Starlink Internet

[Chris_Bryant]

SpaceX says they will start offering low latency satellite based internet access with a year-
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-teases-starlink-internet-service-debut/amp/
And https://www.starlink.com/

With the satellites only 350 miles up as opposed to 22,000 mile geosynchronous orbit should make a huge difference.

No word on pricing.

[wa8yxm]

timmac wrote:
Everything you said above is so wrong, I can legally stream thousands of programs for free and many you mention above, some streaming content you have to pay and many contents is free and has been this way for years now legally..

Yes you can stream Thousands of programs for free. For example I "Stream" (Well download and watch off line) both Ham Nation and Amateurlogic.TV And there are many other shows some of which I've watched in the past but no longer do.

But NCIS,, As the world Turns (if that's still on I don't watch soaps) Young gg and the Restless, Dancing with Stars.

Those are all copyrighted and you need a subscription IN fact most if not all NETWORK television you need to eithe watch over the air or pay for a subscription.

NOW I know CBS will give you a limited time FREE access. but. .then you gotta pay I suspect NBC ABC and the others are like that.

[Tom_M1]

There already is a low orbit satellite service called Iridium. It started with voice only but now they have a data service. It went into full operation in 2002. It consists of 66 satellites in a 485 mile orbit. Here's a picture of one of their phones:

All that is known so far about Starlink is that the receive antenna is about the size of a pizza box. I doubt that there will be much aiming required. Probably just point it at the sky.

[garry1p]

I think it might be just a bit more complicated with fast moving satellites.

Aligning your current antenna to connect to three geosynchronous satellites and be off less than 1/4 inch in azimuth or height and no usable signal. The antenna has to know "beforehand" exactly where the satellites are in space in relation to where you are on earth and start out by pointing it as close as possible in that direction.

In the future, Musk says, users will connect to Starlink with terminals that cost about $200 and can steer an antenna beam without moving parts. "It basically looks like a sort of a small- to medium-size pizza,".

Having tracked satellites in my past life working for NASA I'm sure it can be done. But, there will be obstacles to overcome like reflections from tall buildings, obstructions blocking your view as the satellite moves, propagation delay due to distance between current and the next satellite to pick up, transmission polarization the list goes on.

I look forward to it becoming operational but I know lot of details will have to be worked out for reliable usage, Hey nothing money and time won't fix.

[pianotuna]

Dutch_12078 wrote:

garry1p wrote:
A Satellite 350 miles up is at best 15 minutes horizon to horizon so no way you can track and stream one satellite. I suspect you will have to lock onto minimum 3 satellites at all times and a lot of satellite hopping will be required to maintain a stable signal. Interesting how a stationary antenna will handle this since you will only maintain one satellite for few minutes at a time.

The hand off from one sat to another would be similar to the way cell services hand off from one tower to another with no interruption as we travel.

If the device were cdma then hand off would be seamless because that protocol allows for multiple connections.

[Dutch_12078]

garry1p wrote:
A Satellite 350 miles up is at best 15 minutes horizon to horizon so no way you can track and stream one satellite. I suspect you will have to lock onto minimum 3 satellites at all times and a lot of satellite hopping will be required to maintain a stable signal. Interesting how a stationary antenna will handle this since you will only maintain one satellite for few minutes at a time.

The hand off from one sat to another would be similar to the way cell services hand off from one tower to another with no interruption as we travel.

[garry1p]

A Satellite 350 miles up is at best 15 minutes horizon to horizon so no way you can track and stream one satellite. I suspect you will have to lock onto minimum 3 satellites at all times and a lot of satellite hopping will be required to maintain a stable signal. Interesting how a stationary antenna will handle this since you will only maintain one satellite for few minutes at a time.

[timmac]

GordonThree wrote:
What I'm saying is to replace Dish / Direct / cable you need to subscribe to a half dozen services to stream the same content legally. Anyone buying a "box" and streaming content from major networks without subscriptions isn't doing it legally in US/Canada/.

