Starlink

[plowhog]

"some" users actually require high bandwidth pipes...

OK sounds good. I'm looking for the higher bandwidth Starlink will deliver, if it ever gets here ...

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I would bet that very few residential users have 4k security cams...4k cams cost 10-20 times as much as standard HD cams...

4K cameras are now the standard

 

[/pine]

4K cameras are now the standard

Maybe for CCTV systems...I doubt they sell many 4K + IP cams in rural areas where there is no high bandwidth services...thus the Starlink mission...

FWIW...I watched a SpaceX video discussing Starlink and they are saying they hope to reduce the cost of the gen 2 receivers down from $500 to $250-$300....
...They also said that only the new (not launched yet) satellites actually utilize sat to sat laser technology...

The video is available on Youtube TV and was released two days ago...

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Most people only record in the highest resolution, so it’s on their local network. The remote feed does not need to be the highest resolution.

 

[cqaigy2]

Most people only record in the highest resolution, so it’s on their local network. The remote feed does not need to be the highest resolution.

Probably true.
Mine does both low and hi resolution. Low resolution gets recorded over 30 day, the high resolution get recorded over after a short interval, unless triggered, that stays around till i delete it.

 

[BigBlue1]

Thank you for the good information. Very helpful.

My prime Starlink dish location, unobstructed sky view, is 400 ft. from my residence. So I will get power out there, and plan to install ethernet/fiber modems since it exceeds the max Cat6 distance.

I noticed on Reddit they use 56V power. Not sure, but I think typical POE is 48V. Hmm.

Q1- Re: the Starlink router- does it do typical router tasks like port forwarding?

Q2- Is the user's Starlink IP address static (doubt it) or otherwise remotely addressable, so you could use a DynDns program to know how to get to it? I want to remotely connect to check status of various things (like power) and view IP cameras. HughesNet and their double layer system makes this very difficult, although not impossible. Hoping Starlink doesn't put similar roadblocks in the way.

Your idea of supplying power within 100ft of the dish and then doing fiber conversion on the back side of the controller to make the long run is what I've seen other folks do or talk about on Reddit. That is a good idea.

The Starlink router is locked down. No admin interface beyond choosing the network name, WPA3 and whether to separate the 2.4 and 5 GHz networks. You can put your own router in place of it without issue (though you may have to add a static route to get to the Starlink controller's stats/debug info) or you can add your own router after the Starlink router.

The IP assigned is not static and I don't believe you can access it remotely, or at least not easily.

Rob

 

[plowhog]

The Starlink router is locked down. No admin interface ... add your own router after the Starlink router.

Sorry to hear there is no admin access.

It is unclear (to me) if the Starlink device called a "router" is truly a router. (I've never seen their device yet.) If others are using their own router, that makes me wonder if the Starlink device is *not* a router. (Not recommended to run a 2nd router behind a 1st router.) But ... the Starlink device also provides wifi, which is more than a plain vanilla computer modem would do. Hmmm.

No admin interface means no access to port forwarding, firewall rules, or ability to put it into bridge mode for a clean implementation of your own router. Very curious.

Some who have studied the circuitry have discovered where a likely USB serial interface is, although the supporting hardware is not on the board. Maybe they purposely removed that supporting hardware as they probably don't want tens of thousands of users fiddling with system options in their beta period.

 

[BigBlue1]

Sorry to hear there is no admin access.

It is unclear (to me) if the Starlink device called a "router" is truly a router. (I've never seen their device yet.) If others are using their own router, that makes me wonder if the Starlink device is *not* a router. (Not recommended to run a 2nd router behind a 1st router.) But ... the Starlink device also provides wifi, which is more than a plain vanilla computer modem would do. Hmmm.

No admin interface means no access to port forwarding, firewall rules, or ability to put it into bridge mode for a clean implementation of your own router. Very curious.

Some who have studied the circuitry have discovered where a likely USB serial interface is, although the supporting hardware is not on the board. Maybe they purposely removed that supporting hardware as they probably don't want tens of thousands of users fiddling with system options in their beta period.

It certainly seems to be a 'typical' router. It provides a wifi network and allows one ethernet port that you can use for plugging in an endpoint or another router. It just doesn't have an admin page accessible. It is also an optional piece of the setup. Not required.

I've used multiple routers linked together for years without issue. My primary setup before Starlink was an Nighthawk LTE modem (which is also a wifi router and has an ethernet port) connected to a standard ASUS router. Then later I added a TP-Link Deco mesh system behind the Asus for better whole house coverage. I originally layered them like that because I needed better wifi than the Nighthawk or Asus could provide and a hardwired ethernet connection which the Asus provided but the Deco does not. Now I have the Deco system behind the Starlink router and all is well. Speeds are essentially the same through the Deco mesh as they are direct to the Starlink router. Two of us work full time through this setup, one via VPN and one via Citrix, splendidly, including tons of WebEx/Zoom/Teams meetings and VOIP. X-Box and Playstation gaming and Netflix/Prime/Hulu streaming all work fine as well.

If you don't like the Starlink router you can unplug it and plug your own router into the ethernet cable coming off the Starlink controller. Think of the controller as a cable modem or DSL modem. If you want more opinions, experience and expertise on this stuff go over to r/Starlink on Reddit.

As for the 'no admin access' side of it, I think they are trying to make the setup very simple for anyone to use. Like Apple does with their products. So that Grandma who lives out on the farm can order one, unbox it and have it running very quickly. Advanced users can enhance the setup as desired by replacing the router.

Rob

 

[plowhog]

Now I have the Deco system behind the Starlink router and all is well.

OK good to know. Couple of questions:

Is your Starlink router performing routing functions? How can you port forward without admin access?

With your router-behind-a-router setup, do the secondary routers go into bridge mode or access point mode? I'm a little confused how more than one device could be doing routing functions without collisions, or without multiple VLANs.

btw, I would like to add a mesh network when Starlink arrives. Do you like the Deco system?

 

[shooterdon]

Too much garbeldygook for this old man to deal with.

My take...I have not heard anyone not liking StarLink...yet.

I have crap service so I "got bent over the log" and sent them $99 a couple of months ago to get in line. They may honor that or not...

My power company mapped out our area for Fiber optic but no idea if and when I will get it. So StarLink gives me something to look forward to.

I have no "high end" expectations as I doubt I could understand most of them anyway. I need internet for computers, tablets. phone and TV streaming. $500 and $99 per month is worth it to me if it works.