Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Carl Peterson]

whoops

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 3:59 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Huh?  Wrong thread?  That sounds like a car wash decision.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Carl Peterson
> *Sent:* Monday, July 27, 2020 3:13 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>
>
>
> I choose the cheapest one that includes cleaning the underbody.  In MN
> that is generally what we're there for.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:58 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> That does make sense that you need take rate when you are spending dollars
> per foot of network built. You've spent $1k to cross that lot, might as
> well get a customer hooked up at any price (assuming a comfortable ROI
> length).
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------
>
> *From: *"Mark Radabaugh" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:06:36 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>
> The fiber builds are targeting a different market than our fixed wireless.
>   We have to build out fiber to our tower sites that are predominantly in
> small villages that have cable systems.   The pricing and marketing is all
> aimed at competing with Spectrum and taking market share from them.  I need
> the take rate more than I need the ARPU when we are competing with cable.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:16 AM, Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70. Or
> at least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70. That
> way it's almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for only
> $10 more!!!
>
>
>
> I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer
> customers. I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather
> highest profit. We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and
> we're over $82 right now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price
> increases but we overall make more money since most don't cancel. Our
> customer count has increased every month since we started in 2012. Back
> then our arpu was about $54 and it's increased to $82 now. I've talked to
> wisps that are even higher in the triple digits.
>
>
>
> Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is
> leaving money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I
> understand. For us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer
> service. This allows us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl
> and other wisps. Word of mouth from our existing customers drives our
> sales.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>
>
> So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?
>
>
>
> Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.
>
>
>
>
>
> Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game
> comes out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people
> do 24x7.
>
>
>
> Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up
> on a 5 minute average.
>
>
>
> I found this interesting in that statistics:
>
>
>
> We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95
>
> Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take the
> Gigabit plan.
>
>
>
> The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the highest
> percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are seeing
> value and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging rights
> take the Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the
> retirement fund.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Ken Hohhof]

Huh?  Wrong thread?  That sounds like a car wash decision.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Carl Peterson
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 3:13 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

 

I choose the cheapest one that includes cleaning the underbody.  In MN that is 
generally what we're there for.  

 

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:58 PM Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote:

That does make sense that you need take rate when you are spending dollars per 
foot of network built. You've spent $1k to cross that lot, might as well get a 
customer hooked up at any price (assuming a comfortable ROI length).



-
Mike Hammett
 <http://www.ics-il.com/> Intelligent Computing Solutions
 <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>  
<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>  
<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> 
 <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Midwest Internet Exchange
 <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>  
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>  
<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> 
 <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> The Brothers WISP
 <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>  
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> 





  _  


From: "Mark Radabaugh" mailto:m...@amplex.net> >
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:06:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

The fiber builds are targeting a different market than our fixed wireless.   We 
have to build out fiber to our tower sites that are predominantly in small 
villages that have cable systems.   The pricing and marketing is all aimed at 
competing with Spectrum and taking market share from them.  I need the take 
rate more than I need the ARPU when we are competing with cable.

 

Mark 

 

On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:16 AM, Darin Steffl mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > wrote:

 

Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70. Or at 
least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70. That way it's 
almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for only $10 more!!! 

 

I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer customers. 
I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather highest profit. 
We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and we're over $82 right 
now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price increases but we overall 
make more money since most don't cancel. Our customer count has increased every 
month since we started in 2012. Back then our arpu was about $54 and it's 
increased to $82 now. I've talked to wisps that are even higher in the triple 
digits. 

 

Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is leaving 
money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I understand. For 
us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer service. This allows 
us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl and other wisps. Word of 
mouth from our existing customers drives our sales. 

 

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

 

 

On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

 

So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?

 

Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.

 

 

Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game comes 
out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people do 24x7.

 

Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up on a 
5 minute average.

 

I found this interesting in that statistics:

 

We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95

Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take the 
Gigabit plan.

 

The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the highest 
percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are seeing value 
and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging rights take the 
Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the retirement fund.

