For reference, our entire house consumption overnight cycles from a nominal 130W minimum jumping to 250W peak when a fridge compressor turns on briefly. We have two fridges and our internet moder and router boxes run 24/7, plus the usual phantom power stuff including 4 aircons in programmed standby. So a 100W satellite internet modem box is massive.
TF could learn the art of trimming down things we’ve already seen into a very brief summary and quickly moving onto the thing we haven’t seen, which is why we clicked on the vid.
The farthest apart Earth and Mars can be is about 401 million km, which translates to about 1300 seconds one way light travel. Or a ping (return) of 2600 seconds, or about 45 minutes. At least, when the sun is not in between. 12 minute ping is the very best situation, when Mars and Earth are closest to each other.
@@pete_lind For that matter, why does my NOT-a-Tesla's LKAS randomly lose sight of lane markings? Why does my auto-braking trigger for no reason when the closest car is more than a mile ahead in a different lane?
Watching this video over a Starlink connection over a year after publication is rather interesting. I can't speak to the economics of the system, but as an end user, I can speak to the usability. The download speeds are actually pretty decent, but the upload speeds are rather slow (about the same as the 4G wireless available in my area). The latency is an issue, though, and there are definitely some video games and programs that do not like it, with multi-second drops in connection altogether. Also, the power consumption issue is spot on. Our power bill has definitely gone up since switching over, and when our power has gone out, my little 300 W inverter can barely keep it running (and that's the only think hooked up to it). I really don't recommend Starlink to anyone who has an alternative high-speed internet available to them (I don't), but it is at least a workable service for those of us who don't (and who can afford it).
the huge problem is that star link is very much a tech bro, "free market" solution, to a issue that could be resolved in 5=7 years. We currently have fiber optic cables that utterly destroys starlink in performance. We could have it and copper cables in most of the developed world and still spend less than what star link is trying to offer
@@reggiefreeborn2143 Oh, I absolutely agree, but unfortunately, our current "free" market capitalist system won't allow what you're describing to happen. I live in an area that was promised fiber optics 20 years ago now, and it never happened. Too few people worth too little money. Unfortunately, Starlink's primary customer is three-to-four-Teslas-in-the-garage households with a dozen different high-speed ISPs servicing their region, but they are going with the more expensive Starlink because they "believe." If I had just one high-speed ISP in my region that didn't charge by the gigabyte for limited data, I'd drop Starlink in a second, but unfortunately, for poorer America, that's not an option.
I'd just be interested to see a comparison of what it would cost to just run cable internet to these remote areas to serve customers vs the cost of the Starlink program orbiting hundreds of satellites. Of course, the satellites serve a larger surface area than a single cable line, so it could be argued that you'd get a better return on investment with the satellite, assuming it continues function properly.
@@gdreaper8771 At this point, cable or fiber optic cable be significantly cheaper, especially if you're accounting for service life of the equipment. With wireless connections, you only need to install a main artery, and you'd still be able to offer direct internet access to a wide swath of geographical area.
Im 100% off grid in Canadian woods.. i have satellite internet, router and wifi pulls 30w.. but the rest is the same.. speed wise. Costs hundred bucks a month.. unlimited.
I'm a Starlink user here in Canada. I was on a 14 meg down 0.5 up 70ms connection. Starlink currently gives me up to 250 meg down and 20 to 30 up with 25 to 30ms connection for the same monthly price I was paying for my local connection. Not sure where the tech will end up but as long as it's better then the garbage internet I was previously on i"ll keep paying them money. As Thunderf00t says my biggest worry will be customer saturation as more and more people subscribe to the service. If it all ends up being hopes and dreams and broken promises...hey at least I had decent internet for awhile.
Signing this. Similiar experience here in the middle of the Europe, starlink is a game changer for us. Speeds are more than 20x better than second only option so yeah that much to the video xD
@@AdrieKooijman at this point, even if constellation won't make profit for fund other things, as was intended and stays forever in red numbers. I think that now, when the benefits are clearly visible, and more possible use cases are coming. Starlink will always find some source of funds ;) U'll see.
"TF could learn the art of trimming down things we’ve already seen into a very brief summary and quickly moving onto the thing we haven’t seen, which is why we clicked on the vid." @Divine Boredom
In that case his stupidly wrong arguments wouldn't sit comfortably behind a wall of unrelated nonsense that keeps everyone except his cult followers away. Just like the other thing he stupidly recommends this video is bunk without any substance at all.
Musk is factually correct in his timelines at least for several of the clips in this video. Everything else Thunderf00t hates on him comes down to him being a few years optimistic on timelines and him telling other companies to make the Hyperloop instead. He has a hate-boner for the incredible achievements Musk and his companies are actually accomplishing
@@monsterous289 A rich billionaire has ideas that sound not so far-fetched and everyone thinks he's a genius, what everyone is missing is the most important detail; this man has NO idea how to make it real, he bets one or several of his underpaid and abused engineers will magically come up with breakthrough tech "the next year" Why do idiots see this man as a modern-day Tesla? When it's clear he's Edisson on steroids.
No we have to get off the planet, we stay here we will kill 2/3 s of each other one way or another. Colonialism boys, the game is based played by libertarians.
Well... I'm not watching all of this Starlink is an actual thing now. I've watched sailors do live streams from the middle of the ocean. Currently a YT sailing channel is uploaded a 30 min video every day summarizing the prior day's sailing. The are half the way to Azores, 2023-07-06 Both those things were impossible before except for EXTREMELY expensive satellite internet. Musk's constellation of mini satellites is working. Thunderfoot... BUSTED!
You do know that there has internet by sat's before Starlink? You do know that there is internet by sat's at this moment by several other companies? You do know that those other companies don't have to send up thousands of sat''s? You do know that those other companies are cheaper? You do know that except for some very remote areas sat internet is way more slower and way more expensive than just landline based? You do know that the only ones that can gain with a bit quicker internet are those that have easy and cheap access to glas fiber internet?
@@PDVism Those satellite providers, to be blunt, sucked ass and continue to do so. There is a reason Starlink is eating their lunch. Their cheapest plans may have a lower monthly cost than Starlink, but come at substantially lower speeds, much much much higher latency and crazy low bandwidth caps. Viasat offers 25 megabit for $70 a month with 60GB caps and latency over half a second. If I go up to $300 a month I get the same latency, but 100 megabit speeds and a cap at 500 gigs. (they label this plan as 'Best Value') Hughes starts at 15 megabit for $50 a month and a whopping 15 gigs for the month. Their upper end is 25 megabits for $150 and 200 gigs.
@@PDVism Really? A family member of mine recently moved to the country, where the only internet options were Hughes net and Starlink. For about $15 more each month Starlink offered over 8X the connection speed, with over 50milliseconds less latency. This is due to Starlink having thousands of satellites in LEO vs the alternative with just a few satelites being thousands of miles away. My family member is now able to work remotely from his land without fiber, DSL, cable, or cellular. Starlink is very real and, in many cases, the only real solution to remote internet. The future is now old man!
That isnt how ISPS work at all. Looking at amazon EC2 rates have no relation to the costs of interconnecting between the large backbone network providers around the world.
Because thunderfoot hates Elon and will use whichever data makes him look worse. His point about how many people can use each satellite shows his complete lack of understanding of how ISPs currently work, but let's not let that get in the way of shitting on Elon!
@@TehPoet There is also the concept of backhauling data. Some of the richest entities on the planet are the guys who own the different undersea cables that connect the planet. Starlink, has already proven it would provide lower latency for many of the international connections that take place on the planet. Aka, you going to have ISPs all over the world, paying Starlink for backhaul. That is where the big money for Starlink comes in, not the average consumers.
@@draken5379 That would mean that 1. optical back haul for Starlink works as advertised 2. ISP WILL get direct ground-to-space access to this back haul through laser. Two BIG IFs. And for back-haul you need BANDWIDTH which you can't oversubscribe as much as typical access system for residential areas. Current record of fibre transmission stands on 255 Tb/s which is roughly 12k times bandwidth of single satellite. Fastest deployed is about 60 Tb/s - 2k more than highest throughput of single satellite. This is of course, experimental but there's no way free space transmission can catch up to that. To replicate 1 Tb/s link, ISP would need either array of terminals talking to multiple - and I mean multiple - satellites or laser terminals and specialized satellites constantly handling over ONLY this communication.
@@piotrd.4850 Bandwidth for backhauling huh ? Do you understand what backhauling is mate. People would be paying Starlink, to use thier LEO network. People would be paying Starlink for bandwidth. People today really have a terrible understanding of bandwidth. There is no IFs. They already have the new version of the sats with the tech, they just need to deploy and test. Light travels faster in space, than through a fibre optic cable, thus Starlink will always have more bandwidth potential to provide for any 'link' you could make from different ground stations on the ground itself.
Just something that's wrong-ish. 30tb/s is a lot, bandwidth is always oversold, even when you buy a 1gbps dedicated connection in a datacentre. Just for comparison a multibillion dollar datacentre company housing hundreds of thousands of servers around the world has a total network capacity of 2.5tb/s. The internet is deceptively "slow". Look at the uplink to subscriber bandwidth ratios on GPON equipment. EDIT: Also ISPs don't have to buy much bandwidth as they just peer with other networks. Also again, AWS bandwidth charges are insanely overpriced.
The problem is not in the single satellite bandwidth, or their combined one. The problem is that it operates on limited spectrum. It's not the capabilities of the satellite itself, but so to speak the limits imposed on it by FCC. Link budget analysis of the parameters SpaceX has provided in its FCC filings suggest that the maximum supportable forward link data rate to a user terminal in a 250 MHz channel is approximately 400 Mbps. The maximum Starlink forward link capacity to any point on the Earth is 8 channels x 400 Mbps = 3.2 Gbps. The minimum Ku‐band satellite transmit beam on the Earth’s surface, per SpaceX’s Mod 3 application, is a 22‐km diameter spot = 380 square km. Now you multiply 3.2 Gbps by 0.7 take rate and divide by 10 Mbps reserved (2TB monthly cap) = 224 locations / dishes in that spot. But you have 20% overhead due to waveform overhead and over subscription headroom, and another 20% for spectrum sharing with other satellite networks. So, 224 * 0.8 * 0.8 gives approximately 150 locations / dishes per 380 square km. Only 0.4 locations per square km can be served! US is approx. 10 000 000 square km So, 4 million locations / dishes in US at best. That's at 100 Mbps at 2 TB monthly cap. And honestly, even this is too good to be true of an estimation. If you look at OneWeb, they offer the following - Speed (to/from UT): 25-50 Mbps / 5Mbps - Volume: 100 GB/Month - Latency: 30ms or this - Speed: 5 Mbps / 1 Mbps - Volume: 10 GB/Month - Latency: 30ms A quote from their document, answering questions to ofcom UK: "OneWeb will provide broadband internet access to hundreds of thousands of users (corporate and consumer) around the world" See - not even a million world wide.
@@2L40K this wasn't super relevant to my points, but I'm interested in where you got the 400mbps for a 250mhz channel from and if that's actually true because it seems very low to me. Also the FCC only applies to USA and they can also negotiate for more of the spectrum, well depending on the frequency.
@@aaronshed It doesn't matter what it seems to you, that's what it is. And it's quite relevant, because the bottleneck of the system is not in the single satellite bandwidth, or the combined one, but it's rather the limited spectrum and signal strength. Not to mention, that the lower channel will not be used, because it interferes with radio astronomy.
@@2L40K I'm not sure why you need to get angry. You seem to have assumed some things about my opinions, of which I have non on this subject. Merely stating some facts. Also you reaffirmed your point about bandwidth without providing any sort of evidence or reference, which is all I was asking for. If you take offence to someone asking for evidence then a technical debate is probably not for you.
@@aaronshed ... He did. Google what he told you to, and take a look at the report of the FCC regarding a similar network by Viasat. I did not look into anything from Tesla (or whatever the company is called) directly, but i would assume that Tesla uses a similar setup. In that report you can see that they are trying a 600mbps setup as well which mostly did not work (even the 400mbps were a bit iffy). Although they did not specify the exact/main reasons (e.g. signal strength, interference, electronic errors), these problems will occur.
19:47 -- No, no, you have to do internet service provider arithmetic here. Yes, you SELL 20Mb/sec internet, but users won't use that bandwidth 24/7. Do you want to what the ISP I had when I was a kid in the early 2000s had for their connection to the internet? Initially when dialup was the only thing they offered, their connection to the backbone was a 3Mb/sec dedicated (copper) connection. After they began offering DSL, they slowly doubled this and upgraded from copper to fiber until they hit a maximum of 18Mb/sec in 2003. By your math, that's only 6 DSL customers, yet they served thousands in addition to the local schools and the town library. Trust me, ISP math is WAY different.
That is not how the internet is billed from a tier 1 ISP at all. For the full network they would probably pay paying less than half a billion a year worst case scenario(90m to 300m per year is more realistic). Still doesn't change the outcome but you're still wrong on that part. Tier 1 ISPs generally bill on connection speed or connection speed 95th percentile utilization. you could have private peering agreements which in most cases reduces cost. Using AWS numbers is pretty useless for calculating ISP bandwidth costs. It's kind of like using the cost of a posh hotel room to calculate how much renting a apartment should cost somebody. That's a pretty bad analogy but it's the best I could come up with.
He is also overestimating the launch and satellite costs massively, the breakeven number of customers is probably somewhere near 0.5-1mil, not 4mil as he says (for 10k satellites).
Thunderfoot really lets his arguments down with over simplified and sometimes just playing wrong numbers. He's totally right though, Elon Musk is the conman king.
@@andrewandersson I don't know enough about launch costs to agree or disagree. I could do research and figure it out, but I don't really care enough to do it.
@@randomname4726 yeah it really annoys me when he does that. This one particularly got me irritated because it's literally was part of my job. So I can speak with authority on this. (No exact numbers because NDA and it's been a while) I think part of the reason why Elon is so good at it is because he mostly believes what he's saying.
In his defence, he's an entrepreneur, not the engineer that tries to get a billions for research from Elon. No one here will claim that Elon invented, built, or calculated anything in his life. He just learned that as a famous billionaire you can directly impact your wealth and income by just talking out of your ass and since there are plenty of stupid people, he's not wrong about that.
@Simple Weirdo Lol no it doesn't. Every other satellite internet service has horrible throughput, high latency and ridiculous costs. Something like 3000 euro for the hardware and a 1000 euro/month subscription for 8 mbps / 1 mbps.
It's almost as if the factory is getting built in texas...right now. Thunderfoot used to make good video's, but the anti musk tirades are embarrassing for what was once a good channel, and the worst part is, it's got a bunch of you convinced about things that are not even remotely true. Such a shame
Watching this channel's devolution teaches one thing: there are countless idiots willing to be impressed by baseless bullshit and there are the conmen to feed off such a crowd of idiots. Fanbosy are the pests of the 21st century. Fanboys and their annoying idols.
So... you thought about a public execution of someone so well known that many people want to see, so government had to build a single person maglev train with electric chair and fry that guy simply by air friction?
This didn't age very well. Another 53 satellites launched this morning... on a vehicle that had 5 previous flights. Not to mention supplying a butt load of receivers to Ukraine.
The question then remains as to whether these sattelites are maneuverable. NASA brought to mind the concern that all these sattelites in orbit are raising the risk of collision. What happens if a starlink hits a manned mission during ascent or descent? Is there any method of, for the lack of a better term, traffic control to keep certain areas of orbit clear for launches? There are still some things to iron out about all this and I'm not too comfortable declaring starlink an unmitigated success until I know that these issues have been addressed.
