I have no problems with people making technical arguments saying that there are
limitations on the service that Starlink can provide (I may argue technical
specifics or point out things I think you miss, but I won't claim that you are
arguing in bad faith), but when someone then goes beyond that and says that what
it can provide is a level that's unacceptable to Americans or dismissing it
because fiber is better, then I'll respond and say that the person is arguing in
bad faith.
David Lang
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, David P. Reed wrote:
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 19:28:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: David P. Reed <[email protected]>
To: Brandon Butterworth <[email protected]>
Cc: David Lang <[email protected]>, Brandon Butterworth <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink "beam spread"
I wasn't starting a discussion about Starlink the business. I was talking about Starlink
the technology and the "dreams" that people project onto that technology.
I'm happy if the current customers are happy and remain happy. Just pointing
out that there are pretty severe limitations in the physical capabilities of
the technology of the satellites and dishys that will limit how many customers
can be served in an area.
I was reacting to the idea Dave Taht brought up that somehow the satellites can cover
"more" area per satellite, if they go to a lower total bit rate (175 vs. 240
per antenna on each satellite).
I'm a radio engineer, trained in stuff like phased array antenna designs, and
power, etc. I'm also a communications protocol engineer, trained in
multiplexing techniques.
I'm not saying Starlink engineers are incompetent, but I am saying that what
Musk (who despite the fact that he pretends to be an engineer is not one, never
has been one) has described in his visionary speeches is not what Starlink is
delivering today, and that's because it basically can't be delivered.
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
