RC request for Starlink

[orville99]

53 minutes ago, Ozark_Kid said:

I understand that.  I guess the better way to ask, how far off shore can FCC rule over a cruise ship. 

As long as the ship is using a device controlled by a company under FCC control that is being used in a way ruled illegal by the FCC, anywhere on the planet.

[BecciBoo]

15 hours ago, Ozark_Kid said:

I am in Batesville so you would think it would be good here too.  Does it do good on cloudy day or stormy day.  Have you ever tested the download speed?

Todd is IT guy, today's speed test yielded 94, it's a hot clear day except for the smoke in the air.  They're doing some burning somewhere.  Rainy days it may be in the 70's or 80' but very little interference.  Maybe a couple of buffering episodes during a thunderstorm.  Todd says this area is not done yet, more satellites should be deployed, maybe that's what you're experiencing.

[BecciBoo]

1 hour ago, bobmacliberty said:

Starlink needs to follow FCC rules no matter where the customer is located.  Dumb.  I can't think of any technical or safety reasons to limit customers to being stationary, but maybe one exists. 

It's a government agency, what do you expect...everything they do is dumb!  Oops this is not a political statement, only an observation!😘

[twangster]

Royal's request to the FCC isn't specific to Royal's use case.  Royal isn't making an application with the FCC, it's simply a letter urging the FCC to review and approve Starlink's application for mobile use.  

 

Mobile use is different than stationary use as there are implications for mobile earth stations that don't exist compared to stationary earth stations.  

 

An errant transmitter on the ground can disrupt other satellites belonging to other companies if the uplink beam isn't properly controlled.  Satellite signal are extremely weak so an errant earth station beaming it's signal in the wrong direction could impact other providers.  

 

With a stationary antenna the electronics that control the uplink transmitter can be programmed to only transit when the antenna is properly receiving a signal from the right satellite.  That safeguard prevents an earth station from errantly beaming it's signal against other satellites.  

 

On a pleasure craft that is bobbing in the waves a satellite transmitter could be spewing it's signal all over the heavens and hitting satellites belonging to other organizations.   The software can't react fast enough to wild changes in attitude.  There needs to be a proper study and protocols established to prevent mobile stations from impacting other satellites belonging to other companies.  

 

While Royal intends to use this on ships that don't bob in the waves like a 20' center console does, Starlink's application includes all mobile uses cases on moving vehicles, planes and boats.

 

There are people right now taking their home based stationary Starlink systems and strapping them to their boats.  That isn't allowed per the terms and conditions of the Starlink consumer agreement but Bubba doesn't care.  Bubba wants internet on his boat.  

 

Dish wants to ensure that Starlink is properly shutting down and terminating any earth stations that aren't being used properly and for good reason.  If enough Bubba's do this it could take down or degrade the satellites belonging to other companies, specifically other satellites networks that other companies are also trying to launch as competitors to Starlink.  They are not the only company trying to build a LEO mesh of small satellites.

 

In summary:  Royal isn't making an application with the FCC, they are urging the FCC to approve Starlink's mobility plans but other companies like Dish have an interest in this and are asking the FCC to slow down and take time to ensure all the proper safeguards are established for all players in this arena as they relate to satellite internet mobility.  

[BecciBoo]

3 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

People are buying internet package at record rates. No way would they make internet free. Plus Starlink ain't cheap.

It is compared to what we were paying!  It's saving us almost $200 a month.  Of course we did not have fiber here yet.  So we used our ATT for TV with Directv.  But very limited on data, I had to watch my streaming and internet usage (youtube etc), now I can stay online 24/7.  HAHA

[twangster]

2 minutes ago, BecciBoo said:

It is compared to what we were paying!  It's saving us almost $200 a month.  Of course we did not have fiber here yet.  So we used our ATT for TV with Directv.  But very limited on data, I had to watch my streaming and internet usage (youtube etc), now I can stay online 24/7.  HAHA

 

I pay $40 for 400Mbs down with no usage limits.  For $30 more I could have gigabit speeds but I don't need gigabit. 

 

How much do you pay?  🙂

 

Compared to other providers in more urban areas, Starlink is wicked expensive.  That's the nature of satellite networks.  They are not cheap to deploy or maintain.  It won't be free anytime soon as it's a profit center for Elon.  Our government is paying for most of the cost of Starlink so military use cases around the globe can be connected.  Consumers are gravy for Elon and Elon loves his gravy.

 

[bobmacliberty]

1 hour ago, twangster said:

Royal's request to the FCC isn't specific to Royal's use case.  Royal isn't making an application with the FCC, it's simply a letter urging the FCC to review and approve Starlink's application for mobile use.  

 

Mobile use is different than stationary use as there are implications for mobile earth stations that don't exist compared to stationary earth stations.  

 

An errant transmitter on the ground can disrupt other satellites belonging to other companies if the uplink beam isn't properly controlled.  Satellite signal are extremely weak so an errant earth station beaming it's signal in the wrong direction could impact other providers.  

