Starlink vs Legacy Satellites

Starlink will do everything you want. Older satellite services relying on geosynchronous satellites will not; they have very limited bandwidth and very high latencies.

Starlink satellites are a couple orders of magnitude closer to Earth than legacy satellite internet. If you are in a remote area Starlink could actually be faster than ground connections because it’s one hop to the base station which is likely to be near your desired servers.

Latency? No, the problem is price and data caps.If SpaceX is going to make huge returns on starlink, they will have to be price competitive with at least the DSL providers that are in many rural communities. Many of your remote rural areas in the US have at least 6 to 10mbps for ~$60 a month, and that's plenty for most casual users. Even for video streaming.

The existing Internet satelite are incredible expensive and not only the latency is really bad, but the bandwidth is also very limited, you can not consider it as a broadband ISP. Starlink will be a true alternative to the fiber optic ISPs, and for world-wide will be even faster thanks to the direct lasser link among the constellation.

Starlink[0] is made for you. It's a constellation in low-earth orbit, so latency is far lower than 650ms (current users are getting around of 30-60ms.) The current iteration must stay within the "cell" it's assigned to, which is only a few miles wide. But in the future, there will be a version available that'll work almost anywhere in the world.[0]: https://www.starlink.com/

Nothing about latency in there or on their website as far as I could find. Having used satellite for a while before switching to a microwave relay system, I can say it's not the bandwidth that's the issue, it's the latency. 800 ms ping times make for an exceptionally poor browsing experience, and SSH and rdesktop are nearly impossible. It's possible their approach is using LEO sats instead of geosync orbits, but in that case they'd need a lot more birds to get consistent coverage, and doesn't ma

Starlink can provide 25 to 35 ms latency from low orbits, so I don't think so.

Show me a non-Starlink satellite internet service widely available that can reach 200+ Mbps for a smallish fixed monthly cost.

I believe the innovation is that the satellites sit in low earth orbit.Traditional internet satellites operate in geostationary orbit, which is around 35,000km above the surface of the earth. This was preferable because with only a handful of satellites you could give the entire globe internet connection. However you have much higher latency due to the distance. Not exactly sure why the bandwidth is so slow, distance probably doesn't help here either. Maybe those companies are also runni

No. If you have enough inter satellite links, it is almost always better to use those unless there is congestion. It's simple math.You misread my other response. The reason I believe SpaceX will not offer 1G plans, except at a ridiculously high price, is because it's not profitable. GEO satellites could do it now if they wanted to, and their cost per bit is far lower than SpaceX.Nobody has ever said physics is limiting this. Just because they were able to land a rocket doesn'