/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22512180/npatel_20210512_4552_0030.jpg)
Starlink review: broadband dreams fall to Earth
The reality is a lot more irritating.
www.theverge.com
Starlink review...good article
- Thread starter glynnp
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 6K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
www.theverge.com
Geez! It's a voluntary beta test with the cost clearly stated up front. Only a fraction of the satellites are up, but going up regularly 60 at a time. When fully implemented it will fulfill its intended purpose to bring hi-speed low latency Internet to all of those in the world who have no other option. Criticism by those who have satisfactory hi-speed Internet now is absurd.
Yes for all of those who have unrestricted views of the sky all the time. I lived in Washington State where there were more trees than open ground. Starlink wouldn't work there. The system in it's current beta state is probably a godsend for rural areas with open skies and can only get better. Agree that a hi-speed user probably wouldn't be the most objective reviewer.
Last edited:
"In rural America, the situation is even worse: a combination of bad policy and greed"
Any article that has "greed" in it can be dismissed out of hand.
Maybe the "reviewer" of a product that's in beta test could try two things:
1. Find a place to put the Starlink dish that doesn't have an issue with trees and line of sight, and then review it. The review is a little like reviewing AT&T Fiber and saying it's not good because AT&T Fiber is not available at the reviewer's house.
2. Compare it to a wireless offering such as Unlimited High-Speed In-Home Internet Service Plans from T-Mobile and see which is better.
1. Find a place to put the Starlink dish that doesn't have an issue with trees and line of sight, and then review it. The review is a little like reviewing AT&T Fiber and saying it's not good because AT&T Fiber is not available at the reviewer's house.
2. Compare it to a wireless offering such as Unlimited High-Speed In-Home Internet Service Plans from T-Mobile and see which is better.
This pretty much matches a review on CNET, but at CNET, the reviewer did praise its performance out in the wild like a camping trip--he had NO TREES around him, though--but while he was amazed at the performance at home, he also found it suffering during interruptions of over and hour--AND how, while he really liked Starlink, he found it not necessarily a good service for NON-rural folk because of situations like his where he had to put the dish in his car in the apartment parking lot--the only place he could get access to the satellites--and run a cable to his apartment.
Yes, Starlink has planned on rural users as its core customer base, but it is sad that it can't be a real competitor to cable companies who in far too many locations is the ONLY fast ISP option: a MONOPOLY.
I just don't like the idea of polluting the skies with those tiny satellites obstructing astronomers views AND the waste of producing all those tiny sats to have them end their lives--what, I don't know, burning up as they fall to earth?
But I find all those YOUNG snotty Elon fans to be hypocrites because they are the same people crying about our environment and the dangers of Climate Change and want us to stop consuming Dairy, and yet, their beloved Starlink is a GROSS POLLUTOR. The irony.
Yes, Starlink has planned on rural users as its core customer base, but it is sad that it can't be a real competitor to cable companies who in far too many locations is the ONLY fast ISP option: a MONOPOLY.
I just don't like the idea of polluting the skies with those tiny satellites obstructing astronomers views AND the waste of producing all those tiny sats to have them end their lives--what, I don't know, burning up as they fall to earth?
But I find all those YOUNG snotty Elon fans to be hypocrites because they are the same people crying about our environment and the dangers of Climate Change and want us to stop consuming Dairy, and yet, their beloved Starlink is a GROSS POLLUTOR. The irony.
Why? What else would you call collecting surcharges for rural access, and not delivering it? It's a handout, and greed. Period.
What about us old Elon fans that appreciate the fact that he's constantly trying to find innovative ways to benefit people?
I suppose we could dig up the Scott Manley video on “demisable” satellites from several pages back in this thread, but when each Starlink satellite reaches the end of its service life, it is deorbited and completely burns up in the upper atmosphere.
Now, to get the 60 Starlink satellites up into orbit, the Falcon 9 burns 112,000 Kg of RP-1, producing over 335,000 Kg of CO2 (but, I would point out, not all of that CO2 ends up in the lower atmosphere) which someone calculated is equivalent to a Boeing 777 flying across the Atlantic (and all of that CO2 remains in the lower levels of the atmosphere). Plus, since Falcon has to carry its own oxidizer unlike the 777, its exhaust is actually “cleaner” since there are no Nitrogen Oxides produced.
And, since SpaceX doesn’t use Solid Rocket Boosters (unlike a certain three-lettered-acronym company up the Cape) there aren’t the Aluminum oxides and other nasty combustion products from such a launch. I’ll be curious to see what the CO2 impact will be from Starship’s use of Methane (less Carbon.
Regarding the Verge article, Lon.TV had an editorial response:
Now, to get the 60 Starlink satellites up into orbit, the Falcon 9 burns 112,000 Kg of RP-1, producing over 335,000 Kg of CO2 (but, I would point out, not all of that CO2 ends up in the lower atmosphere) which someone calculated is equivalent to a Boeing 777 flying across the Atlantic (and all of that CO2 remains in the lower levels of the atmosphere). Plus, since Falcon has to carry its own oxidizer unlike the 777, its exhaust is actually “cleaner” since there are no Nitrogen Oxides produced.
And, since SpaceX doesn’t use Solid Rocket Boosters (unlike a certain three-lettered-acronym company up the Cape) there aren’t the Aluminum oxides and other nasty combustion products from such a launch. I’ll be curious to see what the CO2 impact will be from Starship’s use of Methane (less Carbon.
Regarding the Verge article, Lon.TV had an editorial response:
I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:
Why pigeons mean peril for satellite broadband - Why pigeons mean peril for satellite broadband
Why pigeons mean peril for satellite broadband - Why pigeons mean peril for satellite broadband
I read that earlier and the thing is, the writer never actually observed pigeons on his dishy. So I remain skeptical.
Didn't you hear? Dishy has a protective pigeon poop proof coating. Elon thought of everything.
That's spelled "clickbait".
There is indeed a wealth of information scattered throughout the article. The fact that they've only shipped 100,000 terminals came as a surprise to me. I can envision individual states having more terminals than that.
The scary stuff lies in all of the plans to launch more satellites from other companies. There will be serious issues if they get upwards of 5,000 LEO satellites floating around (even if each company chooses a different orbital elevation).
I'd think it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with an RF transparent bird resistant shield for the flat surface. Maybe just a "teepee" of thin plastic legs. If I had the problem, and had Starlink for that matter, I'd give it a test using simple plastic straws if they can still be found anywhere.
