Maybe they can use the motorized gimbal to shake off snow.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:24 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is tilted, and I don't think it's flat. It's more like a dome.
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 7/15/2020 3:18 PM, Robert Andrews wrote:
> > What I noticed is the flat surface of the "UFO".. Gonna get some snow
> > on that without a heater...
> >
> > On 07/15/2020 12:00 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> >> So are they looking at it from the mobile wireless perspective, where
> >> speeds are aspirational, “up to”, or “on a good day”? Or from the
> >> home Internet perspective, where people run speedtests and bitch if
> >> they don’t get what they’re paying for?
> >>
> >> Who has ever gotten a refund or cancelled a 12 month contract on a
> >> cellphone because the speed didn’t match the marketing?
> >>
> >> And of course with any new service, whether it’s satellite or 5G, the
> >> early adopters will probably get fantastic speeds because there’s
> >> nobody else on the network. Let’s face it, WISPs do this too. Who
> >> hasn’t had a new WISP pop up in your area advertising speeds that
> >> sound like every subscriber gets the full capacity of the AP at max
> >> modulation. And how many reviews do you see that say the WISP was
> >> fast at first and then the speeds just got slower and slower.
> >>
> >> *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:42 PM
> >> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
> >>
> >> The FCC allowed them 2Ghz of bandwidth for the satellite to user
> >> terminal. 20Gbps must assume 10 bits/hz. Or maybe they mean a
> >> different sense of "capacity". The journalistic sources are never
> >> precise about these things.
> >>
> >> I've been assuming that just like any other wireless you can't put
> >> the same channel into the exact same location at the same time, or
> >> else they would interfere. So they might simplify and say "20 Gbps
> >> per satellite", but I think it's really going to be "20Gbps for a
> >> given geographic area". I don't know how big that area will be, but
> >> the smaller the satellite is, the smaller the antenna has to be, and
> >> then of course the wider the beam is. I imagine each satellite won't
> >> use the full 2ghz, but maybe dozens of satellites over a certain area
> >> will each use their own non-interfering chunk.
> >>
> >> ....I'll freely admit that I'm filling in blanks left by the articles
> >> I've seen. Maybe there are additional details to explain how they're
> >> solving these problems, but I suspect the 20Gb per satellite is not
> >> going to be meaningful. It'll be 20Gb total for a region of some size.
> >>
> >> On 7/15/2020 1:32 PM, Colin Stanners wrote:
> >>
> >> Doing some math:
> >>
> >> 40K subscribers on 60 satellites is 666 subs/satellite if equally
> >> loaded. But load is far from equal, the planet surface is 70% water.
> >> I don't know how much the "standard" orbit is over water but let's
> >> say 50% as it's further from the poles. Say that at any point in
> >> time, around half the satellites will be barely useful (except for
> >> cruise ships, and overseas aircraft service) due to being over water
> >> and ground obstructions.
> >>
> >> So a more accurate number is 1300 subs/well-positioned satellite,
> >> assuming for simplicity that subs are equally physically spread out.
> >>
> >> The numbers that I saw state that every satellite has 20Gbps
> >> capacity, let's assume that that is downlink subscriber capacity at
> >> maximum modulation, and that the backhaul to the ground station is
> >> fully available to that satellite and also 20Gbps at max modulation.
> >> 20Gbps / 1300 subs is 15mbit per sub, assuming that everyone's using
> >> it simultaneously.
> >>
> >> But there are the issues with wireless in general, added to those
> >> about customer self-installs (shudder), and satellite service:
> >> mainly subs having trees or obstructions in the way, blocking or
> >> reducing LoS to at least part of the sky where their hand-off
> >> satellite should be, and rain. I'd say that altogether that a more
> >> realistic number with those is 8-12mbit per user.
> >>
> >> Being generous, 12Mbit average per sub: not bad these days,
> >> considering the traffic patterns at peak time (1/3rd subscribers
> >> using Netflix / D+ / etc with 1-3 streams at HD or 4K) I'd assume
> >> that from that they could sell mostly 30-70mbit download speed plans
> >> without too much consternation. But as traffic keeps increasing,
> >> over time they may run out of capacity for the higher plans and
> >> decide to reduce.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:58 AM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com
> >> <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> There are some details in this story that were new to me. One of
> >> the
> >> ones that popped up was that each group of 60 Starlink
> >> satellites is
> >> expected to support ~~ 40,000 subscribers.
> >>
> >> That puts the 800 satellite "moderate service level" at
> >> supporting about
> >> half a million subscribers (~~ 533,000).
> >>
> >> In order to support a million subscribers, they will need about
> >> 1500
> >> satellites.
> >>
> >>
> https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-router-fcc?_pos=19&_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r
> >>
> >> --
> >> bp
> >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- AF mailing list
> >> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