@@FatOnAxis It does also bring up a question of maintenance, or do they plan to just deorbit and replace the sattelites that need maintaining? The more I think about this, the less long term I feel it is.
@@toasterboipencil I'd be fairly sure there are a lot more than Starlink satellites that are a hazard to communications. There's the other several thousand satellites, owned by everyone from NASA to random companies with $100k going spare to watch too!
@@Sgtshadist if that's your attitude don't watch his videos. I like those 15 minutes used to set up the rest of the video. People are like children today. They've got no staying power.
15:00 - Thunderf00t still doesn't know how to round. He'll say it's not important, but if you care about accuracy, why not round correctly? 15:38 - Not 42,000 satellites. Accuracy matters. The 42,000 figure comes from two compounded mistakes. Starlink Gen 1 was originally going to be 12,000 satellites, but the plan was updated and higher orbital shells were dropped, and the figure is now ~4,400. Starlink Gen 2 has had paperwork submitted for *up to* 30,000 satellites, but this will be a replacement for Gen 1, not an addition. 17:20 - Compound errors. Yes, it would be 140 launches every year to launch 42,000 satellites every 5 years, but that's not the plan. The plan is 4,400 satellites, to be replaced by Gen 2 at some point. 4,400 sats comes out to 15 launches a year. 18:25 - Nobody has ever tried launching a LEO constellation with their own reusable rocket. 20:00 - This is incorrect. 1,500,000 simultaneous full-load users =/= 1,500,000 customers. Oversubscription without harming data rates is a thing. 21:25 - $60 million for a Falcon 9 launch. Accuracy matters. This is just ridiculous, that's the customer price for a new Falcon 9, he's not even using the reusable price, let alone internal price. Let's use Phil's own numbers from his earlier videos of reusable costing 40%, or $24 million per launch. Let's also use $250,000 for each satellite. Now the figure is $6.5 billion to get 10k satellites in orbit, which is far more than the 4,400 for the initial constellation. 23:00 - As Phil pointed out, most of the satellites at any given point will be over an ocean. Phil is unwittingly assuming 10,000,000 simultaneous users, 24/7. If that were the case, that would mean at least $11.8 billion in revenues, but to saturate satellites' usage 24/7, you definitely need some oversubscription. 2x means $23.76 billion per year in revenue. 3x means $35.64 billion per year in revenue. This argument is actually one in favor of SpaceX. 23:40 - Notice what Phil does, he presents an 'outrageous' argument first, in his sarcastic tone, and then he 'generously' allows for a more realistic scenario and continues to mock it. How difficult is it to get Phil's $4 billion per year breakeven? Accuracy matters, but Phil likes to round and compound rounding errors. The real number is 3.4 million customers, globally. Phil again ignores oversubscription. The entire premise of this video falls apart with an oversubscription rate of merely 2x, to the tune of billions/year in profit.
"Oversubscription without harming data rates is a thing." the business isn't even started good and already they need bullshit like that to make it profitable?
Thunderf00t has to be taking the piss at this point. I'm seriously thinking he is having a laugh...and profiting...at the expense of his subscribers. Take the 13 excruciatingly repetitive Hyperloop videos for example (and Elon Musk has no financial interest in anything related to it. He simply produced a 'whitepaper' detailing his vision of an existing concept). As for Starlink, someone of his alleged academic qualifications cannot possibly be so stupid or ignorant as to actually think this video is any kind of realistic assessment of the available information. So many things left out or misrepresented it's not even funny. This same guy reckoned that landing and reusing rocket boosters wouldn't be viable. I'd say that he should stick to physics, but he probably makes more money taking the piss out of his subscribers.
@@cristic767 That's not bullshit... That's how ISP companies work... It's why you can download a blue ray in 5 min at 3 in the morning, or 2 hours at 6:30 at night when everyone is curling up with their Netflix...
i think you're being a bit overly pessimistic about the actual cost to run and maintain the network. with the development of starship the cost to launch satellites will come down significantly, the satellites themselves will no doubt also get cheaper to produce and also improve in capabilities. your point about the laser interconnection does make a lot of sense. but just because it will be hard, does not mean it is impossible. we may find out that at least with current technology . it is not possible. but the point of this is to see what is possible and if something is not. why not. i am very skeptical of anything elon says, but the fact he is willing to try such crazy things at all is what will push technology forward sure it might all end going up in smoke but it hasn't done so yet. i however completely disagree on your comparing the ability of satellites to dodge space debris to that of a cars ability to drive itself on public roads etc. space debris would be almost completely impossible for a starlink satellite to see and as such they don't even try. debris is tracked via ground stations and the information is available in a vast database, which the satellites can use to maneuver when required. with almost no effort on their behalf it is a far far simplier problem than computer vision and driving in real world conditions sure, the debris problem is a little more complex than i have described as a lot of debris are currently untrackable but for the debris we know of. getting out of the way is not difficult. interactions can be predicted many orbits in advance and so the margins are quite wide. again. that is for the debris we can see. and there is a LOT up there which we cant. saying starlink is busted is to me a bit untruthful sure it will face a lot of difficulties and im sure many which we cannot forsee but right now. it does work, and it is only the first try. the first computers, compared to today. are almost useless now. and who is to say we will not see a similar kind of improvement with starlink. anyway, thats my "rant" over. i do genuinely enjoy your content, just in some cases i think you are too pessimistic. the march of time never stops and so the march of technology should not stop either doubt you'll read this though
I think he needs 30 billion for starlink more than what nasa gives. You know he making an ipo sorry it. The way it is going he sounds more of a scammer than real.i also want things he promised to become real. But he doesn't even know what he doing. Also he is a guy who took over other people idea and company and made the world think it's his idea. Like PayPal and Tesla. He is more of a dirty businessman than a visinory
@@fask69 he announced it in July 2021.go see Mr skeptic video about starlink and he is not rich. Why cause most of his reachness comes from government fund and investors. His own personal assets are worth 200 million. Though the debt he owns is about 6 billion to China alone. And has 700 lawsuits against him. Jeff Bezos personal asset itself is 40 billion. The Amazon funds his other money we see. You should see the videos I use to consider him great. But he just a bussissmen.
Is 90% of this video just a rehash of stuff that Tunderf00t already lampooned? Yes. I am no particular fan of Musk, Tesla, SpaceX, etc, but MAN, do these videos get annoying. Same stuff, rearranged. TF can be sooo much better than this.
Your numbers are wrong. Most internet providers overbook between 20:1 and 50:1. So instead of 1.000 customers per satellite, you could have up to 50.000.
You’re making an assumption that you can do the same thing with Star Link that typical fiber ISPs do. I’m not saying it will or won’t work the same but there’s no evidence either way.
What satellite network do we have that your assumption is based on? Non so you compare it to fibre optic cable based internet. Why? Why should it work the same way?
It was nonsensical. Basically thunderfoot needed to know how much links into transit networks cost. He probably either a) didn't know, or b) couldn't find out. In which case he should have just forgotten about it and moved on.
Bandwith prize depends on how much bandwith is available. In this sample Starlink has his own bandwith (and I don't care how much that is). Nobody is sharing it and thus it is an internal figure. If an IP needs a cable to put bandwith into your home, it either owns that cable or it has to lease / rent it from the company that owns the cable. That means that there can be costs attached to that bandwith. On the other hand creating a bandwith always costs money. Usually companies / owners try to cover that "installation" cost via "rent" payments. Thus you may be able to break that down on usage. BTW I'm only arguing about the math here. I'm NOT talking if it makes sense or not. Usually "bean counters" crunch such numbers. I have NO idea, where the numbers in this video are coming from or if they make any sense at all.
@@reecesx I don't understand what you want. Depending on what ISP you use, and if it uses peering to other networks for some connections it has to pay for them. This is why DTAG peering for example has been shit in the past since they did not want to pay for proper peering to some other heavy-load networks (peering to RUclips for example was slow) (actually DTAG wanted too much money).
He doesnt take anything like that to any extreme. He's merely conning millions of people. Nothing that hasnt been done a gazillion times already, by endless churches, priests, politicians, corporations and their leaders, etc. He's not even trying anything new thats outside the conman's book. Its all been tried successfully and unsuccessfully in the past, to con, deceive and manipulate others to the conman's will. He even tells you "I have confidence in....this thing I am trying to sell you." Thats the most obvious and pathetic trick in the book. By declaring his confidence, he's trying to tell you to have confidence in him. Con-fidence in the Con-man. At this point, Musk is fearless, he knows that his devout believers will never stop believing in him, no matter what. And he's right. Thus he is a successful conman. I dont like it, but it is true.
It's kind of sad that the only way thunderf00t can "debunk" Starlink is to be super misleading, bordering on being intellectually dishonest. Starlink doesn't claim it's going to put 42,000 satellites in LEO, but rather 4,400 satellites in LEO. The first 15 minutes, thunderf00t rambles on about Elizabeth Holmes and Elon Musk. It's interesting to note that thunderf00t only "busted" Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes months after she was busted and exposed by others. When thunderf00t finally does talk about Starlink about 15 minutes in, he gets the amount of satellites wrong and bases his following conclusions on the wrong number he made up. It's interesting thunderf00t takes Elon Musk's word on companies that went broke trying to do similar, but doesn't mention which ones. He just blindly takes Musk on that. Ironic. Thunderf00t intellectual dishonesty is on par with Elon Musk's intellectual dishonesty. Both just make shit up. I've begun to noticed thunderf00t being misleading or dishonest in his videos quite often. Sometimes it's clear he doesn't even know what he's talking about, like the helicopter on mars thing. He has zero clue as to how helicopters stay aloft. He claims in the mars helicopter video that helicopters stay aloft by pushing air down and out of the way lol. Wrong. Helicopters stay aloft because they rotate their wings to produce lift very similar to how airplanes produces lift. Thunderf00t should stick to chemistry related topics that he's knowledgeable about. When he tries to "bust" something outside of his expertise, he gets so much stuff wrong. When he's shown he's wrong, he won't admit to it. Bad scientist
Wrong, hovering in land effect the helicopter DOES use that cushion, and the description he gives IS pretty much the same as you describe. Airplane wings produce lift by diverting wind down etc. unless your one of those armchair engineers who believe in Lift Demons. Try getting a plane to fly with no forward speed and/or no angle of attack. "I've begun to notice blamethenile being misleading and dishonest ..."
I was wrong about the calculations being off. I misheard the portion where Elon mentions the bandwidth of the 1500 satellites. I thought he said they were pushing that much, not capable of that much. That was the main point of my argument, the other points are minor in terms of how much they would affect the overall calculation. -@Thunderfoot Big fan, but your number crunching is wrong in this video. Nearly all consumer internet service providers promise only "Up to" the advertised speed. This is because ISP's assume that customers won't be maxing their connections out 100% of the time so they buy only as much bandwidth as they reasonably expect may be in use at once. --Starlink.com--: "During beta, users can expect to see data speeds vary from 50Mb/s to 150Mb/s". In networking terms, this is called oversubscribing. You're also assuming the data output of 30 Tb/s across all 1500 satellites is uniform across each satellite and that there aren't a few satellites pushing 1 Tb/s or even more. This is a bad assumption. AWS is selling a service by transferring data, not showing you the true cost of bandwidth for that data transfer so this number is bad also. In networking, there's also something called a data transfer node which caches commonly used data so that it doesn't need to be fetched from the internet, which could further reduce cost depending on how they set up the Starlink back end.-
@Fourier21 I can get being perturbed by that but sometimes you do have to estimate for calculations and estimates are often close enough for comparison. I'm not sure Starlink is going to be successful either and I agree that Elon Musk often over promises and under delivers.
Now while Thunderf00ts math might not always be perfect, he has to rely on some assumptions and his calculations aren‘t always perfect you are ignoring some fundamentals of computing. Now ignoring the fact that a 1Tbpstransfer rate per satellite would be technological marvel in its own way that doesn‘t change the fact that any given satellite pushing that level of speed wouldnt make any difference due to how starlink works. Starlink works by sending data using directional radio to the satellite, then the satellite sends it through the satellite grid via lasers or radio and then eventually sends it back down to some station where it enters the ground internet again and can access servers and data centres. This means that in order for that 1Tbps to be effective every single link in that chain needs ro be able to sustain that same speed. A single bottleneck could literally at any point in time be the satellite above googles datacentre, which is hit by an inconceivable amount of data per second. Also if a single satellite was able to push 1 Tbps then all satellites would be able to theoretically do that because they were probably manufactured at the same location. And if they could achieve that speed Elon wouldn‘t name 30Tbps for 1500 satellites as the public number.
@@agent3202 I was just generalizing, not specifying how fast I thought a satellite might be able to transmit. Your final line made me go rewatch and I realized I misheard what Elon said.
There's a simple solution to this all "Dear customer thank you for beta testing Starlink the past year, from now on we will be asking you to pay double for the service, thank you."
Thunderf00t, your greatest contribution to humanity is the crystal clear evidence you offer the world that just because an individual (you) earned a science degree, doesn't mean they are intelligent.
Thunderf00t has become one of those creationist priests he fought so hard against in his heyday, now, he is surrounded by a very small rabid fanbase that take his words as gospel, don't challenge him at all, and despite all external and measurable evidence against their beliefs, despite being proven wrong over and over by people in the relevant industries, he will never be wrong in the eyes of his fans, and as long as click money keeps rolling in, Thunderf00t no longer cares that he is a parasite leeching bitterly onto the success of productive individual like Musk, who unlike Thunderf00t, repeatedly admits he makes mistakes and is optimistic with his timeline, but here, as long as it feeds Thunderf00t and his channel, he no longer has the dignity to care about being right or wrong. As someone who was once a fan of Thunderf00t, it is really, really sad to see what he has become over the years.
And you are a crystal clear example of an Elon Stan who clearly isn’t intelligent. Who tf trusts a guy who makes wild claims and doesn’t follow through half the time?
It's simple. Starlink is a military project (weapons and defence systems internet), funded by military. So it doesn't need to be profitable on civil market. All this "internet for rural areas" is just a PR plus some additional income.
It is not? The military is going to be a big time user, especially marine forces I would wager. WHEN and IF the thing becomes available as a MOBILE device. IF! Lets just see I guess... And I guess main funding will come in the form of businesses spending big money for super fast latency over the atlantic or even pacific ocean, WHEN and IF they can make the whole laserlink stuff work reliably, which the first few satellite generations do not even have.
no it isn't. Starlink Slow Speeds: How to Speed it Up [2023] 12 jul 2023 - Network congestion is probably the most common issue when it comes to slow speeds from Starlink. by the way, starlink can never be quicker than the upload stations, or to put it differently, seeing that starlink has to send and get it's data from base stations and those get their data over land lines, starlink can't be quicker than glass fiber connections. Glass fiber connections that are cheaper to install than sending up thousands of sat's with rockets, sat's that need to be replaced at least every 3 years.
@@PDVism Forbes reports speeds of up to 500mbps in rural Canada where fiber optic is unavailable. the upload stations are fiber optic but that doesn't compare to an end user fiber optic hookup. starlink ping is only marginally higher, and not humanly perceptible.