 

Mark

 

-- 
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 <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.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 <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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Carl Peterson]

I choose the cheapest one that includes cleaning the underbody.  In MN that
is generally what we're there for.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:58 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> That does make sense that you need take rate when you are spending dollars
> per foot of network built. You've spent $1k to cross that lot, might as
> well get a customer hooked up at any price (assuming a comfortable ROI
> length).
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------
> *From: *"Mark Radabaugh" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:06:36 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>
> The fiber builds are targeting a different market than our fixed wireless.
>   We have to build out fiber to our tower sites that are predominantly in
> small villages that have cable systems.   The pricing and marketing is all
> aimed at competing with Spectrum and taking market share from them.  I need
> the take rate more than I need the ARPU when we are competing with cable.
>
> Mark
>
> On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:16 AM, Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70. Or
> at least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70. That
> way it's almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for only
> $10 more!!!
>
> I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer
> customers. I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather
> highest profit. We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and
> we're over $82 right now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price
> increases but we overall make more money since most don't cancel. Our
> customer count has increased every month since we started in 2012. Back
> then our arpu was about $54 and it's increased to $82 now. I've talked to
> wisps that are even higher in the triple digits.
>
> Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is
> leaving money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I
> understand. For us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer
> service. This allows us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl
> and other wisps. Word of mouth from our existing customers drives our
> sales.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>> So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?
>>
>>
>> Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.
>>
>>
>> Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game
>> comes out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people
>> do 24x7.
>>
>>
>> Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up
>> on a 5 minute average.
>>
>> I found this interesting in that statistics:
>>
>> We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95
>>
>> Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take
>> the Gigabit plan.
>>
>> The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the
>> highest percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are
>> seeing value and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging
>> rights take the Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the
>> retirement fund.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>


--
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Mike Hammett]

That does make sense that you need take rate when you are spending dollars per 
foot of network built. You've spent $1k to cross that lot, might as well get a 
customer hooked up at any price (assuming a comfortable ROI length). 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mark Radabaugh"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 7:06:36 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router 

The fiber builds are targeting a different market than our fixed wireless. We 
have to build out fiber to our tower sites that are predominantly in small 
villages that have cable systems. The pricing and marketing is all aimed at 
competing with Spectrum and taking market share from them. I need the take rate 
more than I need the ARPU when we are competing with cable. 


Mark 





On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:16 AM, Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > wrote: 


Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70. Or at 
least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70. That way it's 
almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for only $10 more!!! 


I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer customers. 
I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather highest profit. 
We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and we're over $82 right 
now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price increases but we overall 
make more money since most don't cancel. Our customer count has increased every 
month since we started in 2012. Back then our arpu was about $54 and it's 
increased to $82 now. I've talked to wisps that are even higher in the triple 
digits. 


Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is leaving 
money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I understand. For 
us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer service. This allows 
us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl and other wisps. Word of 
mouth from our existing customers drives our sales. 


On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh < m...@amplex.net > wrote: 









On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 




So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights? 




Yep, exactly. And that’s all it is really. 








Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game comes 
out. But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people do 24x7. 




Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up on a 
5 minute average. 


I found this interesting in that statistics: 


We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95 

Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take the 
Gigabit plan. 


The typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the highest 
percentage - and it doesn't. To me that says that customers are seeing value 
and plenty of speed at 100Mb. A few guy who need bragging rights take the 
Gigabit plan. We thank them for the contribution to the retirement fund. 



Mark 

-- 
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 




-- 
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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Mark Radabaugh]

The fiber builds are targeting a different market than our fixed wireless.   We 
have to build out fiber to our tower sites that are predominantly in small 
villages that have cable systems.   The pricing and marketing is all aimed at 
competing with Spectrum and taking market share from them.  I need the take 
rate more than I need the ARPU when we are competing with cable.

Mark 

> On Jul 16, 2020, at 12:16 AM, Darin Steffl  wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70. Or at 
> least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70. That way 
> it's almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for only $10 
> more!!! 
> 
> I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer 
> customers. I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather 
> highest profit. We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and we're 
> over $82 right now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price increases 
> but we overall make more money since most don't cancel. Our customer count 
> has increased every month since we started in 2012. Back then our arpu was 
> about $54 and it's increased to $82 now. I've talked to wisps that are even 
> higher in the triple digits. 
> 
> Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is leaving 
> money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I understand. 
> For us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer service. This 
> allows us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl and other wisps. 
> Word of mouth from our existing customers drives our sales. 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof > > wrote:
>> 
>> So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?
> 
> Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.
> 
>>  
>> Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game 
>> comes out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people do 
>> 24x7.
> 
> 
> Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up on 
> a 5 minute average.
> 
> I found this interesting in that statistics:
> 
> We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95
> 
> Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take the 
> Gigabit plan.
> 
> The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the highest 
> percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are seeing 
> value and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging rights take 
> the Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the retirement fund.
> 
> Mark
> 
> -- 
> 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

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[James Howard]

Or one down from the top (especially when there are only 3 choices).

