Starlink

[ponytug]

The older Verizon LTE modems had an Ethernet port, the new "cube" modem doesn't. I was just about to buy one last fall and discovered that wrinkle.

All the best,

Peter

 

[Rebeldad1]

Ok.. i am pretty lost when it comes to routers and stuff.

I'm reading here that some of you have replaced your Starlink router with another. Some of you have added a second router plugged into the Starlink router. Both of which have greatly increased coverage.

My question(s)

which is better replacing or adding a new router to the Starlink router?
and
What make/model router did you add that increased coverage?

I need to do something and adding or replacing a router may be something I can do.

Thanks!!

 

[ponytug]

@Rebeldad1 I guess my first question is why do you want to replace the Starlink router?

The original (round antenna dish) Starlink could be used without the Starlink supplied router.

The new (rectangular antenna) have to be used with their routers, and as of this moment, they cannot be used in a bridge mode, so you would need to set whatever your new router is to get DHCP from its WAN port (Starlink's new accessory $20 Ethernet adapter). The new Starlink router is a 3x3 MIMO, so it should provide relatively high performance WiFi for most users.

If you are trying to get signal to remote corners of your home, WiFi repeaters may do what you need.

All the best,

Peter

 

[WM75Guy]

The older Verizon LTE modems had an Ethernet port, the new "cube" modem doesn't. I was just about to buy one last fall and discovered that wrinkle.

All the best,

Peter

My Verizon LTE Home cube modem that I just received has 2 ethernet RJ45 ports on the bottom, next to the power plug. My desktop computer is hardwired to it.

 

[ponytug]

My Verizon LTE Home cube modem that I just received has 2 ethernet RJ45 ports on the bottom, next to the power plug. My desktop computer is hardwired to it.

I am glad to hear that they changed the design!

All the best, Peter

 

[WM75Guy]

If you have thick cables the gateway doesn't sit flat I have found. Also it puts a bit of a bend in the cables.

 

[kcflhrc]

My neighbor got his T-Mobile Gateway this weekend. It is a Model # KVD21. It has 2 ethernet ports and a USB port on it. He has 4 bars of signal strength and ran a speed test of 34 down and 4 up. Being rural as we are that is obviously LTE Speeds he is seeing so no 5G out here yet. But for $50 a month a great alternative to nothing. I'm still using the Mobley Plan with that SIM in a Netgear modem and I typically see 25 to 30 down and 5 to 10 up so the TM Device isn't that much better for me to want to change and spend more money for basically the same speeds. I think my Mobley bill from AT&T is $23 a month

 

[John_Mc]

Anyone that has put down a deposit for a system is a customer not a potential customer.

Which is exactly why I said "they did an extremely poor job of communicating with potential customers and those who were on the wait list" (emphasis added).

It was a pain in the butt not knowing when it would arrive, but knowing would not have made it come any faster - and diverting resources to something that would not get more dishes out the door probably did not make sense to them.

There response to any problems once I did get the dish has been stellar... which is a whole lot more than I can say to our phone company who was providing our DSL before. The system went down so frequently that I was on a first name basis with the repair guys in our area. I knew what position his daughter played on the high school basketball team and was able to keep up with how the team was doing just from hearing reports during his frequent visits.

 

[plowhog]

There response to any problems once I did get the dish has been stellar... which is a whole lot more than I can say to our phone company

Our ATT land line in CA went out of service right about new year's. ATT says it will be fixed by Feb 1st.

 

[plowhog]

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.)

 

[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.