@@wildbillnye 1/ Forbes isn't exactly a good source for technical data. 2/ Even Forbes mentions that theoretical 500Mbps is what you pay for on the most expensive plan. There for not for all users. To be exact, one has to pay 2.500 USD one time cost + 250 USD a month. Now how many gamers life in some distant rural part with no landline internet available? How many stock brokers or high level business people are located somewhere so far away from civilization that they can't connect to a fiber optics internet and can and are willing to spend thousands of USD a year on it? heck, they even have a plan that goes for 5.000 USD (Starlink Mobility 5TB of Priority Mobile data.) 3/ Even Forbes mentions that normal users are theoretically facing speed of 50(fifty) ot 250 at best. In reality, if you can get 100mbps you are lucky. In comparison : I live in a provincial city area (roughly 250.000 people). I pay roughly 80 a month for a mainline phone, internet and a cell phone plan with international calling. My internet usage has no cap and my speed is between 90 and 100 Mbps. My ping rate is only 16ms. So why the eff would anyone around here pay way more for way less? 4/ The more users share the same sat, the lower the speed for all. So even if you are on the most expensive plan you won't see 500mbps if there are another 1000 people sharing the same sat. There for the best connection speed you can get can only happen if there aren't lots of customers. Now think back on how much it costs to making the sats (that only last 3 to 5 years), launching a bunch of sats, making the dishes, distributing them, back end costs for repair, replace, billing, customer support, etc etc etc... And again. seeing that the sats are just a relay station it means that it can never EVER be quicker than the speed at the base station. Believing otherwise is like saying that you can have more water coming out of the garden hose than the amount of water coming out of the faucet connected to that hose.
@@PDVism Yeah, this is true. Starlink was never meant to overtake fiber, it's just meant to create a very viable off-grid solution to practically anyone around the world (who can afford it), and in that realm, I think it's doing pretty good.
For the failed projects, as long as they weren't introduced with malevolent intentions I think we should be encouraging and not disparaging regardless of failure or success. Most new ideas are fated for failure, and disparaging such new ideas for failure I think is overall bad for encouraging others to try new things.
Yeah he’s not discouraging the new ideas per say. Because I would have to imply that Elon musk was coming up with original ideas and not just throwing on a new layer of paint to hold ideas that were left by the wayside long time ago because mathematics and proven them to be impractical for most scenarios.
While that is true, in a world with limited resources, we should probably try to spent them on the most reasonable ideas. Maybe we should also clearly communicate, how close we are to actually achieving our goals and where the chances and risks are. Preferably before we collect other peoples money, which they might be willing to give to us, because they *somehow* got the impression, that we are very close to achieving our goals. I might be wrong, but that thought is what keeps me from collecting other peoples money to finally realize that perpetual motion machine based on free karmatic energy and frying pans.
@@doylethelovely2555 You mean like being intellectually dishonest about the dead sats at the ISS altitude? Yea, those are going to decay, re-enter, and disintegrate.
@@ShubhamPatil-cb8dk How about currently 3 million subscribers? Plus inked (and already launching) contracts worth billions to provide a private Starlinkesque constellation for the military. Every major cruise ship line are now customers. Airlines are now starting to add it to their fleets. The first direct to cell satellites started launching in January and have already enabled video conferencing between two off the shelf cell phones with no terrestrial cell tower involved.
@@seanlarabee6300I know this is super. Late, but starlink was only able to achieve 3 million after 7k satellites, ultimately causing this business to scale slowly. Most likely, musk will break even with this project which is the best case scenario considering the crazy amount of risk due to failure in launching or lack of customer base. Remember that Musk makes so many risky investments that he ends up losing anyway.
@@OneStudCubed Only is an interesting word to use to describe 3 million satellite Internet subscribers. (and the number is currently closer to 6k satellites but that is a minor quibble) HughesNet has been by far the single biggest player in that space. I think they launched their first satellite way back in 2000, and over the course of the next 20 years or so grew to only 1.5 million subscribers. (I only lasted through my first contract before I dropped them like a hot potato. Miserable experience. Low bandwidth but no caps and better latency via four hops of microwave relay for a higher price was a better option for me.) Starlink hit 1.5 million about 9 months after leaving beta. It took another year to double that to the 3 million point. That growth was limited due to Starlink holding potential subscribers on waitlists so as to not avoid over saturating popular geographic areas. Now that the laser interlinks are giving them more flexibility for routing traffic, those lists are mostly a thing of the past. Tthe rate of new subscribers has been increasing. March to April and April to May have seen the two largest single month jumps in subscriber count yet.
.. bro.. starlink will be the only internet i really can have.. I pay over 1200zar a month for just 20 mps internet speeds (CAPPED AT 90 a month) thats over $60 A MONTH FOR SLOW INTERNET its the best internet where i am, fuck please elon, bring internet here.
Spoiler - My learned namesake kinda doesn't know the difference between a web hosting service an ISP and their relationship to the international infrastructure currently in use to handle data worldwide. You cannot pull a $$ number from your @rse based on what amazon charges for webhosting and lump that on to Starlinks provisioning costs.
Well like all ISP they need to pay for access they also charge for access back... But I suspect there won't be major servers on the starlink satélites... They can save a bit by having mirror servers self hosted at each ground station... But all of that costs money 💸💸💸
@@АкакийАкакиевичБашмачкин Neither of which can be compared or are remotely similar to what an ISP is/does. The last mile (or 2 or 5 if you live in the sticks) forms the bulk of anyones internet bill. You are effectively comparing a physical shopping/services centre with the roads/rails/paths that allow consumers/businesses to access it.
@@АкакийАкакиевичБашмачкин except that the page he was pulling from was for Data Hosting not for data transmission, data transmission through a backbone service provider is cheaper by a factor of 1,000x, its closer to $0.000003 per GB, the comparison isn't valid as you're buying two drastically different things as Content Distribution is more expensive becauseyou need to build a data storage can capable of actually reading and writing data at the necessary speeds you're looking for rather than just forwarding data from one pipe to another.
That's typical of this whole video. Thunderf00t has to be taking the piss at this point. I'm seriously thinking he is having a laugh...and profiting...at the expense of his subscribers. Take the 13 excruciatingly repetitive Hyperloop videos for example (and Elon Musk has no financial interest in anything related to it. He simply produced a 'whitepaper' detailing his vision of an existing concept). As for Starlink, someone of his alleged academic qualifications cannot possibly be so stupid or ignorant as to actually think this video is any kind of realistic assessment of the available information. So many things left out or misrepresented it's not even funny. This same guy reckoned that landing and reusing rocket boosters wouldn't be viable. I'd say that he should stick to physics, but he probably makes more money taking the piss out of his subscribers.
I have the solution to traffic problems. 1) Increase taxes on cars, purchases and 'road tax'. 2) frequent public transport with regular cleaning. 3) tax relief on cycling. The roads are so dangerous cycling with the congestion and harassing behaviour of some drivers.
I like your videos but I think some of your arguments are way off in this one - like the price per GB/TB transmitted. You can't just take the amazon's prices. With those prices all the regular big ISP would bankrupt in few days! EDIT: It is like saying that swimming pools can't be profitable because the water at the restaurant is $1 per bottle....and to fill the pool it will cost $50 000.
Starlink Ditches Caps, But Congestion, Price Hikes, And ... 9 mei 2023 - Starlink is a satellite internet service that has problems with congestion, price hikes, and slower speeds. yeah euh, I guess you really don't keep up with facts, it seems you are wrong
@@davidhollenshead4892 I see dunning-kruger is strong within you. Why do you think it's fair use? Have you seen him comment on it or criticise the spitting image clip? He just uses it without transformation or critique. Criticism of Elon isn't in any way criticism of the spitting image clip. Tfoot just uses b-roll footage without paying, crediting, commenting or critiquing it. He is just ignorant of copyright and is stealing b-roll material. Edit: almost any news or real video production buys their b-roll material. Tfoot just steals it.
@@rhawkas2637 "Im a conman or maybe I'm a god" clip with the doll looking things. It's played without any commentary on it at all. Ever. Never said a word about the clip, just plays it.
Ah you forgot to mention at the end how the Full Self Dodging starlink shitbox couldn't actually dodge a collision and an ESA satellite had to maneuver its much fatter ass out of the way, while SpaceX just cut communications with ESA on the matter.
Quote from the ESA on the situation: *Contact with Starlink early in the process allowed ESA to take conflict-free action later, knowing the second spacecraft would remain where models expected it to be.* But yeah, I don't trust any of his autonomous tech and even more I'm not a fan of this incredibly inefficient way of doing things, reminds me of the ridiculous idea of current cryptocurrencies actually being a viable system of transaction. Let's make something 50x more complicated than it has to be, *just because we can*
WTH thunderf00t, i was expecting more or at least a basic understanding of networking, you don't include oversub into your calcuations. 20 years ago, isps would oversub 1000x, now its closer to 100x. based on 100x oversub, by your numbers you have 1000*100 = 100k users per sat. however, you have a huge fatal flaw in your numbers, which is that it's 10gb between sats an 10gb between ground stations. so it's 50k users per sat. 50k * 10k = 500 million users @ 20mbps oversubbed at 100x. since they are mostly rural, you can probably easily sell at 100mbps with a oversub of 500x, because they will likely have low sustained rates. i was expecting something at least scentific.
Very specific situations would be good but for the majority this isn’t great. Considering the resources needed to invest we would have to focus on this path or scrap it. You didn’t focus on anything else TF00t brought up tho. Not defending anyone but even with the math, it’s a poorly thought out idea. Unless you want to just give wifi away for free too, gl selling it to rural people at the price of what semi-valley wants. But that heating element! You’re onto something. More problems being made vs a few problems being solved.
And when ISPs oversubbed like that it turned to dogshit. Who do you know that had Comcast or ATT back in the early to mid 2000s and actually liked them. Because I know for one they had massive dogshit problems. We paid for 8mbps and barely got 1 most days, that was on cable. On bad days the internet just went down, we weren't rural either. Oversubbing is a garbage practice that is guaranteed to make your customers very angry and you. Not to mention ISPs started getting in trouble for what they were doing as they could never provide any kind of reliable or reasonable service. What happens when you have a big sports event, or a new update for a massive game comes out, or a new episode of a popular show arrives. All the sudden you have far more people than you can handle on a satellite and speeds drop to a crawl, that is if everyone can even get connected. Even with 40k satellites you are still stuck with only 4.8% of them over all of North America at a time, which is 1,920 satellites. At 10Gb/s per satellite, They tell you to expect speeds from 50mb/s to 150mb/s. But lets just say 20mb/s is the supposed guaranteed speed. Thats 480k simultaneous users before you saturate the system, I say 480k and not 960k because you have to get the signal back to earth at some point. Sure it's 10Gb/s ground station to satellite, then another 10Gb/s satellite to satellite but at some point you have to go back to the ground station to satellite connection. Even if you have dedicated uplink and downlink satellites you are still transmitting up then down and you just halve the satellites used by customers. So 480k maximum 20mb/s streams. Not everyone is going to be on at once, but they are saying to expect up to 150mb/s and minimum 50mb/s. So sure some people will use less but many will use more. Even just a 4k stream from Netflix uses 25mb/s, so everyone that has bought one of the newer cheap 4k TVs (I got a 40" 4k smart TV for $120) is going to be using serious bandwidth at certain points of the day. People with game Consoles are going to be regularly downloading updates anywhere from 5Gb to 50Gb. People who have PCs and play games on PC are going to be downloading games and updates. RUclips, Hulu, Facebook, TikTok, you name it. Then you have people, like them or not who will pirate things. People who will push tons of bandwidth all day long, it's not unheard of to push 70mbps average for 18 hours straight with 20 torrents going. You aren't going to catch them either, a paid VPN will hide your activity from the ISP completely, starlink will have no idea you are illegally torrenting things they will only see large amounts of bandwidth being used and since they have unlimited bandwidth nothing can be done. So you will have all this peak useage at the end of the day when people are coming home from work and all turning on the TV to watch the new episode of whatever that came out. When kids get out of school they are all going to be turning on consoles and updating games, getting on youtube and streaming video, etc. Yeah at 3am you might get good service, but once it hits 5pm your internet is going to slow to a crawl. Thats how it was for 8+ years with other cable ISPs when they were overselling their lines. It's going to piss people off and they are going to goto another provider like Dish or Direct TV, or whoever in their area is taking advantage of the anger against starlink and offers a new plan. Then in 2 years they get pissed off and switch again, thats just the way that kind of thing goes when you have multiple competitors. But now Starlink is just another shitty ISP with junk service every couple years when people get pissed at the last service and all switch over. Getting back to the numbers, 480k customers at $99/month is only $570Mn a year, that won't cut it. So you have to oversub and hope that not everyone will be using at the same time. So you oversub 10x. Now we are at $5.7Bn a year which is around that break even point or so, maybe a little bit of profit if they keep getting government subsidy. But understand that now you are talking 4.8 million customers in the US when you can only ever serve 480k at below advertised speeds of 20mb/s. So now you have to implement QoS and load balancing for your customers. Which means if you have some big event or a new game has come out, or a few new popular shows are releasing episodes once a week, you may have a couple million users in the US all trying to do normal things in the afternoons at the same time. Parents are trying to watch TV, kids are trying to play games and watch youtube, peoples phones that have just gotten home are uploading all the pictures and videos taken throughout the day. Now you might have 2 million people all trying to use this service and you can only give each one 4.8mb/s. Thats enough per household for 1 480/720p video stream, or 1-2 game consoles to just play with no updates. Thats assuming that 59% of your other customers aren't even using the internet. Thats just 41% of your users Friday afternoon trying to play a game of GTA, watch the new mandelorian, check out youtube videos of cars or whatever. It's setting things up for failure, thats just with 10x oversubbing. If you goto 100x oversubbing you have 2 million users out of 48 million in the US? Thats insane. No them being rural does not mean they don't own or use TVs or youtube or game consoles. Them being rural only means they have few choices and there is almost no way for them to spread out over multiple ISPs. It does not mean there will be fewer users and you can oversub 500x.
@@2009dudeman thunderfoots numbers in general are bad by my estimate it should be about 1.5billion a year in costs for SpaceX if they don't move to super heavy for launches (which they are planning to at 400 sats per launch) Additionally they are working on the 2nd generation satellite with 3x bandwidth as well all of that together both reduces costs and increases profit margins and the number and density of users on the network.
The main cost that just gets waisted with launching starlink satellites is actually the upper stage which a new upper stage has to be built for each launch at about 10million super heavy/starship the second stage is reusable so they aren't wasting that which can vastly reduce launch costs long term. Each launch currently costs spacex about 20million give or take 5 million minus the sat cost. With starship they are targeting 5 million but let's say it's 10 million. And you are launching 6.666x as many sats so 6-7x reduction of launch costs per sat.
@2009dudeman you guys really overestimate the sustaine rates of things. 4k is 1mbps to 20mbps. 1mbps being cartoons and anime. 2ndly your assuming everyone watches in 4k and that everyone has a 4k device. most people are still on 720 or 1080p. i have experience running a data center in calgary, ab, and some of that experience includes running on the ISP level. to share some of my insight, the local internet exchange of calgary, a city of 1.3 million people peeks at a sustained rate of 40gbps. while not everything goes through the yycix, a significant portion does go through the yyicx. yycix.ca/peers.html the local yycix would be used mainly for local traffic and cdn traffic / caching. look who is on the list of peers; cloudflare, facebook, google, a few other isps, ect... some of those peers have 100Gbps connections. the locations i run are also peers, routing some of the internet. if you assume a cache efficiency of 50% with is very easily do-able for big companies like google, than a city of 1.3 million people peeks at 80gbps of sustained usage. although i don't see pornhub or anything on that list.... maybe 160gbps if you want to be skeptical. real life numbers, thats 1 million users to 160gbps, which gives 6250 people per gbps, therefore without slowing anyone down, that allows for 62, 500 users per 10gbps connection. however, 10gbps over wifi has its own problems, but none the less, real life numbers add up as well. acording to thunerf00t, the breakeven is 4 million subscribers for 10k satellites. if we assume only 1gbps per sattelite due to other factors, inefficiencies ect... that is 6,250 users per sattlite, which is 62.5 million subscribers. if we assume only 1% of what is promised is delivered, than that is 6.25 million subscribers, still over the 4 million breakeven. sorry, but thunderfoot this video is garbage. i was at least expecting thunderf00t to mention other problems like the 5g frequencies proposed for later generations. how around the 50-60ghz mark you get into the frequencies that can directly cause pain, effect hormones, effect brainwaves, and be weaponised with minimal power levels.
hey, this wasn' just a jump straight up, it was also one with a solid fuleled rocket. this means an overrated silvester rocket. if the non-orbital jump straight up is enough for you, at least go for the blue origin ride, as this really is a rocket engine. you know, the one with cryogenic fuel, moving parts and a little more engineering than "this is a cylinder filled with gunk with an opening of *diameter* and a silvester rocket fuse we will light".
