Starlink - anybody finding this the best internet solution for where you're located?

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Starlink will be available in my area in mid-2022. The equipment will cost $500, and the service will cost $99 per month.

No; wait. It will be available in late 2023. The service will cost $110 per month, and now the equipment costs $600.

Elon keeps moving the carrot.

I now have what is known as "best effort" Starlink. It means I pay the full Starlink price, but the service is a lot slower. I see insane speeds (by my area's standards) when I use various speed tests, but what Starlink doesn't tell you is that tests are rigged. I may see 100 Mbps when I test, but I download at 3 Mbps a lot of the time.

It sounds great not to have a contract, but Elon doesn't have a contract, either, so he can do anything he wants. When the price here went up, I wasn't asked to consent. I was informed.

Starlink is much better than the garbage phone-line service I had at first, and it's better than the cell-based service that replaced it, but it's not fantastic.
 
I'm currently VPN connected to Corp HQ in Europe, and Speedtest.net just returned this at 6P local (fairly close to as much peak usage as there will be today)

1678928788277.png
 
Here is what I was told: ISP's are aware people use Speedtest, so they have worked it out so it gets better performance than other sites.

I judge my speed by downloading files, and it's not pretty.
 
Survived a cold, often snowy/icy winter and never had an issue with ice build up on the dish. Even a blizzard type snowfall one Jan afternoon didn't cause issues with my VPN connection and video calls with customers.

the dish has a heater that turns on to melt snow. i was impressed by that bit of design.
 
the dish has a heater that turns on to melt snow. i was impressed by that bit of design.
The ability to work during inclement weather is a feature I've been tracking and updating here. I was curious how well the features would work in the real world vs advertisement selling fluff, and so far the hardware has been delivering beyond specs.

Even the high temps last summer didn't cause for ol' Dishy to do a thermal shutdown, and I was able to remain working on endless mind-numbing video calls with heavy data transfer to/from remote servers while connected via VPM (o, and also with my SO streaming movies on the big TV in the other room)
 
there's a low voltage feed thru the cable connecting the dish to the modem base unit. you can set the heat capability to on/auto/off via a setting in the app

Edited to add this interesting read: Starlink in the Snow
Interesting. Where we live now in NM we normally only have a handful of days over 100F, and we're not usually here in the summer anyway. But somebody usually is so we'd have to take that into account.
 
1 TB is a hell of a lot of data. in my house two people use it for work-from-home, AKA constant video calls all day monday to friday. all our TV comes over the 'net (Prime, Netflix, Disney+, etc.). every night i watch several hours of YT vids at 1080p or higher... and yet last month we used under 0.6 TB. per the email Starlink sent, over the past 6 months we haven't hit 1 TB, so i'm unconcerned. this data cap is theoretical for us - hence the asterisk.
welp, that theoretical concern is no more:

from:Starlink <[email protected]>
to:<me>
date:May 2, 2023, 7:31 PM
subject:Starlink Fair Use Update

Good news! Your Starlink subscription will remain unlimited and will no longer be deprioritized after 1 TB of data use.

We’ve updated our Terms and Conditions to reflect this change. See the Starlink Fair Use policy to learn how we manage our network for the benefit of all customers.
 
welp, that theoretical concern is no more:

from:Starlink <[email protected]>
to:<me>
date:May 2, 2023, 7:31 PM
subject:Starlink Fair Use Update

Good news! Your Starlink subscription will remain unlimited and will no longer be deprioritized after 1 TB of data use.

We’ve updated our Terms and Conditions to reflect this change. See the Starlink Fair Use policy to learn how we manage our network for the benefit of all customers.
Was coming here to post the same update. I'm on Zoom/Chime/etc ... video calls all day long, work with large datafiles pulled/pushed on remote servers, and the fam streams movies a large part of those same hours, and we stream a lot in the evenings, and closest I ever came to the cap was once when I exceeded 80% on my allocation.
 
The anticipation of receiving Starlink and the potential it holds for resolving your connection issues must be quite exciting. Connecting to the internet seamlessly is essential in today's digital age, and Starlink has been making strides in providing reliable internet access, even in remote or underserved areas.The information you received from tessco customer service regarding a much better signal with Starlink is reassuring. Improved signal quality can lead to more stable and faster internet connections, which can significantly enhance your online experience. It's great to know that the solution you're waiting for holds such promise.
 
Last edited:
I contacted Starlink because I was on "Best Effort," and I asked if they had any idea when it would improve. They gave me unexpected news. They said I was already supposed to have normal service, and they said they had just made some kind of adjustment to make it faster.

I found out my router has two bands, and they can be separated so you have one at 2.4 and one at 5. I separated them because some devices won't work on 5, and because 2.4 has better range and far greater speed than I will ever actually get. I'm not quite sure why anyone needs the 5 GHz band when 2.4 goes 3 times as fast as the Internet itself. I don't know what the web can do under ideal conditions, but I have never gotten a speed test better than around 135 Mbps. Maybe some nerd can explain it.

It seems like 5 Ghz is all downside where I am.
 