Want to watch anything from CBS, that's a sub
NBC and ABC are on Hulu, another sub
Fox content will soon be on Disney+ another sub
FX, FXX need a sub for FX+
Discovery, NatGeo? wait a year and the stuff will be on Hulu
TBS? That's another sub

Disney is in the process of taking Hulu apart right now.

Everything you said above is so wrong, I can legally stream thousands of programs for free and many you mention above, some streaming content you have to pay and many contents is free and has been this way for years now legally...

Have you ever been on YouTube, even they have hundreds of free movies and all the major news stations have a channel that you can watch the news daily free with no subscriptions..

I like how those that have never streamed movies with a Roko or Apple or Amazon box thinks they know it all..

:C

[MrWizard]

And all of this "who do you need to subscribe too"
Means Squat,
whether it's cable or satellite, you are going to pay for your Internet

The topic is new satellite internet service

Not who do you subscribe too, how many subscriptions do you need

[wa8yxm]

NBC, ABC, FOX, CW, ANTENNA RETRO, ME-TV, COZI, Charge, H&I and more Over the air... So much I have problems with overfilling my DVR.s 25/yr for the electronic TV guide.

NOw not all markets are that "Full" but.. Some are and next week when I'm down to one station (more than likely) Well I have nice FULL Hard drives. odds of cleaning them out before I move back in to the land of 2 much TV (2 weeks later) approach ZIP.

[GordonThree]

What I'm saying is to replace Dish / Direct / cable you need to subscribe to a half dozen services to stream the same content legally. Anyone buying a "box" and streaming content from major networks without subscriptions isn't doing it legally in US/Canada/.

Want to watch anything from CBS, that's a sub
NBC and ABC are on Hulu, another sub
Fox content will soon be on Disney+ another sub
FX, FXX need a sub for FX+
Discovery, NatGeo? wait a year and the stuff will be on Hulu
TBS? That's another sub

Disney is in the process of taking Hulu apart right now.

[timmac]

Dutch_12078 wrote:

GordonThree wrote:

The old dying dinosaurs are pretty smart, and far from dead. that's why Internet providers own most of the television and movie studios now.

Along with Disney and others, they've all worked together to make streaming as fragmented and difficult as possible to do "legally".

I don't see anything difficult or legally questionable about subscribing to any of the mainline streaming services like SlingTV, YouTubeTV, DirecTV Now, Netflix, and various others with a variety of channel package offerings. Then there's the ad-supported free services like Pluto, Stirr, Kanopy, Xumo, FreeForm, and others. And one of my favorite streaming apps, FitzyTV, that combines a number of my installed streaming apps into a single program guide for easy channel selections. And everyone of them is completely legal...

X2

I have no idea what Gordonthree was even talking about, streaming is so much easier, just buy a Roku box at Walmart, hook it up and sit back and watch thousands of channels without a monthly bill..

And the legally part, that don't make since at all..

:h

[Dutch_12078]

GordonThree wrote:

The old dying dinosaurs are pretty smart, and far from dead. that's why Internet providers own most of the television and movie studios now.

Along with Disney and others, they've all worked together to make streaming as fragmented and difficult as possible to do "legally".

I don't see anything difficult or legally questionable about subscribing to any of the mainline streaming services like SlingTV, YouTubeTV, DirecTV Now, Netflix, and various others with a variety of channel package offerings. Then there's the ad-supported free services like Pluto, Stirr, Kanopy, Xumo, FreeForm, and others. And one of my favorite streaming apps, FitzyTV, that combines a number of my installed streaming apps into a single program guide for easy channel selections. And everyone of them is completely legal...

[GordonThree]

Bill.Satellite wrote:

pianotuna wrote:
GordonThree,

I think ground based solar powered drones would have been a less "sexy" but better choice.

Excellent target practice!

You'd be a darn good shot... they were planning to fly well higher than commercial airliners.

[Bill_Satellite]

pianotuna wrote:
GordonThree,

I think ground based solar powered drones would have been a less "sexy" but better choice.

Excellent target practice!