Alright understand this saying that something some billionaire promises to do is impossible isn’t that big of a revalation so the billionaire doesn’t care. Now saying a billionaire faked going to space. That will be something huge best to not investigate that at all unless you want to be a missing person.
This reminds me of the Irish bank looking for a €4 billion bailout in 2008. The CFO told the CE that €8 billion was actually needed. The CE responded was that if the are in for 4, they won’t be able to get out. This is a really good analysis, something that journalists are supposed to do rather than just paraphrasing press releases.
Musk: "Supersonic electric jet" Me: That is the stupidest thing I heard in years... The few ways we know how to turn electricity into propulsion or is bound by the speed of sound because aerodynamics or only produce very weak thrust that can only be used in space because it isn't under the influence of gravity and there is no atmosphere, and still needs to carry a propellant liquid/gas.
@@remix4098 The tangential velocity at the tip of an airplane propeller can not exceed the speed of sound because it result in the separation of the air flow boundary layer over the blades, causing noise and a loss in efficiency due to compressibility problems. If the propeller can't rotate faster than the speed of sound it can also not push a plane faster than the speed of sound. Other ways to produce propulsion with electric like a Hall thruster are too weak to push a plane on out atmosphere and only viable on space were there is no atmosphere on the way to slow you down. In short we do not have any kind of technology capable of procuring thrust above the speed of sound in a medium with just electricity.
@@remix4098 Above the speed of sound? As far as I know its the only know way. That doesn't mean we can't find a way in the future with a new technology yet to be invented/discovered. Planes can fly way below the speed of sound. So for a normal plane that fly at 150~300Km/h can easily be propelled by a electric motor. The problem now would be weight/range since batteries are heavy.
Yea, Tesla is a lie. These cars don't exist, right? SpaceX is a lie, sure. It's not like they deliver satellites and people to the ISS. Starlink works already. Stop to drink Kool-Aid pls.
While many of the claims may be BS. I can affirm that starlink is revolutionary - making satellite internet practical and available to the masses. I don't care about the technology or promises. I care how it actually works in the real world. In the last 5-10 years I would say it is one of the most influential changes in my quality of life. We had alternatives before starlink, but they were deeply flawed. I work in forestry, before starlink we often had various competitors - however it was limited to supervisors with a dedicated laptop to be used for phone calls for lower level employees due to bandwidth restrictions (which meant most employees were essentially cut of from communication with the rest of the world). Most times I would have to do a 1-4 hour round trip to get cell service instead of using our satellite internet - and often even that wasn't an option. Now they leave the internet open. It can handle a whole camp of people browsing the web. Everybody can't be downloading stuff, but everyone can use it. Multiple people can make phone calls at the same time. Even if everyone is trying to stream videos, I can usually get enough data to check my emails and send new ones, albeit slowly. You have no idea how nice that is. And when I'm out in the field on heli contracts, I can carry a sat phone and simply call a regular cell phone linked through starlink to get through to someone at the home base to organize pickups. Sat phones are great for outgoing calls, incoming calls not so much. Before it was much more complicated, and If I finished work early often 3-4 hour waits before our heli happened to be within radio range - and being out in the middle of nowhere can really suck, especially in the north. Even with a sat phone, it was often difficult to get in contact with our base camp.
Ok, so I've watched half of this video (15 min), and so far there is *nothing* about starlink in here. I think Elon Musk is not the only master of false advertising here...
@@shartpoop3184 If the video were 30 minutes of Starlink analysis that's one thing. It's not though, it's 15 minutes of analysis and 15 minutes of reruns. Would you sit through an episode of a show you've seen 5 times before if a new episode was on the next channel? Would you call that a lack of attention span or just an unwillingness to waste your time?
12:00 That doesn't look or sound like Elon? Could it be, that your entire point is to just complain? 17:13 Not much of a market for internet... It works exactly as described but its busted because his guessomatic generator gives fail math.
Phil’s math is way off and idk how he can claim there “isn’t much of a market” when it has 100k subscribers right now and can service the entire world. Even if a small percent of a country needs it they will still have millions of customers globally not to mention airlines and ships.
@@Maddinhpws True. The military has already tested it in their planes and on the ground. I just like that certain channels like Thunderf00t and commonsenseskeptic have gone on the record claiming it won't make money and is a big disaster. It will be interesting to see how they pivot or lie about their past statements in 5-10 years when Morgan Stanley estimates Starlink will be making billions.
Another video to go along with Common Sense Skeptic, a complete lack of understanding of how an ISP works and how they connect and distribute to the greater Internet. Research the topics of free ISP peering and oversubscription ratios. Consider corporate contract profits for maritime, oil, gas, mining, gov and aviation connections. My same request goes to you as it did CSS do a video on the complete failure of the 1996 telecommunications act and how bad the current state of internet connectivity is in the US. Maligning Starlink (regardless of founder) while it is still beta testing, attempting to correct satellite issues and finding partnerships and corporate contracts is in bad taste. The Internet, (the thing that serves your content for profit) should have competition for better service. You can't tell me existing providers including geostationary satellites provide anything better to rural North America.
The problem is not in the single satellite bandwidth, or their combined one. The problem is that it operates on limited spectrum. It's not the capabilities of the satellite itself, but so to speak the limits imposed on it by FCC. Link budget analysis of the parameters SpaceX has provided in its FCC filings suggest that the maximum supportable forward link data rate to a user terminal in a 250 MHz channel is approximately 400 Mbps. The maximum Starlink forward link capacity to any point on the Earth is 8 channels x 400 Mbps = 3.2 Gbps. The minimum Ku‐band satellite transmit beam on the Earth’s surface, per SpaceX’s Mod 3 application, is a 22‐km diameter spot = 380 square km. Now you multiply 3.2 Gbps by 0.7 take rate and divide by 10 Mbps reserved (2TB monthly cap) = 224 locations / dishes in that spot. But you have 20% overhead due to waveform overhead and over subscription headroom, and another 20% for spectrum sharing with other satellite networks. So, 224 * 0.8 * 0.8 gives approximately 150 locations / dishes per 380 square km. Only 0.4 locations per square km can be served! US is approx. 10 000 000 square km So, 4 million locations / dishes in US at best. That's at 100 Mbps at 2 TB monthly cap. And honestly, even this is too good to be true of an estimation. If you look at OneWeb, they offer the following - Speed (to/from UT): 25-50 Mbps / 5Mbps - Volume: 100 GB/Month - Latency: 30ms or this - Speed: 5 Mbps / 1 Mbps - Volume: 10 GB/Month - Latency: 30ms A quote from their document, answering questions to ofcom UK: "OneWeb will provide broadband internet access to hundreds of thousands of users (corporate and consumer) around the world" See - not even a million world wide.
Now, pear exchange is done between equals. The bigger ones, and the smaller ones having a monopolist position - you pay them. Examples all over the place: Bandwidth Costs Around the World - cloudflare blog.
@@2L40K That's great you can paste OneWeb, or Viasat's complaints to the FCC all you want. OneWeb declared bankruptcy and was sold, their constellation is only 254 satellites is already dwarfed by Starlink with 1600 active. That's still not how overprovisioning, coverage, and Starlink's business model works. Quoting raw coverage per square mile means nothing. Starlink's customers are rural, underserved locations, not cities. If another provider can offer service or has faster service for a given area that outperforms Starlink all the better, that's the whole point COMPETITION in providing better Internet.
@@2L40K Corporate contacts are just starting the whole Starlink service is still beta (www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-us-military-contract-custom-satellites/). If Starlink can provide better service or a better price companies will move or engage.
@@slawomirlech950 wow, i just listened it again, and only now do i see that it was "car man" instead of "conman" It makes a lot of sense in context that it is Car Man, maybe because of Thunderf00t i heard it as conman and never unheard it. Thats crazy
Just had my starlink dish arrive. Plugged in - 300 mbps 5 minutes later. Live in the countryside. Previous ISP provided 2 megs - right now, Starlink can do no wrong.
Don't bother watching the first half of the video, it's just a recap of earlier videos not related to Starlink. That stuff starts only after 15min. So much for not overpromising...
I'm not goona lie, I'm not a musk fan, but these are easily my least favorite videos of yours. I had to skip the first half to even get to the part where you talk about starlink. I came here to hear about starlink not vaporware the redux. I watch these on x2 and you make me wish there was a x4. Edit: I had "first third" but upon further review it's really more than half.
you mean the waiting list (2 years afair) not the customers, many have prepaid but at best have the set but no access. take a look at some user reviews and you'll see that the routing is bizarre and the latency is horrendous with speed jumping constantly between aprox 140 and 50mbs. using anything with voice is a challenge but if you have no other way to get to Google... sure it's maybe better than only a phone connection if you're living in the wastelands. using it in my country would be completely pointless as we've got every corner covered by copper plus fiber and now WLAN hubs too. getting musk's versuon of a 56k to that wouldn't make much sense plus he's introduced proprietary connectors for horrendous prices while removing the standard rj45 connection from the thing... it's a clownshow ripping of hillbillies with a bad connection that's better than nothing
@@schrecksekunde2118 No, the waitlist does not factor in the number of 'active subscribers'. The word active is important here. Routing is bizarre? You have BGP issues? I switched ISPs to Starlink this summer from a local microwave relay provider. Latency is fine. Usually 20-40ms to the outside world. Yeah, bandwidth is more variable than I would like, but that only shows up if I am actively checking or watching a download. Streaming in the evening works well. Proprietary connector? You mean the cable between the antenna and the router? The horror. Yep, no wired drop on the base router. So I threw them $25 and added one. The horror.
@@DrWhom Been a bit over six months, so seemed like a good time to update. Starlink has grown their subscriber base by about 50% in that time. My transfer rates are averaging a bit higher, but yeah, still more variable that I would prefer. Latency has not changed either way. So yeah, still enjoying it.
Only in America, a guy could clame such dumb things and nobody remainds him of the past claims. Try to do that here in Europe and the news midia will crush you
I feel like Thunderfoot does not understand lasers. He talks as if laser beams stay the same width farther away from the source, making it sound like you're trying to hit the detector on the other satellite with something as wide as a bullet, which yes would be quite unreliable. Except lasers don't stay the same width, and get wider further out (more like a shotgun with a very tight choke, instead of a rifle round that always stays the same width), making it a lot easier to keep a stable connection to the other satellite. The angle at which the beam spreads could be configured to be wide enough to match the precision capabilities of the laser pointing/tracking mechanism. You aren't trying to hit the other sat with a bullet; you're hitting it with something larger than White House.
In fact, they've already BEEN bouncing lasers off mirrors (a few meters wide) on the Moon for decades, and detecting the light back on Earth. Moon is much further than the distance between these satellites, yet they can hit the target just fine.
We were developing similar concept called BEAM*LINK under CSA in the 90s; it's nothing new. The guy that made this video obviously has no industry knowledge and didn't do any research.
That's not the problem. Problem is that that both source and target move at high relative speeds on significantly curved trajectories. On top of that, the link is supposed to be bidirectional.
Data caps aren't even needed. The typical Xfinity customer consumes approximately 1 mbit/s on average in the year 2020. This makes sense since a single video stream is a few mbit/s, and this is likely the largest data consuming task most people will use, and they do it rarely.
Thunderf00t has to be taking the piss at this point. Someone of his alleged academic qualifications cannot possibly be so stupid or ignorant as to actually think this video is any kind of realistic assessment of the available information. So many things left out or misrepresented it's not even funny.
@@kirkc9643 I think that he is going outside his area of expertise because Elon Musk as a topic is very clickbait and easy to attract views. I can't blame him.
Not sure if you're from africa or something but over here in Europe I don't have data cap on DSL / cable connections, let alone on my servers in the datacenter for example. So either you guys are clueless and are comparing starlink with an internet of emulated p2p over mobile phone sorta connections. It is not. It's a replacement for stationary systems as, due to health concerns, we are decades away of introducing sattellite communications into any device that's truly mobile and should be carried on your body e.g. So yes, it'd be a countryside replacement for landline based internet connectivity. And yeah, just streaming a 2 hour movie in 4k is about 15-30 GB of traffic. Let's just pray Starlink users never discover RUclips or Netflix and continue to dump comments on RUclips about how clueless others are. 💀😂
@@kontoname I'm in the US and I've never heard of anyone from my area not having any data caps. Maybe this is just one more thing that only the US can't seem to do. Also, the reason we don't do satellite internet with mobile devices isn't because of health concerns, its because its not feasible to do with a receiver small enough to fit in a phone, at least for any usable bandwidth(I recognize that you can do calls with satellite phones but that's about it). (also I was joking when I said that thunderf00t never heard of data caps, I just found it funny that he never considered them at all in his calculations, given how much of a constraint they are for me(I'd kill for internet of any bandwidth that has no data cap))
😂 the jab at Nigerian princes was really cliché Anyways, I’m Nigerian and I sincerely admire your work. Its rather unfortunate that my people have become known for something so dishonorable. Nonetheless, not all of us are like that…. I’ll proudly say, we still have a healthy population of good people left. I hope you get to realize this some day….🙂 Please keep up the good work 👍🏾
We know. Most of you, at least the immigrants to the US, seem to be hardworking and good ppl. It's always a shame when a subset of your group has an oversized influence on anything.
@@alftitolito I’m not a Prince! I’m just a regular guy who watches RUclips videos to broaden my knowledge of the world. Like they say, knowledge is power! 😉
I think I got this solved. The reason why people buy in to most of this “hyper” ideas is the following. 1) Computer simulations became super realistic looking. 2) Many software companies became very dominant. So This makes people believe that if they can do it on a computer, it can be done in real life. But it does not work like that. Real life is much more complicated than computer simulation. Given that in theory Hyper loop is possible, its almost impossible to implement this idea in real life. In real life uses real material resources and real physics.
I mean considering it's: A: already built B: already working I think we are way past the simulation at that point. Only thing that can change at this point is the system not reaching the level of effectiveness first envisioned, but it's already outperforming landlines in many countries and blowing other satellite broadband out the sky, so it can't get worse than what already work
@@MrSergecj the thing is that it's already successful RIGHT NOW. It's already providing a much better service than all Safelite broadbands and outdoes a lot of landlines too. It's important to realize that even the "all or nothing" beta is already generating a more than. Satisfactory service. It's an anchor on how useful the service is, which means it can't get "useless" because it already has a market and a customer base on it's very first iteration
I watched this video in 1080p over starlink, my wife and kids are also watching tv at 1080p, so far it works wonderfully for us, with at least 99% uptime. well worth $1700 a year, as it provides me with the internet connection I need to work.
still extremely inferior to fiber optic cables. People who have actually tried both see star link for a poor imitation that it is to actual cables in the grown
@@reggiefreeborn2143 that is the problem though the people that are buying starlink don't have fiber optic cables and won't be getting them anytime soon. Starlink literally advertises itself for rural areas because it isn't feasible to run fiber lines to these houses that are a km apart each
Same here. I have had Starlink for nearly two years. It's the only option for me other than cellular, which is unreliable and has speeds ten times lower than Starlink where I live. I am very pleased with Starlink. Well worth it in remote areas.