I'm not quite sure why anyone needs the 5 GHz band when 2.4 goes 3 times as fast as the Internet itself.

fwiw, whatever max bandwidth a router can actually provide on a channel is shared between all the connected clients. And those clients may be "conversing" between themselves - LAN traffic - which can benefit from higher spec bandwidth if it is actualized...

Cheers!
 
So not a big issue here at the Heavily Armed North Florida Compound, unless intruders breach the perimeter and guess my password so they can look at porn on my dime.
 
My parents live in rural New Mexico and Viasat was their only option and it's total crap. Starlink has been a godsend for them.
I live in rural New Mexico and we're looking seriously at Starlink. We have decent line of sight service from a mountain top antenna 4 miles away, but last winter the antenna blew over in a blizzard. Luckily neither of us work and we still have good internet on our cell phones because Verizon also has their tower up there.
 
The thing I don't like is that Musk jacks up the price without warning. There is no contract. Also, when I signed up for the waitlist based on a price Musk promised, I got charged a higher price when I got my equipment. What will it cost next month? Ask Musk. He can ask for ten thousand dollars if he wants.
 
Prices increases are nothing new. Far as I know most Internet services are month by month. Sure, there are some exceptions like maybe some sort of promo rate or the occasional "price for life" thing but month by month is the norm, afaik.
 
I get 2-year contracts with Verizon. There is pretty much no hope another cell provider will work here in the foreseeable future, so I'm happy to sign. I would be using Verizon Internet if I could, but they don't offer enough monthly data. AT&T does, but the signal is bad.
 
... I'm not quite sure why anyone needs the 5 GHz band when 2.4 goes 3 times as fast as the Internet itself. I don't know what the web can do under ideal conditions, but I have never gotten a speed test better than around 135 Mbps. Maybe some nerd can explain it.

There are several variables involved regarding wireless throughput, all of which are well detailed on the Internet so I won't rehash all that here.

But, for an example why I use the 5GHz band when possible is shown below. And, yes, we have several IoT devices that only work on 2.4G so both bands are active at our house.

These two results are on the same computer, same router, same seating position, same Internet provider, same everything except switching the computer from the 5Ghz band to the 2.4Ghz band and a minute or two between tests to make that change.

Our Internet service is nominally 300/10 (that's the rated speed package) but with the typical overprovisioning we get more actual than that.

You can see why 5GHz is preferable in this case.

5G:
5g.png



2.4G
2_4g.png
 
What do you think of me making 2.4 the default in my house? I never get real downloads anywhere near the theoretical 5 GHz or even 2.4 GHz maximums, but I want the best range and reliability possible. My guess is that 5 GHz will not download any faster, but it will drop more often and give me shorter range.

Do you really trust Speedtest? It is said to be rigged by ISP's that want to impress their customers. If I were really getting 135 MBps, I would never see 4K buffering. I just got 52 down/13 up, but testfiledownload.com gave me about 5 MBps down.
 
There is TONS of info on the 'net about the pros and cons of the bands so plenty of info available to make an informed decision based on your situation which can be much different than someone elses.

And yes, generally speaking, I do trust Speedtest because it aligns well with other methods I've used to check speed like simultaneous multiple downloads of big ISO files, from someplace with huge bandwidth like Microsoft, to saturate the connection and sum the results.

Our connection through coax/cable is very stable and very consistent, as is a DSL connection I have at a different place.

If you are using cellular (you mentioned Verizon?) I guess I wouldn't be surprised to hear about more variance in speed results. As a general rule of thumb, anything wireless is more subject to external influences than something coming down a wire or fiber.

Bear in mind your Internet connection speed and the speed showing for the WiFi link between router and computer (or whatever) are two completely separate things. Can't confound the two, which maybe is part of what you're seeing with some of the numbers you mentioned.
 
As noted above, I have Starlink. Verizon is for my phone, and I used to have AT&T wireless Internet for my TV and computers.

Are you trusting Speedtest, which other people say is rigged, or are you actually downloading files and checking the speed?

I just tried two other test sites, and I got 6-7 MBps, or about 1/7 of Speedtest's figure.

Correction: Mbps, not MBps.
 
I already answered your question about Speedtest.

Tell us the other speed test sites you used in comparison.
 
I live in rural New Mexico and we're looking seriously at Starlink. We have decent line of sight service from a mountain top antenna 4 miles away, but last winter the antenna blew over in a blizzard. Luckily neither of us work and we still have good internet on our cell phones because Verizon also has their tower up there.
Yeah, they love it still. They stream movies and all kinds of stuff. The receiver has a warming feature that keeps snow melted off of the unit also. For an area without access to comcast cable or something similar it's the next best thing in my opinion. They haven't had any problems with it going down either.
 
Sorry; I somehow missed the sentence about comparing Speedtest to file downloads.

Bear in mind your Internet connection speed and the speed showing for the WiFi link between router and computer (or whatever) are two completely separate things. Can't confound the two, which maybe is part of what you're seeing with some of the numbers you mentioned.

Windows says I get about 140 Mbps between the wireless router and PC. Speedtest claims I get 52 Mbps for "download" speed, and of course, "download" refers to receiving a file and storing it on your PC, so it can't refer to my router connection. As you know, people use Speedlink to find out how fast their devices receive data, not how fast their router connections are. Actual measurement of the speeds of files being downloaded gives me around 7 Mbps.

