FCC clears starlink high speed internet for moving vehicles including ships, will X FINALLY get descent internet?

[NutsAboutGolf]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-approves-spacexs-starlink-internet-231514675.html

 

You may not care about the on board internet speed, having on board internet at all or Elon Musk, yet this is really good news for not only passengers but also for the crew.  Most likely all the big lines will get Starlink since there seems to be no other options; maybe the Ascent or their 5th E-Class ship will deploy with it?

[WestLakeGirl]

Much earlier discussion here

 

[NutsAboutGolf]

Thanks, I was a part of that discussion yet a big hurdle of FCC approval is gone as of today

[mac_tlc]

Someone went of Freedom of the Seas, where they apparently are testing Starlink. Speeds were impressive, at least for a cruise ship. 

 

I'll get excited if the price is reasonable ---- so I probably won't be excited. 

 

 

mac_tlc

Edited July 1, 2022 by mac_tlc

[NutsAboutGolf]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:19 AM, mac_tlc said:

Someone went of Freedom of the Seas, where they apparently are testing Starlink. Speeds were impressive, at least for a cruise ship. 

 

I'll get excited if the price is reasonable ---- so I probably won't be excited. 

 

 

mac_tlc

Yes and hopefully speeds continue to increase over time 

[Jim_Iain]

I fully expect them to as the recently did the first sea trial and were part of the application to the FCC.

 

The real questions raised on the nerd sites I follow is

 

How will Starlik work under stress with potential 1,000 of simultaneous users.

 

Will the cruise lines create a create a new pricing tier for "UltraHigh Speed".

 

My understanding is the cost at least on land is is $110 per month (90 MPS) which I believe is higher than many of us pay for that speed of service. 

[NutsAboutGolf]

2 minutes ago, Jim_Iain said:

I fully expect them to as the recently did the first sea trial and were part of the application to the FCC.

 

The real questions raised on the nerd sites I follow is

 

How will Starlik work under stress with potential 1,000 of simultaneous users.

 

Will the cruise lines create a create a new pricing tier for "UltraHigh Speed".

 

My understanding is the cost at least on land is is $110 per month (90 MPS) which I believe is higher than many of us pay for that speed of service. 

I’d have to imagine there’s already solutions or else they wouldn’t be piloting it; Hawaiian airlines also plans to use it.  I can’t imagine X will give fast Wi-Fi away for free like most land based hotels and I could see them doing a “good, better & best” sales model.

[canderson]

1 hour ago, Jim_Iain said:

I fully expect them to as the recently did the first sea trial and were part of the application to the FCC.

 

The real questions raised on the nerd sites I follow is

 

How will Starlik work under stress with potential 1,000 of simultaneous users.

 

Will the cruise lines create a create a new pricing tier for "UltraHigh Speed".

 

My understanding is the cost at least on land is is $110 per month (90 MPS) which I believe is higher than many of us pay for that speed of service. 

Already, any given location on the ground is typically covered, at least marginally, by more than 1 StarLink satellite, and the number visible (with a decent horizon) at any given point on the Earth will continue to grow over time.  So there's no reason to assume that a single 20Gbps would be all that is available to be shared by a ship and anything else in the area.  It's a matter of how many 'terminals' a line wants to use to equip a ship, and how many satellites are within 'view'.  As a rule of thumb, assume each satellite can handle an area of about 160 miles in diameter (20,000 square miles).  That alone, ignoring shared bandwidth requirements in a given geographical area, blows out the earlier suggestion that fewer are needed for the mission at hand than will be aloft.  The surface of the Earth is some 197 MILLION square miles.  It takes nearly 10,000 LEO sats to cover uniformly with single satellite coverage ... one coat of paint, if you will.

 

There have been prices tossed about for commercial 'in motion' service, but nothing official yet, and I'm sure that those will be negotiated with Starlink on a case by case basis.  There's a boatload (yes) of difference between the bandwidth a single Starlink terminal is likely to consume on a 40' yacht vs. an 850' cruise liner, and you can bet there will be pricing differences.