Probably because he's not a conman/fraud like Thunderf00t so desperately wants him to be. Sure some of his ideas were insane and would never work in reality, like Hyperloop, but there's also real products you can use right now such as Tesla and Starlink.
@@angadsingh9314 That's because, when the innovators who actually founded Tesla were looking for early investment, they ended up going with Musk. Like I said: he gets zero credit for something he didn't do.
Another thing to consider is that our power grids would be heavily burdened by a mass adoption of electric cars. With "green energy" being such a big deal, most money spent on it will go for renewables but the return on power is abysmal. This means that already, states like California that have been "going green" for years have already been issuing restrictions on charging of EVs. Their grid growth is not improving much, so if they go for "all electric", it would be a disaster and time to get the power grid up and running under this strain is not coming in the near future due to the "renewables" money sink.
Sorry late to finding this one. The first mistake when people look at Starlink is they assume it is Musk's project. From all indications it is not, it is Shotwell's. I don't know who had the idea but the solid numbers and the more realistic timelines, not the mention the emphasis on cash flow and how smoothly it fits into the Spacex operational and development plans argue that it is Gwynne who is the driving force. So lets look at where Starlink is right now. The actual first Beta test version of the constellation is about to complete its deployment and is generating $100m or more in yearly revenue with $10-15m added every month. Customer acquisition costs have dropped to less the a 6 month payback. The laser satellite interlink has been tested. The Air Force has tested the mobile aircraft deployed dish. The commercial aircraft certification process has begun. Finally the first full set of laser interlink enabled V1.1 satellites are about to be deployed in polar orbits and will be in position about the time that that certification could be completed allowing Starlink to offer oceanic coverage.
Yeah this is my feeling too, nobody at SpaceX but Elon really believed in Starship and figured it would end up being Shuttle all over again and could sink the company, so they came up with a plan to launch Starlink Sats to offset the costs of launching Starships, and the system would in turn help offset Starships development costs keeping the company alive... lucky for them though it looks like Elon has figured out his whole Starship System to that point I believe that won't happen. Catching Super Heavy mid air with the tower is gonna off set a lot of the time penalties that plagued Shuttles launch cadence and even Falcon 9's launch cadence for that matter. So we should be able to see at least 100 Starship launches per year is my bet, launch costs at about $16M a pop. A fundamentally revolutionizing of Space, but not anywhere near what Musk was initial promising, and by no means a sure ticket to Mars. Space will still just be a place for governments and the ultra-wealthy, just maybe now the regular wealthy too, and if we are very lucky, industry.
don't you understand? everything musk touches turns to shit. since he never invented anything he can only take over succesful companies and as soo as he touches them they fall apart. trust me thunderf00t told me everything about it.
Starlink now has over 3 million customers and estimates of revenue this year exceed 6 billion - This video is totally busted. there are many premium customers like oil rigs, yacht's , ships , passenger ships, aircraft ,train services , busses , trucks, business users as well as normal homes and RV owners etc.
I worked as as software developer for an existing leading satellite communications company here in the UK where the product was being used for sea vessels. Trust me when I say this, this idea is not new at all. Satellite comms is a niche market and not at all suitable for mass consumption. There are already "spot" satellites and geostationary satellites that can provide internet connectivity. But you will not enjoy using them. Firstly the latency is poor and the speed is poor too but the thing that will get you is the cost. I worked on software to compare connectivity speeds of other ships so that we could switch them between very expensive connections to even more expensive and slower connections based on GPS to "save money". This is not cheap. If you are in the middle of the Pacific ocean you aren't going to be watching Netflix. It's madness.
I'm not against the video, I'm just going to quietly downvote every video from now on, that is five times as long as it should be, because it's the same clips he has shown 10 times before.
Well that's an uplifting comment. Wow. You could do him to be shorter. I, on the other hand, like my breakfast and having me reminded about his scamming life-style. That people fall for this. Sadly I cannot down-vote you. :-(
At this point tf00t could probably just recycle his old videos instead of making new ones.... oh wait. At one point in time tf00t used to make all sorts of interesting critique videos, science videos, etc. Now he just fixates on a single person and they can do no right, even if some of their ventures are successful - something happened when he had some sort of upset between himband Sargon, and he's never come back from it.
$1 billion in data costs means 100 billion GB of data transferred per year. Since we know the average bandwidth usage per household, we know that's enough bandwidth for 21 million households in America. More in Europe. So $1 billion per year in data costs would mean SpaceX had $25 billion per year in revenues from all the customers it takes to use up 100 billion GB of data. Bravo, thunderf00t! "BUSTED!"
Which bit do you think aged the worst? I think I giggled the most when TF's 'debunk' of laser comms between satellites went totally fact free but boiled down to "that sounds hard ha ha ha'. Especially in light of how many laser to laser links are bouncing around above my head right now.
So Starlink for RV is now available. It offers "de prioritized" data and you can even get it in "waitlisted" service areas. So basically they've opened up the gates to everyone. I could not resist giving it a try, so I now have a system that I'll be driving around with. Typically, I get download speeds of 20-50 Mbps and upload speeds of 5 to 25 Mbps. Ping times are around 50-70 ms. I've been using it at home for work, internet browsing and streaming video for around a week. While the stats are significantly worse than my normal provider, I 'm not really seeing bad performance during normal use. Sometimes zoom calls get choppy, but I don't do that much anyway. And the newer Starlink system I received (square dish) uses about 40W of power. They have a feature where you can automatically disable the snow heater to keep power consumption down. I don't get much snow in Florida anyway. Oh yea, I had to switch to my regular internet while typing this because we're in the middle of a thunderstorm and starlink connection is gone for a while. No idea what will happen over the next few months or years. The hardware is sunk cost for curiosity. I can turn the service off at any time and re activate it only when traveling (in 1 month increments at $135/mo). Obviously this is not for everyone.
Damn Starlink is really struggling with 2,200,000 customers. That minimum of $3,168,000,000 a year is just really straining on them 😂😂 You're getting old dude..
@@kurknielsen And dude they will easily achieve it. It may take 4-5 years, but this no is easily with in reach. This is why Space X is worth $150 B right now.
@@diezgp Well, so far, Musk is off more on his original estimates than Thunderf00t is off on his estimate of the actual cost. Musk said that he could save 99% or more of launch cost. Thunderfoot is saying he is only saving 10% or so (I don't remember and I'm not going to rewatch the video but his number is close to that.) Musk is probably actually saving around 50% -- possibly a little more.
@@ThatBoomerDude56 He is off about the number of customers per satellite. ISPs oversell bandwidth because it never happens that everybody is connected downloading hundreds of gigabytes at the same time. He is off about the price of bandwidth, he checked the prices on AWS (WTF!). In his mind AT&T probably cut a nice deal because they have to buy a lot of bandwidth from Amazon. Hilarious. And well, he is off about the cost savings on rocket reuse. It's embarrassing.
@@diezgp Thank you. I was hoping Thunderf00t was off in the Starlink bandwidth and income potential. But I haven't had the time or knowledge to look up anything on it. Musk has tended to vastly underestimate how hard things are going to be in the rocket business. And he's not getting near his original estimates in cost savings. But his savings have been significant. As well as important in this stage in the industry's development. And Thunderf00t would enhance his credibility if he were to try to be a better cost accountant and give credit where credit is due. It's simply not true that re-landing a rocket is either insignificant or that it has been done before. (The Douglas Delta Clipper was not even close to being a fully functional launch vehicle.)
@@ThatBoomerDude56 Because Musk's job is to push tech, and get investors, and manage the projects. You do all of those things by overselling, and then hitting a goal that's still damned impressive. Nay sayers are left looking like morons "he didn't save that much!!!" while everyone else is sitting there going "He saved me 50%!!!!!"
@Thunderf00t: Starlink works, there's a German entrepreneur by the name of Horst Lüning who has a starlink antenna and showed that it works! Maybe not for gaming, but it gives you internet access! So what are you debunking here exactly?
Elon stated it will be gaming standart İnternet for a really cheap price that's accessable by everyone around the globe . But it will be a gimmick for the rich to show off and an alternative to business that prevents mainstream internet access like shipping etc. Elon is always over promising and under delivering. He debunks the over promising part and exposes the under delivering part.
@@alqualonde2998 I literally game on my starlink connection. it's way better than my shitty vdsl connection. I get about 20ms to local servers which again, way better than what i got before and is perfectly acceptable for gaming. I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination. what is being debunked here?
@@alqualonde2998 Current prices are not really outlandish at all. I can't remember what I was paying for satellite back in the day but it was probably more. I would expect prices to come down too.
@@chaos.corner are you from us ? I say that because us has one of most outlandish internet prices on the world. I have a 100 Mbit connection with stable 24 ms ping and it costs me 9usd. I earn over a thousand USD each month when converted using today's rates. That's what good ground infrastructure can do. And it doesn't come with any additional risks of putting over 40k sats in orbit.
@@alqualonde2998 Yes, that's definitely a good price. Mine costs about 8x that for a similar connection. Some price difference is justified by different circumstances but the vast majority is not. Still, those high prices do make Musk's effort more into viable territory. Not that it's necessarily there.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt
@@paulwatkins7220 The Teslas work fine. And they are years ahead of the competition in engineering, forcing the competition to get their rears in gear and catch up. So even if everything else were vaporware, that alone makes Elon count. Isn't the failure rate of new projects around 90% almost everywhere?
@@paulthew2 And the Roosevelt-quoting commenter was about trying and sometimes striking out, rather than never trying at all. Because sometimes you hit something. That something is Tesla. Maybe Starlink is going to work, maybe it isn't. But it is one of many ventures, some of which are stellar successes today. The thing is, you have to try stuff. Or else we'd still be living in mud huts.
@@OolTube02 He's """"trying"""" with other people's money and time... Likely yours too, you dolt. So far, almost all of this project has been paid for by various government grants (primarily US Gov) not effin "Musk - Hero of our time" Con man cons optimistic idiots into paying and supporting his whimsical schemes; if successful he makes more bank, if not, oh well, at least some of the idiots who paid for the failed project will defend this travesty and be hyped for the next one.
![[Limbus Company - Teaser] Season5 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8anKuEeZLeI/mqdefault.jpg)
100W power consuption, yikes. That's the same as our fridge.
Driving a substantial phased array transceiver with beam streering is a power hungry business, apparently.
For reference, our entire house consumption overnight cycles from a nominal 130W minimum jumping to 250W peak when a fridge compressor turns on briefly. We have two fridges and our internet moder and router boxes run 24/7, plus the usual phantom power stuff including 4 aircons in programmed standby.
So a 100W satellite internet modem box is massive.
@@EEVblog Wait, weren't 100W light bulbs common before LEDs?
@@biomerl Not really, they were almost all 60W in my experience.
Will not need to be used all the time. Satellite tv is 30W. And the dish actually doesn't have a built in heating element. Its just the electronics
Starlink starts at 15:00
Thank you
Best comment yet!
EDIT: In this video, thunderf00t doesn't understand over-provisioning.
Best comment yet
Thanks!!
TF could learn the art of trimming down things we’ve already seen into a very brief summary and quickly moving onto the thing we haven’t seen, which is why we clicked on the vid.
"Multi-planetary satellite system" 0:48
Imagine having a 12 minute ping.
The farthest apart Earth and Mars can be is about 401 million km, which translates to about 1300 seconds one way light travel. Or a ping (return) of 2600 seconds, or about 45 minutes. At least, when the sun is not in between.
12 minute ping is the very best situation, when Mars and Earth are closest to each other.
@@CheetahNL Perfect for a game of interplanetary .. chess!
Come on, that's Musk, the speed of light is no barrier for his PR stunts.
Server admins will kick marsian players
You could play online chess
Next thing Elon will announce is hes making Half Life 3.
Nonononono... that's TOTALLY unrealistic. Nobody would believe that shit! ;)
And it would be in 5D
Launching next year
@@OlaJustin his cult would.
I’m one of the few that says screw Half-Life, I want Portal 3.
Give Musk credit for getting one right: Two years after he said it, there really is NO ONE in his robo-taxis. Bravo!
😂😂😂
looool
i was thinking the same thing :)
How could they get robo car working while they still cant get rodo lawnmowers to behave .
@@pete_lind For that matter, why does my NOT-a-Tesla's LKAS randomly lose sight of lane markings? Why does my auto-braking trigger for no reason when the closest car is more than a mile ahead in a different lane?
Watching this video over a Starlink connection over a year after publication is rather interesting. I can't speak to the economics of the system, but as an end user, I can speak to the usability. The download speeds are actually pretty decent, but the upload speeds are rather slow (about the same as the 4G wireless available in my area). The latency is an issue, though, and there are definitely some video games and programs that do not like it, with multi-second drops in connection altogether.
Also, the power consumption issue is spot on. Our power bill has definitely gone up since switching over, and when our power has gone out, my little 300 W inverter can barely keep it running (and that's the only think hooked up to it). I really don't recommend Starlink to anyone who has an alternative high-speed internet available to them (I don't), but it is at least a workable service for those of us who don't (and who can afford it).
the huge problem is that star link is very much a tech bro, "free market" solution, to a issue that could be resolved in 5=7 years. We currently have fiber optic cables that utterly destroys starlink in performance. We could have it and copper cables in most of the developed world and still spend less than what star link is trying to offer
@@reggiefreeborn2143 Oh, I absolutely agree, but unfortunately, our current "free" market capitalist system won't allow what you're describing to happen. I live in an area that was promised fiber optics 20 years ago now, and it never happened. Too few people worth too little money.
Unfortunately, Starlink's primary customer is three-to-four-Teslas-in-the-garage households with a dozen different high-speed ISPs servicing their region, but they are going with the more expensive Starlink because they "believe."
If I had just one high-speed ISP in my region that didn't charge by the gigabyte for limited data, I'd drop Starlink in a second, but unfortunately, for poorer America, that's not an option.
I'd just be interested to see a comparison of what it would cost to just run cable internet to these remote areas to serve customers vs the cost of the Starlink program orbiting hundreds of satellites. Of course, the satellites serve a larger surface area than a single cable line, so it could be argued that you'd get a better return on investment with the satellite, assuming it continues function properly.
@@gdreaper8771 At this point, cable or fiber optic cable be significantly cheaper, especially if you're accounting for service life of the equipment. With wireless connections, you only need to install a main artery, and you'd still be able to offer direct internet access to a wide swath of geographical area.
Im 100% off grid in Canadian woods.. i have satellite internet, router and wifi pulls 30w.. but the rest is the same.. speed wise. Costs hundred bucks a month.. unlimited.
I'm a Starlink user here in Canada. I was on a 14 meg down 0.5 up 70ms connection. Starlink currently gives me up to 250 meg down and 20 to 30 up with 25 to 30ms connection for the same monthly price I was paying for my local connection. Not sure where the tech will end up but as long as it's better then the garbage internet I was previously on i"ll keep paying them money. As Thunderf00t says my biggest worry will be customer saturation as more and more people subscribe to the service. If it all ends up being hopes and dreams and broken promises...hey at least I had decent internet for awhile.