My phone also gives me disappointing scores when connected to Starlink. I have an app that measures both router-PC speed and router-Internet speed.

I don't find Speedtest useful, because either it's wrong or it's measuring something that is irrelevant to download and upload speeds.

Whatever the story is, it's a lot better than AT& T wireless.
 
As you know, people use Speedlink to find out how fast their devices receive data, not how fast their router connections are.
A speedtest works by downloading/uploading some data. That data gets to your device through the router presuming, of course, you are speed testing a device connected to the router. So, of course it is not a direct representation of the router "speed" but it is a representation of how fast data gets to your PC, which seems to be your point of contention, various results.

Normally, when someone questions speeds and WiFi is involved, it's prudent to compare results on a wired connection.

What other speed test site or download test site are you comparing to Speedtest?
 
Last edited:
What do you think of me making 2.4 the default in my house? I never get real downloads anywhere near the theoretical 5 GHz or even 2.4 GHz maximums, but I want the best range and reliability possible. My guess is that 5 GHz will not download any faster, but it will drop more often and give me shorter range.

Do you really trust Speedtest? It is said to be rigged by ISP's that want to impress their customers. If I were really getting 135 MBps, I would never see 4K buffering. I just got 52 down/13 up, but testfiledownload.com gave me about 5 MBps down.

As noted above, I have Starlink. Verizon is for my phone, and I used to have AT&T wireless Internet for my TV and computers.

Are you trusting Speedtest, which other people say is rigged, or are you actually downloading files and checking the speed?

I just tried two other test sites, and I got 6-7 MBps, or about 1/7 of Speedtest's figure.

Correction: Mbps, not MBps.


You said speedtest gave you 52 down but testfiledownload gave you 5MBps down. Well, 5MB/s is 40Mbps and 6-7MB/s is 48Mbps and 56Mbps respectively.

Frankly, it looks like you're getting mixed up on your different download tool units of measure, thinking one is way slower but they're all in the ballpark. Average you're getting from file download is 48Mbps which is not far off Speedtest's 52Mbps.
 
This explains why no ISP has ever tried to recruit me. I thought I had checked that. Forgetfulness is rough. It's like living with a monkey that hides things from you. Sorry to waste your time.
 
So should I consider my gigabit fibre will be faster than starlink?
But I also have the possibility of catastrophic earthquake where I live and communication will be down with 4G or cable/ fibre for a period of time.
 
... as long as that wire or fiber is dedicated. speed on shared-line devices like cable modems can be just as variable as wireless...

Can be? Well... that's pretty wide open. But, typically not.

Regardless, it still remains that wireless, as a general rule, is more succeptible to external influences than wired connection.

But, since the topic is broached, if anyone has a fiber or cable Internet connection that dogs out when there might be high use times of day or night you could be on an oversold/oversubscribed node. File a ticket with the provider. If they don't fix it file a FCC complaint. Hardwired speed coming out of a cable modem or fiber ONT should be pretty consistent. That's why a key step of troubleshooting speed complaints is done hardwire to the modem. It cuts out all sorts of variabilities introduced by router and particularly wireless/WiFi.

But, now we've really digressed from the spirit of the thread.
 
Last edited:
So should I consider my gigabit fibre will be faster than starlink?
But I also have the possibility of catastrophic earthquake where I live and communication will be down with 4G or cable/ fibre for a period of time.

Maybe you'll keep connected, I suppose, if you have backup power and you or your gear isn't otherwise damaged/destroyed in the catastrophic earthquake.
 
Last edited:
alrighty - my first hiccup when using Starlink, but not necessarily a Starlink issue.

after 16 months of trouble-free Hulu streaming utilizing Starlink, this morning I was unable to stream due to Hulu service thinking I'm using a VPN to mask my location. I can guarantee I'm not outside of my work laptop, and that's shutdown since Thursday (no issues streaming Hulu on Friday, so I'm sure it's not the culprit)

maybe Starlink reset my IP address with the latest software update?
maybe Hulu is ramping up its war on satellite service providers (do they even have such a war?)
maybe my iPhone listened in on a conversation about me swapping from Hulu to YouTubeTV and Hulu took a proactive strike?

whatever the root, it's a bit frustrating as ALL of my other streaming services are working just fine. if this is Starlink related and I'm able to find a resolution, I'll post it. if the resolution turns out not to be Starlink, related I'll post it in a new Hulu thread
 
Laying in bed last night around 01:30am pst and I could hear the deep rumble of the nearby Vandenberg Space Force Base launch of a Falcon 9 rocket taking 21 more Starlink satellites into space. Maybe better days ahead for you?
 
Update: I brought everything down for 5 min yesterday morning, and then powered back on for a fresh start across the board. All but Hulu was again working shortly thereafter, and about 30 minutes later I tried Hulu again and all has been well since.

Took a drive thru vineyard country yesterday afternoon and saw a couple Starlink dishes. Looks like word is finally getting out to the remote community and people are ditching their CenturyLink DSL for true high speed internet
 
Back
Top