OneWeb satellite internet initial test results

[dkyeager]

OneWeb speed test results for its low-orbit satellites:  32ms latency, 400Mbps+, livestreamed a 1080p video https://www.oneweb.world/media-center/onewebs-satellites-deliver-real-time-hd-streaming-from-space  Having been involved in these type of beta tests before, what you really want to know is how it will perform after about a year with real customer usage.  Plus the rate plan of course.

[S4GRU]

1 hour ago, dkyeager said:

what you really want to know is how it will perform after about a year with real customer usage.  Plus the rate plan of course.

Exactly

[chamb]

3 hours ago, dkyeager said:

OneWeb speed test results for its low-orbit satellites:  32ms latency, 400Mbps+, livestreamed a 1080p video https://www.oneweb.world/media-center/onewebs-satellites-deliver-real-time-hd-streaming-from-space  Having been involved in these type of beta tests before, what you really want to know is how it will perform after about a year with real customer usage.  Plus the rate plan of course.

Live Streaming 1080p takes just a couple of Mbps and it is not always the same.  Probably 2Mbps and likely more. So get 200 people livestreaming and things might go south.  Plus your other usage at the same time. Then wait till people start trying 4K streaming.  I am not a fan for placing thousands of satellites in orbit for this purpose. Wait until they go bankrupt and want to leave the trash orbiting.

[dkyeager]

I agree that it was quite a stretch to say 1080p video playback was the same as using Facebook Live etc as some journalists implied using this press release.

 

I believe the FCC has required the satellites be able to deorbit rather than become space junk.

[Brad The Beast]

8 hours ago, dkyeager said:

I agree that it was quite a stretch to say 1080p video playback was the same as using Facebook Live etc as some journalists implied using this press release.

 

I believe the FCC has required the satellites be able to deorbit rather than become space junk.

Latency isn't bad though. Not like HughesNet or Viasat or any of that trash. 

[mattp]

1 hour ago, Brad The Beast said:

Latency isn't bad though. Not like HughesNet or Viasat or any of that trash. 

some area that is all you have 

[Flompholph]

29 minutes ago, mattp said:

some area that is all you have 

OneWeb will cover the same area.  Starlink will also cover the same area which already has ~55 LEO satellites in orbit. 

[ingenium]

I am not a fan for placing thousands of satellites in orbit for this purpose. Wait until they go bankrupt and want to leave the trash orbiting.

They're in a low enough orbit that they should burn up within a year or two I think if they don't boost their altitude. They're designed to deorbit quickly upon failure. And I believe they're also designed to only last like 5 years before needing replaced due to running out of fuel? At least SpaceX's are. They said they will have to continuingly replace them.

So space junk shouldn't be a problem, unless they collide at enough velocity that some pieces are ejected to a higher orbit. But I think studied were performed to show the risk of this is minimal. The bigger issue I believe would be its effect on Earth based visual astronomy (see Starlink "train").

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[mattp]

I say what a wase to design turn to fail in 5 years instead of design then to last for a long time better for environment

[PedroDaGr8]

On 7/21/2019 at 2:36 PM, mattp said:

I say what a wase to design turn to fail in 5 years instead of design then to last for a long time better for environment

Since they are in low earth orbit, the amount of fuel for correcting for atmospheric drag determines the lifespan of the satellite. More fuel = more weight = more expensive to launch. Plus it is not that cut and dry from an environmental perspective, heavier satellites require more rocket fuel to launch into orbit. This does notable environmental damage as well. My guess is they did a cost/benefit analysis and determined this is roughly the optimal point.  Cheaper launches means less hesitation to launch. Additionally, it means that in 5 years time, they could roll out new satellites which have higher bandwidths, better back hauls, etc. This keeps them from becoming outdated and vulnerable to a new upstart with newer satellites and more efficient operations. 

[red_dog007]

On 7/20/2019 at 1:49 PM, dkyeager said:

what you really want to know is how it will perform after about a year with real customer usage.

This is going to be hard to answer as capacity is continually going to be added.  It doesn't say how many sats they have up, but Phase 1 will have 650.  Services will start being sold in 2020.  Total planned is 1980 sats.  Capacity will be added for several years. 

Same with Space X.  They can launch 60 sats at a time atm.  Their first batch of 60 has 1Tbps throughput. They plan to launch a total of 12,000 of these, launching between 1,000 to 2,000 per year.  So basically for a decade capacity is just going to always be increasing.  Over this time, the sats will get better and throughput will increase. They will also come out with new techniques to increase bandwidth on older sats.   

This is just the beginning.