IMHO: Much of the 'capacity' issues are due to up/downlink Ground Stations capacity - hence their 'waiting lists' in some areas.

Those of us with 'roaming' plans WITHOUT additional cost of 'priority' get shoved to the bottom of the heap - traffic wise.

Least ANYONE forget that land based services generally ALWAYS oversell whatever 'bandwidth' they have with their 'up to' claims being the operative word.

(I've personally witnessed a standard 19" telcomm DSL rack with a mere 10BT ethernet connection coming out of it...)

The 'cable' folks might be considered the worse, being that they have a single cable and countless subscribers being fed from it. Just watch your 'bandwidth' shrink to nearly non-existent during lunch time or every evening. LOL!!!

Hence the 'up to' claim, your being sold a 'possible' TX/RX speed and absolutely NOT actual bandwidth.

Don't agree with most of what Musk spews, but Starlink has been very reliable for me, and speeds range from 90-200 Mbps down.  Have played games, watched movies, downloaded updates, no issue.  Pay roughly twice what a competing landline service would charge, but there simply is no decent non-xDSL service where I live.  Grateful for the service.

Having said that, I would pay even more for a Fiber connection and would ditch Starlink in an instant.

Quote from: AlAIAIAIAIAIAI on December 16, 2024, 06:30:55Shill for a musko-friendly buk! Via bezos!! Why is Zuk left out ??

bozos and Zuckerberg are a holes  fake food depopulator and a censorship king shill to the democrap party

Quote from: Bruce on December 22, 2024, 05:09:39Starlink is a scam. In the US SpaceX charges 5x more than land- based lines, then says their "cells" are full and offers ONLY a "roaming" subscription for twice as much as the original overpriced  subscription. Classic "bait and switch."  Don't bite.

You are aware that satellite internet traditionally cost 10-100x more than landline while having much higher latency.

Roaming plan only costs ~40% more(120 vs 165), not double. There likely is bandwidth set aside for roamers to insure that when people roam there is bandwidth that isn't set aside for fixed.

End of the day, satellite internet is for people who live in rural or on the go. If you have access to landline, there is 0 reason to go satellite. While it may get cheaper in the future once more countries are activated(higher returns on satellite passes), larger rockets(put up more satellites at once) or simply improvements in tech. It is unlikely for satellite to ever be cheaper than landline. Even mobile internet is 2x more expensive than landline.

Just because a product isn't for everyone doesn't make it a scam.

Starlink is a scam. In the US SpaceX charges 5x more than land- based lines, then says their "cells" are full and offers ONLY a "roaming" subscription for twice as much as the original overpriced  subscription. Classic "bait and switch."  Don't bite.

Hi Mosk sir I am great fan of you sir, am INDIAN we also want your stalink's internet for INDIA, when it will be reached to INDIA
Tanking you sir
Akshay R

Shill for a musko-friendly buk! Via bezos!! Why is Zuk left out ??

Quote from: Dan Ridenhour on December 13, 2024, 21:58:54They need more sats / capacity in existing markets...  I love our starlink,  it has a really solid low latency connection...  but when I got it earlier this year I had 20ms pings, 100-150mbps down, 20-25mbps up...  8 months (and million of subscribers later) im getting 30ms pings, 50-60mbps down, 10-11mbps up.  Still low latency.   But so Im betting we are just bumping up against capacity limits. 

This was a trap 'spectrum' internet fell into...  every time they would advertise faster performance they would get more subscribers and my speed would go down...  talking to their techs it was because my node was saturated...   eventually I canceled their service because they kept promising (and charging) more but providing less. 

When I got starlink it was better all around than it is today for $100/mo.  now its $120/mo and providing less.   I know the plan is 1gbps downstream and I'm sticking around for that... but right now its going backwards.  In the short term its still a good thing as all those subscribers will fund growth.

Well the bright side is, how these low earth orbit satellites work is that they last 5-7 years then fall downs to earth. And new satellites launched with newer tech have more bandwidth.

QuoteThey need more sats / capacity in existing markets...  I love our starlink,  it has a really solid low latency connection...  but when I got it earlier this year I had 20ms pings, 100-150mbps down, 20-25mbps up...  8 months (and million of subscribers later) im getting 30ms pings, 50-60mbps down, 10-11mbps up.  Still low latency.  But so Im betting we are just bumping up against capacity limits.

not an engineer of telecomunications but to reduce data of spaceX traffic they can reach agreement with oneweb that is only 500km distance from spacex fleet satellites. unfortunately isn't written how much is the sensibility of the antenna of starlink, but I suppose is around 19-20dbD but i'm not sure. to reduce latency I'm that individual to be in favor of automatic tracking antenna with larger dish instead 23 cm^2 flat panel. If in V3 is automatic in direction to the nearest satellite and get direction to the next one in movement and has an area around 30-35 cm^2 with interconnection with Oneweb sats (1000 early sats) is better for consumer.
to not talk that must introduce plan of its minimun speed offers, like for our  providers that offer 100Mb/s or 1 Gbit/s where minimun speed is respectively 50Mb/s - 200Mb/s, to be more precise also in different weather conditions.

They need more sats / capacity in existing markets...  I love our starlink,  it has a really solid low latency connection...  but when I got it earlier this year I had 20ms pings, 100-150mbps down, 20-25mbps up...  8 months (and million of subscribers later) im getting 30ms pings, 50-60mbps down, 10-11mbps up.  Still low latency.   But so Im betting we are just bumping up against capacity limits. 

This was a trap 'spectrum' internet fell into...  every time they would advertise faster performance they would get more subscribers and my speed would go down...  talking to their techs it was because my node was saturated...   eventually I canceled their service because they kept promising (and charging) more but providing less. 

When I got starlink it was better all around than it is today for $100/mo.  now its $120/mo and providing less.   I know the plan is 1gbps downstream and I'm sticking around for that... but right now its going backwards.  In the short term its still a good thing as all those subscribers will fund growth.