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 12:33 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

I would bet that a huge majority choose one up from the bottom in drive through 
car washes.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:00 AM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> 
wrote:
I wish I could find that study of drive through car wash purchasing patterns.  
It does seem that people like choosing one up from the bottom.

From: Josh Luthman
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 8:21 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

No because then you can't say "prices starting at".  In my case I'm weighted in 
the middle - people love picking the middle plan.  It doesn't matter about 
speeds at all (they don't know) but the dollars are something they're cautious 
of.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 AM Darin Steffl 
mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>> wrote:
Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70. Or at 
least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70. That way it's 
almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for only $10 more!!!

I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer customers. 
I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather highest profit. 
We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and we're over $82 right 
now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price increases but we overall 
make more money since most don't cancel. Our customer count has increased every 
month since we started in 2012. Back then our arpu was about $54 and it's 
increased to $82 now. I've talked to wisps that are even higher in the triple 
digits.

Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is leaving 
money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I understand. For 
us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer service. This allows 
us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl and other wisps. Word of 
mouth from our existing customers drives our sales.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh 
mailto:m...@amplex.net>> wrote:



On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?

Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.



Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game comes 
out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people do 24x7.

Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up on a 
5 minute average.

I found this interesting in that statistics:

We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95

Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take the 
Gigabit plan.

The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the highest 
percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are seeing value 
and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging rights take the 
Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the retirement fund.

Mark

--
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<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.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<mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Total Control Panel

Login<https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net>


To: 
ja...@litewire.net<https://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260993=litewire.net>

From: af-boun...@af.afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>





You received this message because the domain afmug.com is on your allow list.



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Mathew Howard]

I would bet that a huge majority choose one up from the bottom in drive
through car washes.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:00 AM  wrote:

> I wish I could find that study of drive through car wash purchasing
> patterns.  It does seem that people like choosing one up from the bottom.
>
> *From:* Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2020 8:21 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>
> No because then you can't say "prices starting at".  In my case I'm
> weighted in the middle - people love picking the middle plan.  It doesn't
> matter about speeds at all (they don't know) but the dollars are something
> they're cautious of.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 AM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70.
>> Or at least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70.
>> That way it's almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for
>> only $10 more!!!
>>
>> I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer
>> customers. I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather
>> highest profit. We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and
>> we're over $82 right now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price
>> increases but we overall make more money since most don't cancel. Our
>> customer count has increased every month since we started in 2012. Back
>> then our arpu was about $54 and it's increased to $82 now. I've talked to
>> wisps that are even higher in the triple digits.
>>
>> Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is
>> leaving money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I
>> understand. For us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer
>> service. This allows us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl
>> and other wisps. Word of mouth from our existing customers drives our
>> sales.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
>>> So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?
>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic
>>> game comes out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some
>>> people do 24x7.
>>>
>>>
>>> Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show
>>> up on a 5 minute average.
>>>
>>> I found this interesting in that statistics:
>>>
>>> We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95
>>>
>>> Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take
>>> the Gigabit plan.
>>>
>>> The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the
>>> highest percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are
>>> seeing value and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging
>>> rights take the Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the
>>> retirement fund.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
> --
> --
> 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
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[chuck]

I wish I could find that study of drive through car wash purchasing patterns.  
It does seem that people like choosing one up from the bottom.  

From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 8:21 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

No because then you can't say "prices starting at".  In my case I'm weighted in 
the middle - people love picking the middle plan.  It doesn't matter about 
speeds at all (they don't know) but the dollars are something they're cautious 
of.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 AM Darin Steffl  wrote:

  Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70. Or at 
least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70. That way it's 
almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for only $10 more!!!  

  I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer 
customers. I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather 
highest profit. We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and we're 
over $82 right now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price increases but 
we overall make more money since most don't cancel. Our customer count has 
increased every month since we started in 2012. Back then our arpu was about 
$54 and it's increased to $82 now. I've talked to wisps that are even higher in 
the triple digits. 

  Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is leaving 
money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I understand. For 
us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer service. This allows 
us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl and other wisps. Word of 
mouth from our existing customers drives our sales. 

  On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:




  On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?

Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.



  Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game 
comes out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people do 
24x7.

Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up 
on a 5 minute average.

I found this interesting in that statistics:

We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95

Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take the 
Gigabit plan.

The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the highest 
percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are seeing value 
and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging rights take the 
Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the retirement fund.


Mark

-- 
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




-- 
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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Robert]

Two weeks ago I was visiting Salmon River areas in Idaho that I asked 
about what they would pay for service to replace 1meg dsl and the 
responses averaged in the $100/month range for 20mb/s much less 100 mb/s


On 7/16/20 7:06 AM, Darin Steffl wrote:
This just goes to show that starlink will not be killing any major 
providers like Comcast, spectrum, etc. I see idiots tweeting like 
they're going to replace their Gig Comcast account with starlink for 
less money and I laugh at them.


Elon has himself said starlink is targeting the 3-4% hardest to reach 
homes with poor broadband choices. He is not going after metros that 
already have cable and fiber. His target market is people with only 
satellite or poor dsl as options.


On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:01 AM Chuck McCown <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:


Still, easy to find 28m hard to serve locations world wide without
coming after our customers.

Sent from my iPhone


On Jul 16, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Gino A. Villarini mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>> wrote:



On 15 October 2019, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission> submitted
filings to the International Telecommunication Union
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union> on
SpaceX's behalf to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional
Starlink satellites to supplement the 12,000 Starlink satellites
already approved by the FCC.^[18]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#cite_note-18>

So 42,000 total birds… so 28M potential customers…

28M * $70 = $1,960,000,000 MRR not to shabby

*GinoVillarini
*Founder/President
@gvillarini
t: 787.273.4143 Ext. 204
aeronet-logo <http://www.aeronetpr.com/>  inc500
<https://www.inc.com/profile/aeronet> fb-logo
<https://www.facebook.com/aeronetpr/> insta-logo
<https://www.instagram.com/aeronetpr/?hl=en>  in-logo
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeronet-broadband-corp>
tw-logo

<https://twitter.com/AeroNetPR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor>
yt-logo <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr2Q9WBrAYVm3Fn970Jd6VA>  
  

<https://bit.ly/BBoffer1>
www.aeronetpr.com <http://www.aeronetpr.com> | Metro Office Park
#18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, PR 00968

*From: *AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> on behalf of Chuck McCown
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>>
*Reply-To: *AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Date: *Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 3:49 PM
    *To: *"af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>" mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find
a half million hard to serve locations around the globe without
breaking a sweat.

So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.

*From:*dave

*Sent:*Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM

*To:*af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

Just install 40k of micropops :)




On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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




-- 
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 <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Robert]

I think it will be really interesting to see what the price they roll 
out with..


On 7/16/20 7:00 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Still, easy to find 28m hard to serve locations world wide without 
coming after our customers.


Sent from my iPhone


On Jul 16, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Gino A. Villarini  wrote:



On 15 October 2019, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission> submitted 
filings to the International Telecommunication Union 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union> on 
SpaceX's behalf to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink 
satellites to supplement the 12,000 Starlink satellites already 
approved by the FCC.^[18] 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#cite_note-18>


So 42,000 total birds… so 28M potential customers…

28M * $70 = $1,960,000,000 MRR not to shabby

*GinoVillarini
*Founder/President
@gvillarini
t: 787.273.4143 Ext. 204
aeronet-logo <http://www.aeronetpr.com/> 	inc500 
<https://www.inc.com/profile/aeronet> 	fb-logo 
<https://www.facebook.com/aeronetpr/> 	insta-logo 
<https://www.instagram.com/aeronetpr/?hl=en> 	in-logo 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeronet-broadband-corp> 	tw-logo 
<https://twitter.com/AeroNetPR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor> 
	yt-logo <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr2Q9WBrAYVm3Fn970Jd6VA> 	


<https://bit.ly/BBoffer1>
www.aeronetpr.com <http://www.aeronetpr.com> | Metro Office Park #18 
Suite 304 Guaynabo, PR 00968


*From: *AF  on behalf of Chuck McCown 


*Reply-To: *AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Date: *Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 3:49 PM
*To: *"af@af.afmug.com" 
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a 
half million hard to serve locations around the globe without 
breaking a sweat.