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by canderson

[mnocket]

2 hours ago, Jim_Iain said:

Will the cruise lines create a create a new pricing tier for "UltraHigh Speed".

 

My understanding is the cost at least on land is is $110 per month (90 MPS) which I believe is higher than many of us pay for that speed of service. 

Starlink is intended to those who have no other option for high speed internet (I'm one & I have Starlink).  As someone who previously had no other option than slow internet (avg 1Mbps), paying more for Starlink was an easy sell.  For those who have broadband available (e.g. cable, fiber, etc.) Starlink doesn't make sense.  As you point out it's more expensive and probably much slower than what you already have.

 

A cruise ship in the middle of the ocean is a perfect fit for Starlink.  They already offer several tiers of service at different prices (i.e. Residential, Business & RV).  I expect there will be unique pricing for cruise ships.  It makes perfect sense.  There's surely a need and Starlink satellites orbit over both land and sea - while over the ocean they are sitting idle.

Edited July 18, 2022 by mnocket

[canderson]

1 hour ago, Jim_Iain said:

How will Starlik work under stress with potential 1,000 of simultaneous users.

To answer this question more specifically ...

 

If it were just 1000 simultaneous cruise ship users, at 20Gbps, that provides a max of 20Mbps for each user.  However, there are a few other issues that are often forgotten.  The satellites aren't tethered to some backbone somewhere with a giant bundle of fiber.  THEY have to get the data you request from somewhere, and deliver the data you send to them to somewhere.  That requires 'ground stations' and connections to real servers on the ground, or a TON of laser comms between satellites.

 

[jcpelly]

I've always heard that even the present internet at sea is very expensive for the cruise lines.  I would almost think that Satellite internet like Starlink would be cheaper.  The problem is that cost isn't usually related to the actual cost on cruise ships, it's what people would be willing to pay for that service.

[NutsAboutGolf]

11 minutes ago, jcpelly said:

I've always heard that even the present internet at sea is very expensive for the cruise lines.  I would almost think that Satellite internet like Starlink would be cheaper.  The problem is that cost isn't usually related to the actual cost on cruise ships, it's what people would be willing to pay for that service.

 

We have to remember it's not just the pax using it, the crew (and the ship itself!) needs wifi whether its related directly to their jobs, emergencies (like for the Ukraine crew after Russia invaded) and for morale reasons.

 

Virgin Voyages has the best wifi at sea, it's free for pax and unlike all other lines, they make it free for the crew.  Virgin found a way to have the fastest wifi at sea without charging anyone.

[canderson]

26 minutes ago, jcpelly said:

I've always heard that even the present internet at sea is very expensive for the cruise lines.  I would almost think that Satellite internet like Starlink would be cheaper.  The problem is that cost isn't usually related to the actual cost on cruise ships, it's what people would be willing to pay for that service.

I'm sure that "whatever the traffic will bear" will definitely play a part.

 

Geek time:

 

Satellites in low earth orbit (vs. the current MEO that I believe RCG to be using) have a huge advantage because they're a lot closer to us, and the difference in power and bandwidth isn't linear with distance.  LEOs don't cover as much area, but what they do cover they do so with much more efficiency.  It's that nasty old 'inverse square' law coming into play again.  Everything else being equal, a Medium Earth satellite operates at only 1/14 the efficiency of a Low Earth satellite.  So you need more LEOs to cover the same ground, but they can deliver data a great deal more efficiently over the area they do cover.  Even OneWeb has a disadvantage in this regard (about 1/5 as efficient as Starlink).  Of course, the LEOs will all come down.  Yes, there really is some 'air' up there at 530km that causes drag and slows them down.  Can't keep bumping satellites up forever, even when they have the ability to be moved/returned to higher orbits from time to time.

 

I ran a quick "all else being equal" chart with varying altitude a while back to demonstrate the difference.  Makes the GPS system we all enjoy look pretty amazing in its abilities.

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by canderson
Can't get rid of original spreadsheet table!