Starlink is going after is not going to be likely served soon, if ever, by 5G. 5g requires antennas all over the place. The article mentions one has to be within 500m of a tower to get 5G. How many people in a rural area are within 500m of a cell tower. Not many. To get 5G, rural, city or suburb, there is going to have to be a large infrastructure of 5G antennas. This will make money sense in built up areas but in a rural area?

I have read of plans to install 5G antennae on power poles to build out the service area but that means the power company has to agree to the installation AND the cell company will have to figure out how they are going to pay for the power used by the antenna. One would think this would not be a issue but I would bet it will not be easy.

Starlink is NOT for people in the suburbs or cities. Those markets already have their broadband. 5G seems to be yet another broadband option for the city and some suburbs. 5G for rural areas? Maybe for some but I don't think we would see 5G any time soon, if ever, and we are near a tower that provides our 4G but not close enough for 5G. The cable company will not run cable down the road because there are not enough houses even though there is quite a bit of housing density. But not enough to make money sense for cable. Will it make money sense to install a few 5G antennas? One would think so but I will have Starlink well before we ever see 5G. If ever.

Later,
Dan

 

[kcflhrc]

I have yet to find anything I cant do on my 4G LTE with AT&T so 5G doesn't much matter to us. T Mobile touts their 5G Home Internet but in actuality rural folks will only be connecting at 4G. Most people don't need 100 MBS even though they think they do. I can stream anything without buffering over a Firestick and typically see download speeds of 25 meg and up so that is more than capable of streaming.

 

[bdhsfz6]

Except that the market Starlink is going after is not going to be likely served soon, if ever, by 5G. 5g requires antennas all over the place. The article mentions one has to be within 500m of a tower to get 5G. How many people in a rural area are within 500m of a cell tower. Not many. To get 5G, rural, city or suburb, there is going to have to be a large infrastructure of 5G antennas. This will make money sense in built up areas but in a rural area?

I have read of plans to install 5G antennae on power poles to build out the service area but that means the power company has to agree to the installation AND the cell company will have to figure out how they are going to pay for the power used by the antenna. One would think this would not be a issue but I would bet it will not be easy.

Starlink is NOT for people in the suburbs or cities. Those markets already have their broadband. 5G seems to be yet another broadband option for the city and some suburbs. 5G for rural areas? Maybe for some but I don't think we would see 5G any time soon, if ever, and we are near a tower that provides our 4G but not close enough for 5G. The cable company will not run cable down the road because there are not enough houses even though there is quite a bit of housing density. But not enough to make money sense for cable. Will it make money sense to install a few 5G antennas? One would think so but I will have Starlink well before we ever see 5G. If ever.

Later,
Dan

I'm not denying that Starlink may be the only option for many rural folk. IMO, the real issue is in the numbers. How many are there in rural areas, outside of cellular coverage, who are willing to pay $100/mo for 100+ broadband? I'm sure there are a great many but are there enough for Starlink to remain viable when they have to launch and maintain 43000 satellites? For the sake of us rural folk, I hope so.

Starlink already has many customers and a much larger number on a waiting list. How many of these will switch to cheaper 4 & 5G cellular broadband when and if it becomes available?

5 years ago, I would have agreed with you about cellular broadband being mostly for cities. I live in a rural county, 40 miles from the nearest city, where ATT, Verizon and T-Mobile now offer 4 & 5G coverage.

Cellular broadband is slowly creeping into rural locations around the globe and at half the price, it will only erode Starlinks potential marketshare.

 

[plowhog]

IMO, the real issue is in the numbers. How many are there in rural areas, outside of cellular coverage, who are willing to pay $100/mo for 100+ broadband?

My guess is that Starlink's long-term financial projections are for typical monthly fees far in excess of $100/mo. If correct, the current and existing $100/mo fees are only chum to get us all hooked.

What I find very surprising about the current environment is the seeming lack of any market moves, or any other response, by competing satellite providers like HughesNet. Not sure what to make of that ... if I were them I would not be sitting still.

 

[ponytug]

It is a global service, so the satellite that connects you is in Canada in five minutes and on to the other side of the globe. US customers are a piece of the whole business.

With the inter-satellite laser communication, maritime service becomes a reality, as does internet service to planes going over the pole(s).

Interactive map of the satellite orbits

All the best,

Peter

 

[ponytug]

My guess is that Starlink's long-term financial projections are for typical monthly fees far in excess of $100/mo. If correct, the current and existing $100/mo fees are only chum to get us all hooked.

What I find very surprising about the current environment is the seeming lack of any market moves, or any other response, by competing satellite providers like HughesNet. Not sure what to make of that ... if I were them I would not be sitting still.

The price advantages that Starlink has by riding its own reusable, and ride sharing, rocket are enormous. Are Technica and others have run the numbers and guesstimates are that Starlink has costs that are at least a tenth of anyone else's. Hughes might want to compete, but at this point, it is tough, as I think that the first mover advantage is definitely on Starlink's side. Just look at Kuiper or Virgin.

All the best,

Peter

 

[jk96]

I have yet to find anything I cant do on my 4G LTE with AT&T so 5G doesn't much matter to us. T Mobile touts their 5G Home Internet but in actuality rural folks will only be connecting at 4G. Most people don't need 100 MBS even though they think they do. I can stream anything without buffering over a Firestick and typically see download speeds of 25 meg and up so that is more than capable of streaming.

My household of 5 with 3 kids seems to disagree. Get 3 kids all streaming or gaming at the same time and try to watch a netflix movie with the wife and 100+ MBS is appreciated. No more issues now with fiber.

 

[Jchonline]

My household of 5 with 3 kids seems to disagree. Get 3 kids all streaming or gaming at the same time and try to watch a netflix movie with the wife and 100+ MBS is appreciated. No more issues now with fiber.

Yes and some of us are still working and need better speed for video conferencing. All different needs. So far Starlink has been great for us.

 

[BigBlue1]

Is anyone using smartphone advanced calling through Starlink? If so, how well does it work?

I presume it must work pretty well, as it works sort-of-OK through HughesNet. (although I am often tempted to say "over" after speaking because it is only semi-full duplex at best.)

If by 'advanced calling' you mean wifi calling, then yes. My Pixel phone defaults to that when I'm near a quality wifi connection. I never notice a difference.