I'm not sure benchmarks on an unloaded beta system are extremely useful. Once they add more satellites it may go down, but more users counter that...
It's decent early indicator, but hard to say long term if it's useful.
It's decent early indicator, but hard to say long term if it's useful.
I was one of the first to set it up, and since then haven’t noticed any decline in average/peak throughput or latency.
Due to blatant corruption there’s zero competition for broadband here, just resellers of the same system.
If Starlink can even sustain 20mbps+ and rolls out to rural Australia they’ll pretty much own the market, let alone similar stories across the entire globe.
Considering it doesn’t require any infrastructure, I can’t see how our tech-illiterate decrepit government can stop it. Just sell the modems online and ship directly worldwide.
Make unlicensed operation of the dishes illegal, detect violators using an AWACS plane if detector vans are not sensitive enough to detect beams formed directly to the sky. Even if a country's government can't touch SpaceX directly, the users are still a good target.
Can you tell us more about this blatent corruption? Are you saying corruption has stopped multiple players entering into the highly profitable internet market of the sparsely populated rural Australia?
Unfortunately in 2013 the coalition government won power and immediately set about to destroy the NBN.
It has since has been widely reported that this was at the behest of Rupert Murdoch who saw that his Cable network would be threatened by a high-speed broadband network.
Whatever, do your own research. There have been thousands of words written on this.
Here's just one: https://theqlder.com/2019/05/11/how-the-liberals-sabotaged-t...
And here's the very detailed Wikipedia version:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_National_Broadb...
Is it not ok to ask people making bold statements to backup their claims?
The wikipedia article (which I admittedly only quickly scanned) doesn't appear to mention corruption, murdoch, or newscorp. The other is a hyperbolic opinion piece that doesn't provide any references whatsoever.
Regardless of all this, you completely missed my point. The grandparent was complaining about lack of competition whilst being in a semi-rural (read low population density) and there being only one real option, with multiple resellers. Corruption isn't stopping rollout of companies from rolling out multiple competitive networks to rural australia. There is not going to be any return on investment.
For a country like australia we need internet as publicly owned infrastructure, with "zero competition...just resellers of the same system".
The coalition really ballsed-up what should have been a great resource for the so called "clever country". However, if starlink lives up to the marketing promises "our tech-illiterate decrepit government"s opinion that it would be a waste to provide fibre coverage to 93%* of our population, and their decision to instead to wait for technological advances to provide solutions better suited to australia is suddenly not a bone headed as people make out.
* Australian urban population is 86.2% https://knoema.com/atlas/Australia/ Australi
To be issued frequency allocations within each country, the satellite communications must be routed via multiple ground stations within that country.
Fascinating, which treaty or 'law'?
My understanding is that Starlink is authorized to operate in Australia: https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/australia