SpaceX Starlink speeds revealed as beta users get downloads of 11 to 60Mbps

Source, arsTechnica: arstechnica.com...

Nowhere near the speed teased by SpaceX but it is the as low as a 20ms ping that intrigues me. I am stuck with 4gLTE out here in the boonies and my ping averages just over twice that. Also, my service out here is about 4Mbps top speed and that is when it is optimal like the middle of the night on a clear cool night. The average out here is about 2.5Mbps but like I said when it works. Of course with any satellite service, heavy rain and thick storm cloud cover will knock the service offline. If they are going to charge around $80 per month and they can at least double the beta test speeds the other satellite internet services are history.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Holy Slow Poke Internet! Sounds like dial up speeds. Get get a little better than 72Mbps on my phone's hot spot and 100 Mbps when I wire up a LAN with an ether net cable.

20ms is low enough I could use it for work.

Thanks for sharing- I've been waiting for them to get back to me on the intro testing, as I'm closer to the latitude they plan to start at than most, and have a property I'm trying to build a home on where internet could be a spendy proposition.
For now, I don't get paid without internet, so this is big news.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I had dial up for fourteen years.
You have no idea what you're talking about if you compare this to it.

a reply to: a325nt

I remember 28k modems...
Five minutes to download a video that was a two inch square on the monitor..lol

a reply to: a325nt
Back in the late 90s for me, the Internet was an Exclusive Community during that time.

56k Modems were the next big thing and cable internet around the corner.

My first internet plan with Time Warner (Formally Paragon Cable now Spectrum) was 6 Mbs DL 1.2 Mbs UP, it was also during the advent releases of both Xbox Live and Playstation network that really helped in cable internet expansion.
At the time, 6Mbs internet was blistering fast.

Nowadays, I'm paying $80 a month for 115mbps DL/15Mbps UP, ZERO data cap, Cable based.

I'm also in the zone they are looking for. Will give it a try they have wanted more information a couple of times

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: a325nt

I remember 28k modems...
Five minutes to download a video that was a two inch square on the monitor..lol

I remember driving to Boston for a 28.8, that was after many years of 14.4.

56k wasn't too long after, but the infrastructure here combined with poorly written drivers didn't really show much of a difference upgrading to 56.

The internet was a better place back then.

A little over 500 mb/sec for me , but I remember 2400 baud modems.

a reply to: a325nt

There was a 33k in there for a bit.
My first computer was 166mhz Pentium with 2gb hard drive. And a whopping 6x CD player!

Woof..

But I agree with you about the internet.
It was an experience then, 95ish, and is more like watching television today.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Going to need to get somewhere in the 250 range for me to consider it, it's what I have now and it handles everything I can throw at it. Obviously gig would be better, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

a reply to: a325nt

Same here, trying to get AT&T to get back to me as I can get fiber to the home where I'm moving. They mentioned a cost involved which I told them to just give me a number, can't even get that much out of them. I have cash and conduit in hand, I just need a run and a termination and I'm good.

Long ago cell phone to computer hookup in the woods. Think it was 2k or something like that.

a reply to: Hypntick

There will likely never be internet that fast out in the farm and ranch area of NE Texas. We are stuck with Hughes or Viasat for about $80 a month and it is about 35mbps dl and 11mbps ul. Or like me on a Sprint tower 20 miles away and 4gLTE at 3-4mbps dl and 1-2mbps on a nice day.

Honest to freaking god, that's not actually any worse than what Comcast is ripping me off with and calling "budget speed". Most customers aren't even aware that the advertised speeds they're paying for aren't the speeds they're getting in reality. I think I'm supposed to be getting 100/10 for my down/up speeds (positive on the down, but not quite about the up) but most of the time I'm landing between 40 & 60 down, and 5 up at best and that's consistent across two tablets (Fires) a desktop and a laptop, AND the Galaxy Tabs and iPads the kids' friends bring over to play games with them on. It's not my # if theirs also is slow, it's Comcast's hardware & line speeds.

Even if I have to buy the laser up-link units and pay half that price monthly for, well, basically the same internet speed, it works out to be more than worthwhile budgetarily over time. I'm on their Beta tester list, so I'm really hoping they contact me eventually. I'd love to help then fine tune, but even if I don't get that lucky, I WILL heavily consider switching over to them when they "go live", as it were.

I think the only question will be,
Will porn keep buffering?

the speeds LOL.
thats with just one person testing it.
over a city with 20,000. it will be 1/10 of that or less.
and if every one use's it ! we will all go back to cable.

small solar storm? no internet...

a reply to: machineintelligence

Hardly worth blinding Earthbound telescopes for is it.

In areas where running cables to sites may be difficult you could use the sat comms for main link with lesser ground or mobile comms as a secondary backbone, due to it being weather dependent a second route to the wider net will be needed and you could use it to bypass points where the weather is bad but I'd imagine making it resilient would probably cost more than it would bring in so no net for you if the sky go boom boom.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

14 meg uploads from dial-up?


Where do you get your stash? I need a new supplier.

Makes one wonder if these are really about providing access as a satellite-based ISP or was that just an excuse