Signing this. Similiar experience here in the middle of the Europe, starlink is a game changer for us. Speeds are more than 20x better than second only option so yeah that much to the video xD
30 ms does not sound believable even if you only mesuring to satelite, but to any hosted game server - not possible.
@@Crazmuss Game servers like COD Warzone I'm seeing pings in the 55 to 65 range. My local ADSL I was getting 85 to 110ms in COD.
True, but how much profit does starlink generate today? A few tens of thousand active users, twenty billion cost per year...
@@AdrieKooijman at this point, even if constellation won't make profit for fund other things, as was intended and stays forever in red numbers. I think that now, when the benefits are clearly visible, and more possible use cases are coming. Starlink will always find some source of funds ;) U'll see.
"TF could learn the art of trimming down things we’ve already seen into a very brief summary and quickly moving onto the thing we haven’t seen, which is why we clicked on the vid." @Divine Boredom
As if there was something new in this video... 😂
That has been a permanent issue on his videos. He just repeats himself endlessly.
It's kind of impressive how even after 10 years of making videos, the production quality has never improved.
In that case his stupidly wrong arguments wouldn't sit comfortably behind a wall of unrelated nonsense that keeps everyone except his cult followers away. Just like the other thing he stupidly recommends this video is bunk without any substance at all.
I feel like I've read this comment the second time now.
i'm extremely confident that there will be more unrealistic, unfounded promises and lies.
Aww man, i was hoping there’d be more…
Wow, you sound like a prophet! You have the gift of foresight, its amazin- Oh wait, the writing is on the wall, nvm.
Musk is factually correct in his timelines at least for several of the clips in this video. Everything else Thunderf00t hates on him comes down to him being a few years optimistic on timelines and him telling other companies to make the Hyperloop instead. He has a hate-boner for the incredible achievements Musk and his companies are actually accomplishing
@@monsterous289 A rich billionaire has ideas that sound not so far-fetched and everyone thinks he's a genius, what everyone is missing is the most important detail; this man has NO idea how to make it real, he bets one or several of his underpaid and abused engineers will magically come up with breakthrough tech "the next year" Why do idiots see this man as a modern-day Tesla? When it's clear he's Edisson on steroids.
No we have to get off the planet, we stay here we will kill 2/3 s of each other one way or another. Colonialism boys, the game is based played by libertarians.
Well...
I'm not watching all of this
Starlink is an actual thing now.
I've watched sailors do live streams from the middle of the ocean.
Currently a YT sailing channel is uploaded a 30 min video every day summarizing the prior day's sailing.
The are half the way to Azores, 2023-07-06
Both those things were impossible before except for EXTREMELY expensive satellite internet.
Musk's constellation of mini satellites is working.
Thunderfoot... BUSTED!
You do know that there has internet by sat's before Starlink?
You do know that there is internet by sat's at this moment by several other companies?
You do know that those other companies don't have to send up thousands of sat''s?
You do know that those other companies are cheaper?
You do know that except for some very remote areas sat internet is way more slower and way more expensive than just landline based?
You do know that the only ones that can gain with a bit quicker internet are those that have easy and cheap access to glas fiber internet?
@@PDVism Those satellite providers, to be blunt, sucked ass and continue to do so. There is a reason Starlink is eating their lunch.
Their cheapest plans may have a lower monthly cost than Starlink, but come at substantially lower speeds, much much much higher latency and crazy low bandwidth caps.
Viasat offers 25 megabit for $70 a month with 60GB caps and latency over half a second. If I go up to $300 a month I get the same latency, but 100 megabit speeds and a cap at 500 gigs. (they label this plan as 'Best Value')
Hughes starts at 15 megabit for $50 a month and a whopping 15 gigs for the month. Their upper end is 25 megabits for $150 and 200 gigs.
@@PDVism Really? A family member of mine recently moved to the country, where the only internet options were Hughes net and Starlink. For about $15 more each month Starlink offered over 8X the connection speed, with over 50milliseconds less latency. This is due to Starlink having thousands of satellites in LEO vs the alternative with just a few satelites being thousands of miles away. My family member is now able to work remotely from his land without fiber, DSL, cable, or cellular. Starlink is very real and, in many cases, the only real solution to remote internet. The future is now old man!
That isnt how ISPS work at all. Looking at amazon EC2 rates have no relation to the costs of interconnecting between the large backbone network providers around the world.
Because thunderfoot hates Elon and will use whichever data makes him look worse. His point about how many people can use each satellite shows his complete lack of understanding of how ISPs currently work, but let's not let that get in the way of shitting on Elon!
@@TehPoet There is also the concept of backhauling data. Some of the richest entities on the planet are the guys who own the different undersea cables that connect the planet.
Starlink, has already proven it would provide lower latency for many of the international connections that take place on the planet.
Aka, you going to have ISPs all over the world, paying Starlink for backhaul. That is where the big money for Starlink comes in, not the average consumers.
@@draken5379 That would mean that 1. optical back haul for Starlink works as advertised 2. ISP WILL get direct ground-to-space access to this back haul through laser. Two BIG IFs. And for back-haul you need BANDWIDTH which you can't oversubscribe as much as typical access system for residential areas. Current record of fibre transmission stands on 255 Tb/s which is roughly 12k times bandwidth of single satellite. Fastest deployed is about 60 Tb/s - 2k more than highest throughput of single satellite. This is of course, experimental but there's no way free space transmission can catch up to that. To replicate 1 Tb/s link, ISP would need either array of terminals talking to multiple - and I mean multiple - satellites or laser terminals and specialized satellites constantly handling over ONLY this communication.
@@TehPoet True as that may be, these data are in no short supply. Thanks to Elon himself.
@@piotrd.4850 Bandwidth for backhauling huh ? Do you understand what backhauling is mate. People would be paying Starlink, to use thier LEO network. People would be paying Starlink for bandwidth.
People today really have a terrible understanding of bandwidth.
There is no IFs. They already have the new version of the sats with the tech, they just need to deploy and test.
Light travels faster in space, than through a fibre optic cable, thus Starlink will always have more bandwidth potential to provide for any 'link' you could make from different ground stations on the ground itself.
Just something that's wrong-ish. 30tb/s is a lot, bandwidth is always oversold, even when you buy a 1gbps dedicated connection in a datacentre. Just for comparison a multibillion dollar datacentre company housing hundreds of thousands of servers around the world has a total network capacity of 2.5tb/s. The internet is deceptively "slow". Look at the uplink to subscriber bandwidth ratios on GPON equipment. EDIT: Also ISPs don't have to buy much bandwidth as they just peer with other networks. Also again, AWS bandwidth charges are insanely overpriced.
The problem is not in the single satellite bandwidth, or their combined one. The problem is that it operates on limited spectrum.
It's not the capabilities of the satellite itself, but so to speak the limits imposed on it by FCC.
Link budget analysis of the parameters SpaceX
has provided in its FCC filings suggest that the maximum supportable forward link data rate to a user terminal in a 250 MHz channel is approximately 400 Mbps.
The maximum Starlink
forward link capacity to any point on the Earth is 8 channels x 400 Mbps = 3.2 Gbps.
The minimum Ku‐band satellite transmit beam on the Earth’s surface, per SpaceX’s Mod 3 application, is
a 22‐km diameter spot = 380 square km.
Now you multiply 3.2 Gbps by 0.7 take rate and divide by 10 Mbps reserved (2TB monthly cap) = 224 locations / dishes in that spot.
But you have 20% overhead due to
waveform overhead and over subscription headroom, and another 20% for spectrum
sharing with other satellite networks.
So, 224 * 0.8 * 0.8 gives approximately 150 locations / dishes per 380 square km.
Only 0.4 locations per square km can be served!
US is approx. 10 000 000 square km
So, 4 million locations / dishes in US at best.
That's at 100 Mbps at 2 TB monthly cap.
And honestly, even this is too good to be true of an estimation.
If you look at OneWeb, they offer the following
- Speed (to/from UT): 25-50 Mbps / 5Mbps
- Volume: 100 GB/Month
- Latency: 30ms
or this
- Speed: 5 Mbps / 1 Mbps
- Volume: 10 GB/Month
- Latency: 30ms
A quote from their document, answering questions to ofcom UK:
"OneWeb will provide broadband internet access to hundreds of thousands of users (corporate
and consumer) around the world"
See - not even a million world wide.
@@2L40K this wasn't super relevant to my points, but I'm interested in where you got the 400mbps for a 250mhz channel from and if that's actually true because it seems very low to me. Also the FCC only applies to USA and they can also negotiate for more of the spectrum, well depending on the frequency.
@@aaronshed It doesn't matter what it seems to you, that's what it is. And it's quite relevant, because the bottleneck of the system is not in the single satellite bandwidth, or the combined one, but it's rather the limited spectrum and signal strength. Not to mention, that the lower channel will not be used, because it interferes with radio astronomy.
@@2L40K I'm not sure why you need to get angry. You seem to have assumed some things about my opinions, of which I have non on this subject. Merely stating some facts. Also you reaffirmed your point about bandwidth without providing any sort of evidence or reference, which is all I was asking for. If you take offence to someone asking for evidence then a technical debate is probably not for you.
@@aaronshed ...
He did. Google what he told you to, and take a look at the report of the FCC regarding a similar network by Viasat. I did not look into anything from Tesla (or whatever the company is called) directly, but i would assume that Tesla uses a similar setup. In that report you can see that they are trying a 600mbps setup as well which mostly did not work (even the 400mbps were a bit iffy).
Although they did not specify the exact/main reasons (e.g. signal strength, interference, electronic errors), these problems will occur.
19:47 -- No, no, you have to do internet service provider arithmetic here. Yes, you SELL 20Mb/sec internet, but users won't use that bandwidth 24/7. Do you want to what the ISP I had when I was a kid in the early 2000s had for their connection to the internet? Initially when dialup was the only thing they offered, their connection to the backbone was a 3Mb/sec dedicated (copper) connection. After they began offering DSL, they slowly doubled this and upgraded from copper to fiber until they hit a maximum of 18Mb/sec in 2003. By your math, that's only 6 DSL customers, yet they served thousands in addition to the local schools and the town library. Trust me, ISP math is WAY different.
Good Point. Also, won't they have Geo Stationary Satellites? This way, you have satellites that don't spend most of the time over the oceans?
That is not how the internet is billed from a tier 1 ISP at all. For the full network they would probably pay paying less than half a billion a year worst case scenario(90m to 300m per year is more realistic). Still doesn't change the outcome but you're still wrong on that part. Tier 1 ISPs generally bill on connection speed or connection speed 95th percentile utilization. you could have private peering agreements which in most cases reduces cost. Using AWS numbers is pretty useless for calculating ISP bandwidth costs. It's kind of like using the cost of a posh hotel room to calculate how much renting a apartment should cost somebody. That's a pretty bad analogy but it's the best I could come up with.
He is also overestimating the launch and satellite costs massively, the breakeven number of customers is probably somewhere near 0.5-1mil, not 4mil as he says (for 10k satellites).
Thunderfoot really lets his arguments down with over simplified and sometimes just playing wrong numbers. He's totally right though, Elon Musk is the conman king.
2/3 of the satellites are never using data either because they are over the ocean.
@@andrewandersson I don't know enough about launch costs to agree or disagree. I could do research and figure it out, but I don't really care enough to do it.
@@randomname4726 yeah it really annoys me when he does that. This one particularly got me irritated because it's literally was part of my job. So I can speak with authority on this. (No exact numbers because NDA and it's been a while) I think part of the reason why Elon is so good at it is because he mostly believes what he's saying.
"I swear it's not that hard" (nervous laugh) ..Elon Musk 2021.
In his defence, he's an entrepreneur, not the engineer that tries to get a billions for research from Elon. No one here will claim that Elon invented, built, or calculated anything in his life. He just learned that as a famous billionaire you can directly impact your wealth and income by just talking out of your ass and since there are plenty of stupid people, he's not wrong about that.
@@stylis666 i urge you to say that to his fans, you'd be surprised just how many think that
@@Leto617 Hm... I'm curious as to how surprised I would be XD But I really don't want to go on Twitter again. I fucking hate it.
he was totally banging that reporter afterwards. Did you see how she was flirting with him
@@stylis666 PMSL F00t fanboys are funny.
Come to rural Canada, get some of that sweet 5Mb/s for like 100$ Canadian Peso. And maybe it doesn't cut out on you.
Slogan of the Musk : "I'm confident."
Yes... the people that break things usually are confident.
İn Germany currently if Merkel says, she gives a minister her full support, means he is done for...
@@andrejgelenberg6340 Who needs enemies, when you've got "friends"?
I feel called out
Can't even make the pick up truck he promised. It really does amaze me that he got permission to put so much junk in space.
@@sonacphotos Nice for you. And who is calling the kettle black?
@Simple Weirdo Lol no it doesn't. Every other satellite internet service has horrible throughput, high latency and ridiculous costs. Something like 3000 euro for the hardware and a 1000 euro/month subscription for 8 mbps / 1 mbps.
It's almost as if the factory is getting built in texas...right now.
Thunderfoot used to make good video's, but the anti musk tirades are embarrassing for what was once a good channel, and the worst part is, it's got a bunch of you convinced about things that are not even remotely true.
Such a shame
Watching this channel's devolution teaches one thing: there are countless idiots willing to be impressed by baseless bullshit and there are the conmen to feed off such a crowd of idiots. Fanbosy are the pests of the 21st century. Fanboys and their annoying idols.
@@sonacphotos Nobody is on it yet hence the part of the video where you're shown a car moving down a road with no cars on it.
At first I heard "Supersonic electric chair" and imagined something completely different.
So... you thought about a public execution of someone so well known that many people want to see, so government had to build a single person maglev train with electric chair and fry that guy simply by air friction?
That still makes more sense.
YOU'RE ONTO SOMETHING HERE. Supersonic, electric, self-driving wheel-chair... sounds like something Elon would propose.
You're not alone.
@@MarkMifsud Don't forget about cold gas thrusters and rocket engines
This didn't age very well. Another 53 satellites launched this morning... on a vehicle that had 5 previous flights. Not to mention supplying a butt load of receivers to Ukraine.
The question then remains as to whether these sattelites are maneuverable. NASA brought to mind the concern that all these sattelites in orbit are raising the risk of collision.
What happens if a starlink hits a manned mission during ascent or descent?
Is there any method of, for the lack of a better term, traffic control to keep certain areas of orbit clear for launches?
There are still some things to iron out about all this and I'm not too comfortable declaring starlink an unmitigated success until I know that these issues have been addressed.
@@toasterboipencil It is possible to move them when they are operational but if they break it could be dangerous.
@@FatOnAxis
It does also bring up a question of maintenance, or do they plan to just deorbit and replace the sattelites that need maintaining?
The more I think about this, the less long term I feel it is.
@@toasterboipencil Im not really sure how space x can maintain that many satellites so deorbiting seeems to be the only option.
@@toasterboipencil I'd be fairly sure there are a lot more than Starlink satellites that are a hazard to communications. There's the other several thousand satellites, owned by everyone from NASA to random companies with $100k going spare to watch too!
“i’m a conman or maybe i’m a god, spinning around in my hyperlooping pod” - elon musk 🎶
This became an anthem for every episode of any Elon Musk video
lol i thought the song said, "im a car man:"
@@sweettea6309 other people thought that too. We need an official transcript to see what he really said.
Does anyone know from where that song is and where I could find a longer version?
ruclips.net/video/kcIedRXflTY/видео.html
TIME STAMP: about 15 minutes in Phil **finally** gets around to talking about StarLink.