So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.

*From:*dave

*Sent:*Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM

*To:*af@af.afmug.com

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

Just install 40k of micropops :)




On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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




--
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




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Josh Luthman]

No because then you can't say "prices starting at".  In my case I'm
weighted in the middle - people love picking the middle plan.  It doesn't
matter about speeds at all (they don't know) but the dollars are
something they're cautious of.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 AM Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70. Or
> at least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70. That
> way it's almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for only
> $10 more!!!
>
> I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer
> customers. I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather
> highest profit. We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and
> we're over $82 right now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price
> increases but we overall make more money since most don't cancel. Our
> customer count has increased every month since we started in 2012. Back
> then our arpu was about $54 and it's increased to $82 now. I've talked to
> wisps that are even higher in the triple digits.
>
> Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is
> leaving money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I
> understand. For us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer
> service. This allows us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl
> and other wisps. Word of mouth from our existing customers drives our
> sales.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>> So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?
>>
>>
>> Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.
>>
>>
>> Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game
>> comes out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people
>> do 24x7.
>>
>>
>> Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up
>> on a 5 minute average.
>>
>> I found this interesting in that statistics:
>>
>> We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95
>>
>> Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take
>> the Gigabit plan.
>>
>> The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the
>> highest percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are
>> seeing value and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging
>> rights take the Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the
>> retirement fund.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Darin Steffl]

This just goes to show that starlink will not be killing any major
providers like Comcast, spectrum, etc. I see idiots tweeting like they're
going to replace their Gig Comcast account with starlink for less money and
I laugh at them.

Elon has himself said starlink is targeting the 3-4% hardest to reach homes
with poor broadband choices. He is not going after metros that already have
cable and fiber. His target market is people with only satellite or poor
dsl as options.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 9:01 AM Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Still, easy to find 28m hard to serve locations world wide without coming
> after our customers.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 16, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Gino A. Villarini  wrote:
>
> 
>
> On 15 October 2019, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission> submitted
> filings to the International Telecommunication Union
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union> on
> SpaceX's behalf to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink
> satellites to supplement the 12,000 Starlink satellites already approved by
> the FCC.[18] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#cite_note-18>
>
>
>
> So 42,000 total birds… so 28M potential customers…
>
>
>
> 28M * $70 = $1,960,000,000 MRR not to shabby
>
>
>
> *Gino*
> *Villarini *Founder/President
> @gvillarini
> t: 787.273.4143 Ext. 204
> [image: aeronet-logo] <http://www.aeronetpr.com/> [image: inc500]
> <https://www.inc.com/profile/aeronet> [image: fb-logo]
> <https://www.facebook.com/aeronetpr/>  [image: insta-logo]
> <https://www.instagram.com/aeronetpr/?hl=en>  [image: in-logo]
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeronet-broadband-corp>  [image:
> tw-logo]
> <https://twitter.com/AeroNetPR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor>
>   [image: yt-logo]
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr2Q9WBrAYVm3Fn970Jd6VA>
> <https://bit.ly/BBoffer1>
> www.aeronetpr.com | Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, PR 00968
>
> *From: *AF  on behalf of Chuck McCown <
> ch...@wbmfg.com>
> *Reply-To: *AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Date: *Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 3:49 PM
> *To: *"af@af.afmug.com" 
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>
>
>
> The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half
> million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.
>
> So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.
>
>
>
> *From:* dave
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM
>
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>
>
>
> Just install 40k of micropops :)
>
>
> 
>
> On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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
>
>
> --
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Chuck McCown]