 

With a stationary antenna the electronics that control the uplink transmitter can be programmed to only transit when the antenna is properly receiving a signal from the right satellite.  That safeguard prevents an earth station from errantly beaming it's signal against other satellites.  

 

On a pleasure craft that is bobbing in the waves a satellite transmitter could be spewing it's signal all over the heavens and hitting satellites belonging to other organizations.   The software can't react fast enough to wild changes in attitude.  There needs to be a proper study and protocols established to prevent mobile stations from impacting other satellites belonging to other companies.  

 

While Royal intends to use this on ships that don't bob in the waves like a 20' center console does, Starlink's application includes all mobile uses cases on moving vehicles, planes and boats.

 

There are people right now taking their home based stationary Starlink systems and strapping them to their boats.  That isn't allowed per the terms and conditions of the Starlink consumer agreement but Bubba doesn't care.  Bubba wants internet on his boat.  

 

Dish wants to ensure that Starlink is properly shutting down and terminating any earth stations that aren't being used properly and for good reason.  If enough Bubba's do this it could take down or degrade the satellites belonging to other companies, specifically other satellites networks that other companies are also trying to launch as competitors to Starlink.  They are not the only company trying to build a LEO mesh of small satellites.

 

In summary:  Royal isn't making an application with the FCC, they are urging the FCC to approve Starlink's mobility plans but other companies like Dish have an interest in this and are asking the FCC to slow down and take time to ensure all the proper safeguards are established for all players in this arena as they relate to satellite internet mobility.  

 

57 minutes ago, twangster said:

Compared to other providers in more urban areas, Starlink is wicked expensive.  That's the nature of satellite networks.  They are not cheap to deploy or maintain.  It won't be free anytime soon as it's a profit center for Elon.  Our government is paying for most of the cost of Starlink so military use cases around the globe can be connected.  Consumers are gravy for Elon and Elon loves his gravy.

 

 

Very helpful reply @twangster.  My understanding is that Starlink dishes are self aligning (i.e. will physically move) but also use beam forming to ensure an optimal link.  The boat owners in the video that I watched completely removed the mounting and rotating parts that came with the dish and actually modified the back of the antenna casing to attach a new mounting plate (certainly completely voiding the warranty...don't try this at home).  The beam forming seems to adjust quickly enough as the boat bobs up and down.  It would seem that Starlink has the hardware and software things needed to ensure that their antennas do not cause problems with other satellites.  Maybe the FCC is just waiting on testing, or perhaps some fixes from previous tests that have already been run, before ensuring that Starlink antennas are safe on moving vehicles (or at least for exception cases like a cruise ship).

 

Starlink is certainly expensive when compared to what you and I pay for our service, but it's a god send for people in less urban areas.  My BIL lives in an rural part of Pennsylvania.  His satellite internet service was slow and unreliable.  He loves Starlink and I don't think it's a whole lot more expensive than what he was paying.

 

[John&LaLa]

At two of these a month, we should see full coverage in 2-3 years

[Ozark_Kid]

I thought RC internet was already from a satellite. 

[bobmacliberty]

10 minutes ago, Ozark_Kid said:

I thought RC internet was already from a satellite. 

 

Current RC internet is from high orbit geosynchronous satellites.  Starlink uses a constellation of thousands (currently 2,000+ but planned for 10,000+) low orbit satellites.  Faster speeds and much lower latencies.

[Fontaid]

The overall solution seems to be pretty simple and relatively cheap. Just require a gyro stabilizer on dishes located on moving platforms like cruise ships (or even much smaller boats). The politics may be more difficult though.

[Biker19]

1 hour ago, bobmacliberty said:

Current RC internet is from high orbit geosynchronous satellites

About 1/2 the fleet is on O3B medium orbit sats.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Biker19

[John&LaLa]

8 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

About 1/2 the fleet is on O3B medium orbit sats.

 

And there's a new O3b coming online this summer. Seems to me Royal would be better off with that for now.

 

Still think this 'request' is an olive branch for Harmony debacle earlier this year

[Big_G]

23 hours ago, Ozark_Kid said:

I am in Batesville so you would think it would be good here too.  Does it do good on cloudy day or stormy day.  Have you ever tested the download speed?

 

If you search on Youtube for Starlink reviews there's some good ones out there.

[Sunshine3601]

8 hours ago, twangster said:

 

I pay $40 for 400Mbs down with no usage limits.  For $30 more I could have gigabit speeds but I don't need gigabit. 

 

How much do you pay?  🙂

 

Compared to other providers in more urban areas, Starlink is wicked expensive. 

 

When I go to starlink.com says $110 per month.   That's a lot more than what I pay now.   

[bobmacliberty]

9 hours ago, Sunshine3601 said:

When I go to starlink.com says $110 per month.   That's a lot more than what I pay now.   

 

I think a better comparison would be against HughesNet, the primary satellite service provider.  