If TF's videos are too much mental lifting for you, I suggest watching the Tellytubbies instead. 😂
@@aaronmicalowe there is something to be said for Phil spending a bit less time sucking himself off and getting to the point in the title.
@@Sgtshadist true. The ammount of autofelatio to content is pretty cringe.
@@Sgtshadist if that's your attitude don't watch his videos. I like those 15 minutes used to set up the rest of the video. People are like children today. They've got no staying power.
@@aaronmicalowe I remember the days when a hard hitting documentary could be an hr long
15:00 - Thunderf00t still doesn't know how to round. He'll say it's not important, but if you care about accuracy, why not round correctly?
15:38 - Not 42,000 satellites. Accuracy matters. The 42,000 figure comes from two compounded mistakes. Starlink Gen 1 was originally going to be 12,000 satellites, but the plan was updated and higher orbital shells were dropped, and the figure is now ~4,400. Starlink Gen 2 has had paperwork submitted for *up to* 30,000 satellites, but this will be a replacement for Gen 1, not an addition.
17:20 - Compound errors. Yes, it would be 140 launches every year to launch 42,000 satellites every 5 years, but that's not the plan. The plan is 4,400 satellites, to be replaced by Gen 2 at some point. 4,400 sats comes out to 15 launches a year.
18:25 - Nobody has ever tried launching a LEO constellation with their own reusable rocket.
20:00 - This is incorrect. 1,500,000 simultaneous full-load users =/= 1,500,000 customers. Oversubscription without harming data rates is a thing.
21:25 - $60 million for a Falcon 9 launch. Accuracy matters. This is just ridiculous, that's the customer price for a new Falcon 9, he's not even using the reusable price, let alone internal price. Let's use Phil's own numbers from his earlier videos of reusable costing 40%, or $24 million per launch. Let's also use $250,000 for each satellite. Now the figure is $6.5 billion to get 10k satellites in orbit, which is far more than the 4,400 for the initial constellation.
23:00 - As Phil pointed out, most of the satellites at any given point will be over an ocean. Phil is unwittingly assuming 10,000,000 simultaneous users, 24/7. If that were the case, that would mean at least $11.8 billion in revenues, but to saturate satellites' usage 24/7, you definitely need some oversubscription. 2x means $23.76 billion per year in revenue. 3x means $35.64 billion per year in revenue. This argument is actually one in favor of SpaceX.
23:40 - Notice what Phil does, he presents an 'outrageous' argument first, in his sarcastic tone, and then he 'generously' allows for a more realistic scenario and continues to mock it. How difficult is it to get Phil's $4 billion per year breakeven? Accuracy matters, but Phil likes to round and compound rounding errors. The real number is 3.4 million customers, globally. Phil again ignores oversubscription.
The entire premise of this video falls apart with an oversubscription rate of merely 2x, to the tune of billions/year in profit.
You don't want to say it, but we both know it. The guy is an idiot that doesn't even do the math correctly. How would he know how the business works?
and lets not forget that even those satallites over ocean will have quite few potential customers like ships planes military and so on and on
"Oversubscription without harming data rates is a thing." the business isn't even started good and already they need bullshit like that to make it profitable?
Thunderf00t has to be taking the piss at this point. I'm seriously thinking he is having a laugh...and profiting...at the expense of his subscribers. Take the 13 excruciatingly repetitive Hyperloop videos for example (and Elon Musk has no financial interest in anything related to it. He simply produced a 'whitepaper' detailing his vision of an existing concept). As for Starlink, someone of his alleged academic qualifications cannot possibly be so stupid or ignorant as to actually think this video is any kind of realistic assessment of the available information. So many things left out or misrepresented it's not even funny. This same guy reckoned that landing and reusing rocket boosters wouldn't be viable. I'd say that he should stick to physics, but he probably makes more money taking the piss out of his subscribers.
@@cristic767 That's not bullshit... That's how ISP companies work... It's why you can download a blue ray in 5 min at 3 in the morning, or 2 hours at 6:30 at night when everyone is curling up with their Netflix...
i think you're being a bit overly pessimistic about the actual cost to run and maintain the network.
with the development of starship the cost to launch satellites will come down significantly, the satellites themselves will no doubt also get cheaper to produce and also improve in capabilities.
your point about the laser interconnection does make a lot of sense. but just because it will be hard, does not mean it is impossible.
we may find out that at least with current technology . it is not possible. but the point of this is to see what is possible
and if something is not. why not.
i am very skeptical of anything elon says, but the fact he is willing to try such crazy things at all is what will push technology forward
sure it might all end going up in smoke but it hasn't done so yet.
i however completely disagree on your comparing the ability of satellites to dodge space debris to that of a cars ability to drive itself on public roads etc.
space debris would be almost completely impossible for a starlink satellite to see and as such they don't even try.
debris is tracked via ground stations and the information is available in a vast database, which the satellites can use to maneuver when required. with almost no effort on their behalf
it is a far far simplier problem than computer vision and driving in real world conditions
sure, the debris problem is a little more complex than i have described as a lot of debris are currently untrackable
but for the debris we know of. getting out of the way is not difficult. interactions can be predicted many orbits in advance and so the margins are quite wide.
again. that is for the debris we can see. and there is a LOT up there which we cant.
saying starlink is busted is to me a bit untruthful
sure it will face a lot of difficulties and im sure many which we cannot forsee
but right now. it does work, and it is only the first try.
the first computers, compared to today. are almost useless now. and who is to say we will not see a similar kind of improvement with starlink.
anyway, thats my "rant" over.
i do genuinely enjoy your content, just in some cases i think you are too pessimistic.
the march of time never stops
and so the march of technology should not stop either
doubt you'll read this though
and yes, I'm sure there's a lot of doubt on starship actually working. but for now. I am hopeful. and everything so far has been rather promising.
@@Kitten-Master starship is going to work since NASA is pressing it
I think he needs 30 billion for starlink more than what nasa gives. You know he making an ipo sorry it. The way it is going he sounds more of a scammer than real.i also want things he promised to become real. But he doesn't even know what he doing.
Also he is a guy who took over other people idea and company and made the world think it's his idea. Like PayPal and Tesla. He is more of a dirty businessman than a visinory
@@evilreborn4088 no one ever said starlink needs that much satelites to be fully operational and rich boy never claimed an idea to be his
@@fask69 he announced it in July 2021.go see Mr skeptic video about starlink and he is not rich.
Why cause most of his reachness comes from government fund and investors. His own personal assets are worth 200 million. Though the debt he owns is about 6 billion to China alone. And has 700 lawsuits against him.
Jeff Bezos personal asset itself is 40 billion. The Amazon funds his other money we see.
You should see the videos I use to consider him great. But he just a bussissmen.
Is 90% of this video just a rehash of stuff that Tunderf00t already lampooned? Yes.
I am no particular fan of Musk, Tesla, SpaceX, etc, but MAN, do these videos get annoying. Same stuff, rearranged. TF can be sooo much better than this.
It's things like this that make me think it would been better if Zorin had succeeded in flooding Silicon Valley in View To A Kill.
You could say he's a very "confident man"
Your numbers are wrong. Most internet providers overbook between 20:1 and 50:1. So instead of 1.000 customers per satellite, you could have up to 50.000.
You’re making an assumption that you can do the same thing with Star Link that typical fiber ISPs do. I’m not saying it will or won’t work the same but there’s no evidence either way.
What satellite network do we have that your assumption is based on? Non so you compare it to fibre optic cable based internet. Why? Why should it work the same way?
Overbooking is just selling more than you have. There is no reason you can not do that with starlink.
@@TorianTammas Because it does. If in doubt ask an expert.
Not an alcoholic who has no clue what he is talking about.
Did I miss why there's a comparison to AWS egress bandwidth charges? Are ISPs or Amazon paying comparable bandwidth rates to Amazon's EC2 customers?
It was nonsensical. Basically thunderfoot needed to know how much links into transit networks cost. He probably either a) didn't know, or b) couldn't find out. In which case he should have just forgotten about it and moved on.
Bandwith prize depends on how much bandwith is available. In this sample Starlink has his own bandwith (and I don't care how much that is). Nobody is sharing it and thus it is an internal figure. If an IP needs a cable to put bandwith into your home, it either owns that cable or it has to lease / rent it from the company that owns the cable. That means that there can be costs attached to that bandwith.
On the other hand creating a bandwith always costs money. Usually companies / owners try to cover that "installation" cost via "rent" payments. Thus you may be able to break that down on usage.
BTW I'm only arguing about the math here. I'm NOT talking if it makes sense or not. Usually "bean counters" crunch such numbers.
I have NO idea, where the numbers in this video are coming from or if they make any sense at all.
@@reecesx Insanely cheap? Not really. It's ~3.5 USD per TB of data for peering.
@@reecesx What makes you think those are "bs numbers" for peering? This is what ISPs roughly pay for higher tier peering.
@@reecesx I don't understand what you want. Depending on what ISP you use, and if it uses peering to other networks for some connections it has to pay for them. This is why DTAG peering for example has been shit in the past since they did not want to pay for proper peering to some other heavy-load networks (peering to RUclips for example was slow) (actually DTAG wanted too much money).
Elon Musk takes ‘fake it till you make it’ to the extreme
More like just "fake it"
He doesnt take anything like that to any extreme. He's merely conning millions of people.
Nothing that hasnt been done a gazillion times already, by endless churches, priests, politicians, corporations and their leaders, etc.
He's not even trying anything new thats outside the conman's book. Its all been tried successfully and unsuccessfully in the past, to con, deceive and manipulate others to the conman's will.
He even tells you "I have confidence in....this thing I am trying to sell you."
Thats the most obvious and pathetic trick in the book. By declaring his confidence, he's trying to tell you to have confidence in him. Con-fidence in the Con-man.
At this point, Musk is fearless, he knows that his devout believers will never stop believing in him, no matter what. And he's right.
Thus he is a successful conman.
I dont like it, but it is true.
They all do
@@morpheas768 Well stated
Tesla manufactures the most electric cars and SpaceX launches the most rockets, these are simple numbers, I'm not sure they need to fake anything.
Thunderfoot could show some character by making just one video admitting he was wrong.
🤣
Name the video.
@@gavinjames8749 Starlink: BUSTED!! + ALL other Failed Musk promises!
I think he shows far more character calling out the Fanboi Shibboleth, Space Karen.
It's kind of sad that the only way thunderf00t can "debunk" Starlink is to be super misleading, bordering on being intellectually dishonest. Starlink doesn't claim it's going to put 42,000 satellites in LEO, but rather 4,400 satellites in LEO. The first 15 minutes, thunderf00t rambles on about Elizabeth Holmes and Elon Musk. It's interesting to note that thunderf00t only "busted" Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes months after she was busted and exposed by others. When thunderf00t finally does talk about Starlink about 15 minutes in, he gets the amount of satellites wrong and bases his following conclusions on the wrong number he made up. It's interesting thunderf00t takes Elon Musk's word on companies that went broke trying to do similar, but doesn't mention which ones. He just blindly takes Musk on that. Ironic.
Thunderf00t intellectual dishonesty is on par with Elon Musk's intellectual dishonesty. Both just make shit up. I've begun to noticed thunderf00t being misleading or dishonest in his videos quite often. Sometimes it's clear he doesn't even know what he's talking about, like the helicopter on mars thing. He has zero clue as to how helicopters stay aloft. He claims in the mars helicopter video that helicopters stay aloft by pushing air down and out of the way lol. Wrong. Helicopters stay aloft because they rotate their wings to produce lift very similar to how airplanes produces lift. Thunderf00t should stick to chemistry related topics that he's knowledgeable about. When he tries to "bust" something outside of his expertise, he gets so much stuff wrong. When he's shown he's wrong, he won't admit to it. Bad scientist
Wrong, hovering in land effect the helicopter DOES use that cushion, and the description he gives IS pretty much the same as you describe. Airplane wings produce lift by diverting wind down etc. unless your one of those armchair engineers who believe in Lift Demons. Try getting a plane to fly with no forward speed and/or no angle of attack.
"I've begun to notice blamethenile being misleading and dishonest ..."
The plan was 42.000 satilites if you are saying Musk didn't say that you are the one not telling the truth.
42k is a long term goal. Short term goal is 12k satellites IIRC. At the moment of writing this there are more than 5500 Starlink satellites on orbit.
I was wrong about the calculations being off.
I misheard the portion where Elon mentions the bandwidth of the 1500 satellites. I thought he said they were pushing that much, not capable of that much. That was the main point of my argument, the other points are minor in terms of how much they would affect the overall calculation.
-@Thunderfoot Big fan, but your number crunching is wrong in this video. Nearly all consumer internet service providers promise only "Up to" the advertised speed. This is because ISP's assume that customers won't be maxing their connections out 100% of the time so they buy only as much bandwidth as they reasonably expect may be in use at once. --Starlink.com--: "During beta, users can expect to see data speeds vary from 50Mb/s to 150Mb/s". In networking terms, this is called oversubscribing. You're also assuming the data output of 30 Tb/s across all 1500 satellites is uniform across each satellite and that there aren't a few satellites pushing 1 Tb/s or even more. This is a bad assumption. AWS is selling a service by transferring data, not showing you the true cost of bandwidth for that data transfer so this number is bad also. In networking, there's also something called a data transfer node which caches commonly used data so that it doesn't need to be fetched from the internet, which could further reduce cost depending on how they set up the Starlink back end.-
@Fourier21 I can get being perturbed by that but sometimes you do have to estimate for calculations and estimates are often close enough for comparison. I'm not sure Starlink is going to be successful either and I agree that Elon Musk often over promises and under delivers.
Now while Thunderf00ts math might not always be perfect, he has to rely on some assumptions and his calculations aren‘t always perfect you are ignoring some fundamentals of computing. Now ignoring the fact that a 1Tbpstransfer rate per satellite would be technological marvel in its own way that doesn‘t change the fact that any given satellite pushing that level of speed wouldnt make any difference due to how starlink works. Starlink works by sending data using directional radio to the satellite, then the satellite sends it through the satellite grid via lasers or radio and then eventually sends it back down to some station where it enters the ground internet again and can access servers and data centres. This means that in order for that 1Tbps to be effective every single link in that chain needs ro be able to sustain that same speed. A single bottleneck could literally at any point in time be the satellite above googles datacentre, which is hit by an inconceivable amount of data per second. Also if a single satellite was able to push 1 Tbps then all satellites would be able to theoretically do that because they were probably manufactured at the same location. And if they could achieve that speed Elon wouldn‘t name 30Tbps for 1500 satellites as the public number.
@@agent3202 I was just generalizing, not specifying how fast I thought a satellite might be able to transmit. Your final line made me go rewatch and I realized I misheard what Elon said.
There's a simple solution to this all "Dear customer thank you for beta testing Starlink the past year, from now on we will be asking you to pay double for the service, thank you."
That’s pretty standard.
According to these numbers, it's going to have to be at least 13 times.
Let's just have a bunch of sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads.
If Elon tried it’d take him 5 years and we’d end up with Bass with laser pointers... 😂
@@MyDuckSaysFucc Well, as long as the sea bass are ill-tempered...
Thunderf00t, your greatest contribution to humanity is the crystal clear evidence you offer the world that just because an individual (you) earned a science degree, doesn't mean they are intelligent.