Still, easy to find 28m hard to serve locations world wide without coming after 
our customers.  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 16, 2020, at 6:30 AM, Gino A. Villarini  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15 October 2019, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission submitted 
> filings to the International Telecommunication Union on SpaceX's behalf to 
> arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink satellites to supplement the 
> 12,000 Starlink satellites already approved by the FCC.[18]
>  
> So 42,000 total birds… so 28M potential customers…
>  
> 28M * $70 = $1,960,000,000 MRR not to shabby
>  
> Gino Villarini 
> Founder/President
> @gvillarini
> t: 787.273.4143 Ext. 204 
>   
> 
> www.aeronetpr.com | Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, PR 00968
> 
> From: AF  on behalf of Chuck McCown 
> Reply-To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 3:49 PM
> To: "af@af.afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>  
> The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half 
> million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.
> So the low hanging fruit are not our customers. 
>  
> From: dave
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>  
> Just install 40k of micropops :)
> 
> 
> 
> On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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
> 
>  
> -- 
> 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
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Gino A. Villarini]

On 15 October 2019, the U.S. Federal Communications 
Commission<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission> 
submitted filings to the International Telecommunication 
Union<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union> on 
SpaceX's behalf to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink satellites 
to supplement the 12,000 Starlink satellites already approved by the 
FCC.[18]<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#cite_note-18>

So 42,000 total birds… so 28M potential customers…

28M * $70 = $1,960,000,000 MRR not to shabby


Gino Villarini
Founder/President
@gvillarini
t: 787.273.4143 Ext. 204
[https://mcusercontent.com/491678685aaddc31e08616413/images/756812e5-24a6-4693-a923-7a1d8f55546d.png]<http://www.aeronetpr.com/>
[https://image.ibb.co/noQeyp/inc500.png] 
<https://www.inc.com/profile/aeronet>  
[https://image.ibb.co/e4pBB9/fb-logo.png] <https://www.facebook.com/aeronetpr/> 
[https://image.ibb.co/nxuuW9/insta-logo.png] 
<https://www.instagram.com/aeronetpr/?hl=en>   
[https://image.ibb.co/jhSEW9/in-logo.png] 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/aeronet-broadband-corp> 
[https://image.ibb.co/dqqq4U/tw-logo.png] 
<https://twitter.com/AeroNetPR?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor>
[https://image.ibb.co/bAJcjU/yt-logo.png] 
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr2Q9WBrAYVm3Fn970Jd6VA>
[https://mcusercontent.com/491678685aaddc31e08616413/images/663fa299-7512-404f-ab00-6f8d11d8a417.png]<https://bit.ly/BBoffer1>
www.aeronetpr.com<http://www.aeronetpr.com> | Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 
Guaynabo, PR 00968
From: AF  on behalf of Chuck McCown 
Reply-To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 3:49 PM
To: "af@af.afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half 
million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.
So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.

From: dave
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

Just install 40k of micropops :)

[cid:image001.jpg@01D65B4B.3973E620]
On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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<https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-router-fcc?_pos=19&_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r>


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Darin Steffl]

Wouldn't you be better off selling one plan like Google? A gig for $70. Or
at least get rid of the $50 plan. Do 50 Meg for $60 and gig for $70. That
way it's almost a no brainer to go with the gig. 20x more speed for only
$10 more!!!

I bet your profit would be higher overall, even with slightly fewer
customers. I don't think it's about the highest market share, but rather
highest profit. We've been working on raising our ARPU for the wisp and
we're over $82 right now. Yes we lose a handful of customers from price
increases but we overall make more money since most don't cancel. Our
customer count has increased every month since we started in 2012. Back
then our arpu was about $54 and it's increased to $82 now. I've talked to
wisps that are even higher in the triple digits.

Any business not raising their prices when demand is this strong is leaving
money on the table. This is totally dependent on competition I understand.
For us, we try to be the most reliable with the best customer service. This
allows us to sell a premium priced service compared to dsl and other wisps.
Word of mouth from our existing customers drives our sales.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 7:35 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?
>
>
> Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.
>
>
> Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game
> comes out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people
> do 24x7.
>
>
> Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up
> on a 5 minute average.
>
> I found this interesting in that statistics:
>
> We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95
>
> Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take the
> Gigabit plan.
>
> The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the highest
> percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are seeing
> value and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging rights
> take the Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the
> retirement fund.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> 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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Mark Radabaugh]

> On Jul 15, 2020, at 6:55 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?

Yep, exactly.   And that’s all it is really.

>  
> Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game 
> comes out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people do 
> 24x7.


Once in a blue moon somebody manages to peg it out long enough to show up on a 
5 minute average.