[orville99]

18 hours ago, twangster said:

I pay $40 for 400Mbs down with no usage limits.  For $30 more I could have gigabit speeds but I don't need gigabit. 

We pay $50/month for 1Gig (fiber) from Smart City.  We were paying $100+/month for AT&T Satellite before we switched.

[flamingos]

On 6/14/2022 at 2:35 PM, BecciBoo said:

We use it here in Northern Arkansas, it's the berries!  It is saving us hundreds of $$ over ATT hot spot and gives us limitless data.  Elon is our hero.  We also have Philo, Prime TV, Disney+ and Hulu now that we are Starlink.  This would be fantastic.

Question: the services that require a membership fee, like Disney+ - you still have to subscribe, correct?  I ask because in the early days of satellite people were just grabbing all the live feeds without actually paying.  🙂

[twangster]

13 minutes ago, flamingos said:

Question: the services that require a membership fee, like Disney+ - you still have to subscribe, correct?  I ask because in the early days of satellite people were just grabbing all the live feeds without actually paying.  🙂

 

I think it was the broadcast signals of pay TV on providers like DirecTV and Dish where the protection algorithms were easy to crack and that's how paid satellite TV services were being stolen.  Same with Cable TV back in the day.  The scrambling of the pay TV channels was weak and easy to overcome for those that were proud to be pirates.  That was then and it's not as easy to steal these services now.

 

In modern times Disney +, Netflix, Hulu, etc. are subscription services that use the internet for delivery.  With HughesNet those services would quickly consume the monthly bucket of data leading to massive overages so while the technology could deliver them, the overage fees from HughesNet killed them for HughesNet users.  Starlink doesn't have the same usage or overage fee issue so these services become practical to Starlink users.

[flamingos]

8 minutes ago, twangster said:

 

I think it was the broadcast signals of pay TV on providers like DirecTV and Dish where the protection algorithms were easy to crack and that's how paid satellite TV services were being stolen.  Same with Cable TV back in the day.  The scrambling of the pay TV channels was weak and easy to overcome for those that were proud to be pirates.  That was then and it's not as easy to steal these services now.

 

In modern times Disney +, Netflix, Hulu, etc. are subscription services that use the internet for delivery.  With HughesNet those services would quickly consume the monthly bucket of data leading to massive overages so while the technology could deliver them, the overage fees from HughesNet killed them for HughesNet users.  Starlink doesn't have the same usage or overage fee issue so these services become practical to Starlink users.

Thanks.  

[orville99]

36 minutes ago, twangster said:

In modern times Disney +, Netflix, Hulu, etc. are subscription services that use the internet for delivery.  With HughesNet those services would quickly consume the monthly bucket of data

It is important to note that with Satellite services like DirecTV, Dish and fiber services like Spectrum, the delivery of content and the delivery of Internet are separate entities, and when we had DirecTV we paid well in excess of $100/ month for their content and another $70/month for our internet service (Comcast). We switched to Smart City 1 Gig fiber ($50/month) and Hulu Live @$70/month (which now includes Disney+, ESPN+) with no data caps or data throttles, and at last check we have ~30 separate devices interconnected on our internet router with no disruptions or slowdowns.

[twangster]

It could be Royal is looking for how to get Icon connected.   SES/O3b is out of capacity and they continue to delay the in-service dates for their planned expansion. 

 

Majesty was O3b and CocoCay used to have it's own O3b station.  Those were both used to get Odyssey and Wonder connected.  Looking down the pipe how will they get Icon connected if SES/O3b hasn't finished their expansion in time?  Starlink may be the answer but they need the FCC to move Starlink's application along.  It would be a shame to launch Icon with only Speedcast legacy satellite technology used on the older ships that everyone complains about.  

 

Celebrity is also in dire need of migrating off Speedcast.  RCG may be behind this looking beyond just RCI.  

 

 

Edited June 16, 2022 by twangster

[RedIguana]

22 hours ago, BecciBoo said:

Todd is IT guy, today's speed test yielded 94, it's a hot clear day except for the smoke in the air.  They're doing some burning somewhere.  Rainy days it may be in the 70's or 80' but very little interference.  Maybe a couple of buffering episodes during a thunderstorm.  Todd says this area is not done yet, more satellites should be deployed, maybe that's what you're experiencing.

Speed (latency) should go up on Rainy days, not down.

[Ozark_Kid]

1 hour ago, RedIguana said:

Speed (latency) should go up on Rainy days, not down.

@BecciBoo is showing the download speed.  Latency is response time which is the ping measurement you see on a speed test.  Download and upload speeds will go down when there is interference like rain/storm.

[Rewind]

3 hours ago, twangster said:

Majesty was O3b and CocoCay used to have it's own O3b station. 

 

Was just at CocoCay and when we got onto the dock saw a thin cable running down from deck 4 to a small little telephone box on the pier.  Made sense later while sitting on the beach that both ships extend their network to CocoCay and CocoCay doesn't need it's own.