I found this interesting in that statistics:

We offer 100Mb, 250Mb and GigE plans at $49.95, $59.95, and $79.95

Of those plans 41% take the 100Mb plan, 38% select 250Mb, and 20% take the 
Gigabit plan.

The  typical distribution would be that the middle plan having the highest 
percentage - and it doesn't.   To me that says that customers are seeing value 
and plenty of speed at 100Mb.   A few guy who need bragging rights take the 
Gigabit plan.   We thank them for the contribution to the retirement fund.

Mark

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Ken Hohhof]

If it's not tilted, that sounds like a squirrel and bird platform.

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 5:18 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

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  *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  <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> There are some details in thi

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Ken Hohhof]

So you’re selling 25M of bandwidth and 975M of bragging rights?

 

Gamers probably use the gig speed for awhile whenever a new gigantic game comes 
out.  But that’s not like video streaming which I swear some people do 24x7.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 5:21 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

 

On fiber it’s actually pretty easy to do (Gigabit for <$90) - because people 
don’t use it any harder than they use a 25/3 connection.   

 

Mark





On Jul 15, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

 

If you can sell gigabit for $50 (or even $90), don’t come to my area please.

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Ryan Ray
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:45 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

 

You're never going to see starlink in your area if you're offering a gig. 

 

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:44 PM Craig Schmaderer mailto:cr...@skywaveconnect.com> > wrote:

Yeah, ultimately I can still make money charging $50 for a gig if I had 
to(granted, it would be a lot longer ROI).   So as long as my $90 gig plan 
doesn’t get poached on, I am not worried. 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

 

The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half 
million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.

So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.  

 

From: dave 

Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM

To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

 

Just install 40k of micropops :)




On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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 
<https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-router-fcc?_pos=19&_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r>
 &_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r

 


  _  


-- 
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 <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
 <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> AF@af.afmug.com
 <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Robert Andrews]

I thought it would be dome-ish too, but the pictures show pretty clearly 
flat and one of them it's not tilted at all.  It would likely choose 
straight up for the shortest path length if it can.   But yeah they 
probably can watch for signal strength and do an automated tilt to 
vertical as part of a realign..Or not...


On 07/15/2020 03:30 PM, castarritt . wrote:

Maybe they can use the motorized gimbal to shake off snow.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:24 PM Bill Prince <mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:


It is tilted, and I don't think it's flat. It's more like a dome.


bp


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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
 >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:42 PM
 >> *To:* af@af.afmug.com <mailto: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
 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[castarritt .]

Maybe they can use the motorized gimbal to shake off snow.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 5:24 PM Bill Prince  wrote:

> It is tilted, and I don't think it's flat. It's more like a dome.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> 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  *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 u

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[chuck]

Yeah, it doesn’t consume uplink bandwidth.  But I learned that with canopy all 
those years ago.  (18 years ago?)  We started out selling 256k+ burst.  Then as 
competition came in we doubled it to 512k without increasing cost.  Customers 
loved it.  Our upstream connection hardly increased.  Later we doubled it again 
and again saw very little backbone change.  But those were days before 
streaming.  We postulated that higher speeds just got people on and off for 
quickly and made the whole network more efficient.  

From: Mark Radabaugh 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 4:21 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

On fiber it’s actually pretty easy to do (Gigabit for <$90) - because people 
don’t use it any harder than they use a 25/3 connection.

Mark



  On Jul 15, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  If you can sell gigabit for $50 (or even $90), don’t come to my area please.
   
  From: AF  On Behalf Of Ryan Ray
  Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:45 PM
  To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
   
  You're never going to see starlink in your area if you're offering a gig. 
   
  On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:44 PM Craig Schmaderer  
wrote:
Yeah, ultimately I can still make money charging $50 for a gig if I had 
to(granted, it would be a lot longer ROI).   So as long as my $90 gig plan 
doesn’t get poached on, I am not worried. 
 
From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
 
The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half 
million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.
So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.  
 
From: dave 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
 
Just install 40k of micropops :)



On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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

 



-- 
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
  -- 
  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
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Bill Prince]

It is tilted, and I don't think it's flat. It's more like a dome.


bp


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  *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 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&

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Mark Radabaugh]

On fiber it’s actually pretty easy to do (Gigabit for <$90) - because people 
don’t use it any harder than they use a 25/3 connection.   

Mark

> On Jul 15, 2020, at 5:58 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> If you can sell gigabit for $50 (or even $90), don’t come to my area please.
>  
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf 
> Of Ryan Ray
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:45 PM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>  
> You're never going to see starlink in your area if you're offering a gig. 
>  
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:44 PM Craig Schmaderer  <mailto:cr...@skywaveconnect.com>> wrote:
>> Yeah, ultimately I can still make money charging $50 for a gig if I had 
>> to(granted, it would be a lot longer ROI).   So as long as my $90 gig plan 
>> doesn’t get poached on, I am not worried. 
>>  
>> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On 
>> Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM
>> To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>>  
>> The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half 
>> million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.
>> So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.  
>>  
>> From: dave 
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM
>> To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>>  
>> Just install 40k of micropops :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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
>>>  
>>> <https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-router-fcc?_pos=19&_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r>
>>>  
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
>> -- 
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>-- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Robert Andrews]

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  *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 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



-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Ken Hohhof]

If you can sell gigabit for $50 (or even $90), don’t come to my area please.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Ryan Ray
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:45 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

 

You're never going to see starlink in your area if you're offering a gig. 

 

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:44 PM Craig Schmaderer mailto:cr...@skywaveconnect.com> > wrote:

Yeah, ultimately I can still make money charging $50 for a gig if I had 
to(granted, it would be a lot longer ROI).   So as long as my $90 gig plan 
doesn’t get poached on, I am not worried. 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of ch...@wbmfg.com <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

 

The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half 
million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.

So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.  

 

From: dave 

Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM

To: af@af.afmug.com <mailto:af@af.afmug.com>  

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

 

Just install 40k of micropops :)




On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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 
<https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-router-fcc?_pos=19&_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r>
 &_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r 

 


  _  


-- 
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 <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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Ryan Ray]

You're never going to see starlink in your area if you're offering a gig.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:44 PM Craig Schmaderer 
wrote:

> Yeah, ultimately I can still make money charging $50 for a gig if I had
> to(granted, it would be a lot longer ROI).   So as long as my $90 gig plan
> doesn’t get poached on, I am not worried.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * ch...@wbmfg.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>
>
>
> The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half
> million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.
>
> So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.
>
>
>
> *From:* dave
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM
>
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router
>
>
>
> Just install 40k of micropops :)
>
>
> On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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
>
>
> --
>
> --
> 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
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Craig Schmaderer]

Yeah, ultimately I can still make money charging $50 for a gig if I had 
to(granted, it would be a lot longer ROI).   So as long as my $90 gig plan 
doesn’t get poached on, I am not worried.

From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 2:49 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half 
million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.
So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.

From: dave
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com<mailto:af@af.afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

Just install 40k of micropops :)

[cid:image001.jpg@01D65ABE.A8090DA0]
On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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


--
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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[chuck]

The good news is a half million sub limit.  They will easily find a half 
million hard to serve locations around the globe without breaking a sweat.
So the low hanging fruit are not our customers.  

From: dave 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:16 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

Just install 40k of micropops :)




On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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
 







-- 
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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[dave]

Just install 40k of micropops :)


On 7/15/20 11:57 AM, Bill Prince 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 





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Bill Prince]

  
  
Don't forget that these are LEO. I don't know for certain, but I
  get the impression that each group of 60 satellites represents a
  ring of sorts. That would put about 6° of separation between each
  of the sats in one ring. There will also be overlapping rings at
  some point.

In watching a few of the "trains" going by, it looks like each
  satellite goes from horizon to horizon in a maximum of roughly 6
  minutes. How much time you might spend on a single satellite
  probably can't be more than that. So a lot of hopping is going to
  be going on. I also imagine that once enough rings are filled in,
  there will be multiple satellites to choose from at any given
  moment.


bp



On 7/15/2020 11:41 AM, Adam Moffett
  wrote:


  
  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 
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 

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Ken Hohhof]

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  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 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 
<https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/starlink-router-fcc?_pos=19&_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r>
 &_sid=a6c7fff07&_ss=r

-- 

bp



-- 
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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Adam Moffett]

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 > 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



-- 
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

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Colin Stanners]

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  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
> 
>
>
> --
> 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

[AFMUG] OT: Details on the Starlink router

[Bill Prince]

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



--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com