Lol
Thunderf00t has become one of those creationist priests he fought so hard against in his heyday, now, he is surrounded by a very small rabid fanbase that take his words as gospel, don't challenge him at all, and despite all external and measurable evidence against their beliefs, despite being proven wrong over and over by people in the relevant industries, he will never be wrong in the eyes of his fans, and as long as click money keeps rolling in, Thunderf00t no longer cares that he is a parasite leeching bitterly onto the success of productive individual like Musk, who unlike Thunderf00t, repeatedly admits he makes mistakes and is optimistic with his timeline, but here, as long as it feeds Thunderf00t and his channel, he no longer has the dignity to care about being right or wrong. As someone who was once a fan of Thunderf00t, it is really, really sad to see what he has become over the years.
And you are a crystal clear example of an Elon Stan who clearly isn’t intelligent. Who tf trusts a guy who makes wild claims and doesn’t follow through half the time?
@@aaron4820 yeh, lost faith in thunderf00t. Seems he has an agenda now.
It's simple. Starlink is a military project (weapons and defence systems internet), funded by military. So it doesn't need to be profitable on civil market. All this "internet for rural areas" is just a PR plus some additional income.
It is not? The military is going to be a big time user, especially marine forces I would wager. WHEN and IF the thing becomes available as a MOBILE device. IF! Lets just see I guess... And I guess main funding will come in the form of businesses spending big money for super fast latency over the atlantic or even pacific ocean, WHEN and IF they can make the whole laserlink stuff work reliably, which the first few satellite generations do not even have.
He's a very confident man isn't he. Someone should think of a shortened version of the phrase "confident man".
Or maybe he's a God
Zoomin round the planet in his hyperloopin car
Confidence*
@@nonesuchone
*Conman
Also a man of conviction.
For those interested, he starts talking about starlink around 15:00
LMAO this video did NOT age well. Starlink already comparable to broadband in rural areas.
no it isn't.
Starlink Slow Speeds: How to Speed it Up [2023]
12 jul 2023 - Network congestion is probably the most common issue when it comes to slow speeds from Starlink.
by the way, starlink can never be quicker than the upload stations, or to put it differently, seeing that starlink has to send and get it's data from base stations and those get their data over land lines, starlink can't be quicker than glass fiber connections.
Glass fiber connections that are cheaper to install than sending up thousands of sat's with rockets, sat's that need to be replaced at least every 3 years.
@@PDVism Forbes reports speeds of up to 500mbps in rural Canada where fiber optic is unavailable.
the upload stations are fiber optic but that doesn't compare to an end user fiber optic hookup. starlink ping is only marginally higher, and not humanly perceptible.
@@wildbillnye 1/ Forbes isn't exactly a good source for technical data.
2/ Even Forbes mentions that theoretical 500Mbps is what you pay for on the most expensive plan. There for not for all users.
To be exact, one has to pay 2.500 USD one time cost + 250 USD a month.
Now how many gamers life in some distant rural part with no landline internet available? How many stock brokers or high level business people are located somewhere so far away from civilization that they can't connect to a fiber optics internet and can and are willing to spend thousands of USD a year on it?
heck, they even have a plan that goes for 5.000 USD (Starlink Mobility 5TB of Priority Mobile data.)
3/ Even Forbes mentions that normal users are theoretically facing speed of 50(fifty) ot 250 at best. In reality, if you can get 100mbps you are lucky.
In comparison : I live in a provincial city area (roughly 250.000 people). I pay roughly 80 a month for a mainline phone, internet and a cell phone plan with international calling.
My internet usage has no cap and my speed is between 90 and 100 Mbps.
My ping rate is only 16ms.
So why the eff would anyone around here pay way more for way less?
4/ The more users share the same sat, the lower the speed for all. So even if you are on the most expensive plan you won't see 500mbps if there are another 1000 people sharing the same sat. There for the best connection speed you can get can only happen if there aren't lots of customers.
Now think back on how much it costs to making the sats (that only last 3 to 5 years), launching a bunch of sats, making the dishes, distributing them, back end costs for repair, replace, billing, customer support, etc etc etc...
And again. seeing that the sats are just a relay station it means that it can never EVER be quicker than the speed at the base station. Believing otherwise is like saying that you can have more water coming out of the garden hose than the amount of water coming out of the faucet connected to that hose.
@@PDVism Yeah, this is true. Starlink was never meant to overtake fiber, it's just meant to create a very viable off-grid solution to practically anyone around the world (who can afford it), and in that realm, I think it's doing pretty good.
@@GoldenTV3 Except it's the most expensive version of Sat, internet out there.
The only thing it has going for it is the loudmouth Elon pushing it.
For the failed projects, as long as they weren't introduced with malevolent intentions I think we should be encouraging and not disparaging regardless of failure or success. Most new ideas are fated for failure, and disparaging such new ideas for failure I think is overall bad for encouraging others to try new things.
Yeah he’s not discouraging the new ideas per say. Because I would have to imply that Elon musk was coming up with original ideas and not just throwing on a new layer of paint to hold ideas that were left by the wayside long time ago because mathematics and proven them to be impractical for most scenarios.
While that is true, in a world with limited resources, we should probably try to spent them on the most reasonable ideas. Maybe we should also clearly communicate, how close we are to actually achieving our goals and where the chances and risks are. Preferably before we collect other peoples money, which they might be willing to give to us, because they *somehow* got the impression, that we are very close to achieving our goals. I might be wrong, but that thought is what keeps me from collecting other peoples money to finally realize that perpetual motion machine based on free karmatic energy and frying pans.
@@doylethelovely2555 You mean like being intellectually dishonest about the dead sats at the ISS altitude? Yea, those are going to decay, re-enter, and disintegrate.
What we should discourage is his insane narcism and cult of personality though.
@@doylethelovely2555 Throwing on a new layer of paint might just be what we need.
...Starlink is on track to generate a staggering $6.6 billion in revenue for 2024...
Everything is always - "on track", "about to", "soon". Mf only talk when u done. All u do is talk
@@ShubhamPatil-cb8dk How about currently 3 million subscribers? Plus inked (and already launching) contracts worth billions to provide a private Starlinkesque constellation for the military. Every major cruise ship line are now customers. Airlines are now starting to add it to their fleets. The first direct to cell satellites started launching in January and have already enabled video conferencing between two off the shelf cell phones with no terrestrial cell tower involved.
@@seanlarabee6300I know this is super. Late, but starlink was only able to achieve 3 million after 7k satellites, ultimately causing this business to scale slowly. Most likely, musk will break even with this project which is the best case scenario considering the crazy amount of risk due to failure in launching or lack of customer base.
Remember that Musk makes so many risky investments that he ends up losing anyway.
@@OneStudCubed Only is an interesting word to use to describe 3 million satellite Internet subscribers. (and the number is currently closer to 6k satellites but that is a minor quibble)
HughesNet has been by far the single biggest player in that space. I think they launched their first satellite way back in 2000, and over the course of the next 20 years or so grew to only 1.5 million subscribers. (I only lasted through my first contract before I dropped them like a hot potato. Miserable experience. Low bandwidth but no caps and better latency via four hops of microwave relay for a higher price was a better option for me.)
Starlink hit 1.5 million about 9 months after leaving beta. It took another year to double that to the 3 million point. That growth was limited due to Starlink holding potential subscribers on waitlists so as to not avoid over saturating popular geographic areas. Now that the laser interlinks are giving them more flexibility for routing traffic, those lists are mostly a thing of the past. Tthe rate of new subscribers has been increasing. March to April and April to May have seen the two largest single month jumps in subscriber count yet.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😈😈😈😈
.. bro.. starlink will be the only internet i really can have..
I pay over 1200zar a month for just 20 mps internet speeds (CAPPED AT 90 a month)
thats over $60 A MONTH FOR SLOW INTERNET
its the best internet where i am, fuck please elon, bring internet here.
Spoiler - My learned namesake kinda doesn't know the difference between a web hosting service an ISP and their relationship to the international infrastructure currently in use to handle data worldwide. You cannot pull a $$ number from your @rse based on what amazon charges for webhosting and lump that on to Starlinks provisioning costs.
Well like all ISP they need to pay for access they also charge for access back... But I suspect there won't be major servers on the starlink satélites... They can save a bit by having mirror servers self hosted at each ground station... But all of that costs money 💸💸💸
You pay for bandwidth usage on AWS, that's a perfectly valid comparaison. BTW AWS is not justt a web hosting service it's a cloud computing platform.
@@АкакийАкакиевичБашмачкин Neither of which can be compared or are remotely similar to what an ISP is/does. The last mile (or 2 or 5 if you live in the sticks) forms the bulk of anyones internet bill. You are effectively comparing a physical shopping/services centre with the roads/rails/paths that allow consumers/businesses to access it.
@@АкакийАкакиевичБашмачкин except that the page he was pulling from was for Data Hosting not for data transmission, data transmission through a backbone service provider is cheaper by a factor of 1,000x, its closer to $0.000003 per GB, the comparison isn't valid as you're buying two drastically different things as Content Distribution is more expensive becauseyou need to build a data storage can capable of actually reading and writing data at the necessary speeds you're looking for rather than just forwarding data from one pipe to another.
That's typical of this whole video. Thunderf00t has to be taking the piss at this point. I'm seriously thinking he is having a laugh...and profiting...at the expense of his subscribers. Take the 13 excruciatingly repetitive Hyperloop videos for example (and Elon Musk has no financial interest in anything related to it. He simply produced a 'whitepaper' detailing his vision of an existing concept). As for Starlink, someone of his alleged academic qualifications cannot possibly be so stupid or ignorant as to actually think this video is any kind of realistic assessment of the available information. So many things left out or misrepresented it's not even funny. This same guy reckoned that landing and reusing rocket boosters wouldn't be viable. I'd say that he should stick to physics, but he probably makes more money taking the piss out of his subscribers.
I have the solution to traffic problems. 1) Increase taxes on cars, purchases and 'road tax'. 2) frequent public transport with regular cleaning. 3) tax relief on cycling.
The roads are so dangerous cycling with the congestion and harassing behaviour of some drivers.
No thanks.
I like your videos but I think some of your arguments are way off in this one - like the price per GB/TB transmitted. You can't just take the amazon's prices. With those prices all the regular big ISP would bankrupt in few days! EDIT: It is like saying that swimming pools can't be profitable because the water at the restaurant is $1 per bottle....and to fill the pool it will cost $50 000.
This is the same problem with all of his videos about Musk
You’ve got land to sell me? We’re just waiting for the tide to go out….that means waterfront property…Thunderfoot, take my money!
The tide isn't changing your property will be underwater forever.
No, it's a waterin property.
@@funveeable ooooo it must be one of them amazing sub aquatic habitats… TAKE MY MONEY…it does come a bridge doesn’t it…
hahahaha, this was not accurate prediction
Starlink Ditches Caps, But Congestion, Price Hikes, And ...
9 mei 2023 - Starlink is a satellite internet service that has problems with congestion, price hikes, and slower speeds.
yeah euh, I guess you really don't keep up with facts, it seems you are wrong
Man, you get a lot of mileage out of that Spitting Image clip. Way more than you'd get from Musk's self-driving car, anyway.
Lot of mileage for a stolen clip that is copyright infringement every time he uses it 😁
@@MK-13337 No, it is not "copyright infringement every time he uses it"...
Try reading about "Fair Use"...
@@davidhollenshead4892 I see dunning-kruger is strong within you. Why do you think it's fair use? Have you seen him comment on it or criticise the spitting image clip? He just uses it without transformation or critique. Criticism of Elon isn't in any way criticism of the spitting image clip. Tfoot just uses b-roll footage without paying, crediting, commenting or critiquing it. He is just ignorant of copyright and is stealing b-roll material.
Edit: almost any news or real video production buys their b-roll material. Tfoot just steals it.
What clip is that again?
@@rhawkas2637 "Im a conman or maybe I'm a god" clip with the doll looking things. It's played without any commentary on it at all. Ever. Never said a word about the clip, just plays it.
Ah you forgot to mention at the end how the Full Self Dodging starlink shitbox couldn't actually dodge a collision and an ESA satellite had to maneuver its much fatter ass out of the way, while SpaceX just cut communications with ESA on the matter.
Quote from the ESA on the situation:
*Contact with Starlink early in the process allowed ESA to take conflict-free action later, knowing the second spacecraft would remain where models expected it to be.*
But yeah, I don't trust any of his autonomous tech and even more I'm not a fan of this incredibly inefficient way of doing things, reminds me of the ridiculous idea of current cryptocurrencies actually being a viable system of transaction. Let's make something 50x more complicated than it has to be, *just because we can*
@@haakonht If that's your take on cryptocurrencies, you obviously don't understand why it exists.
@@haakonht If nobody understands it, nobody can control it.
@@haakonht Crypto currency will be viable once the bubble pops.
@@spandanganguli6903 Bubble, you mean in global economy?
WTH thunderf00t, i was expecting more or at least a basic understanding of networking, you don't include oversub into your calcuations.
20 years ago, isps would oversub 1000x, now its closer to 100x.
based on 100x oversub, by your numbers you have 1000*100 = 100k users per sat.
however, you have a huge fatal flaw in your numbers, which is that it's 10gb between sats an 10gb between ground stations.
so it's 50k users per sat.
50k * 10k = 500 million users @ 20mbps oversubbed at 100x.
since they are mostly rural, you can probably easily sell at 100mbps with a oversub of 500x, because they will likely have low sustained rates.
i was expecting something at least scentific.
Very specific situations would be good but for the majority this isn’t great. Considering the resources needed to invest we would have to focus on this path or scrap it. You didn’t focus on anything else TF00t brought up tho. Not defending anyone but even with the math, it’s a poorly thought out idea. Unless you want to just give wifi away for free too, gl selling it to rural people at the price of what semi-valley wants. But that heating element! You’re onto something. More problems being made vs a few problems being solved.
And when ISPs oversubbed like that it turned to dogshit. Who do you know that had Comcast or ATT back in the early to mid 2000s and actually liked them. Because I know for one they had massive dogshit problems. We paid for 8mbps and barely got 1 most days, that was on cable. On bad days the internet just went down, we weren't rural either. Oversubbing is a garbage practice that is guaranteed to make your customers very angry and you. Not to mention ISPs started getting in trouble for what they were doing as they could never provide any kind of reliable or reasonable service.
What happens when you have a big sports event, or a new update for a massive game comes out, or a new episode of a popular show arrives. All the sudden you have far more people than you can handle on a satellite and speeds drop to a crawl, that is if everyone can even get connected. Even with 40k satellites you are still stuck with only 4.8% of them over all of North America at a time, which is 1,920 satellites. At 10Gb/s per satellite, They tell you to expect speeds from 50mb/s to 150mb/s. But lets just say 20mb/s is the supposed guaranteed speed. Thats 480k simultaneous users before you saturate the system, I say 480k and not 960k because you have to get the signal back to earth at some point. Sure it's 10Gb/s ground station to satellite, then another 10Gb/s satellite to satellite but at some point you have to go back to the ground station to satellite connection. Even if you have dedicated uplink and downlink satellites you are still transmitting up then down and you just halve the satellites used by customers.
So 480k maximum 20mb/s streams. Not everyone is going to be on at once, but they are saying to expect up to 150mb/s and minimum 50mb/s. So sure some people will use less but many will use more. Even just a 4k stream from Netflix uses 25mb/s, so everyone that has bought one of the newer cheap 4k TVs (I got a 40" 4k smart TV for $120) is going to be using serious bandwidth at certain points of the day. People with game Consoles are going to be regularly downloading updates anywhere from 5Gb to 50Gb. People who have PCs and play games on PC are going to be downloading games and updates. RUclips, Hulu, Facebook, TikTok, you name it. Then you have people, like them or not who will pirate things. People who will push tons of bandwidth all day long, it's not unheard of to push 70mbps average for 18 hours straight with 20 torrents going. You aren't going to catch them either, a paid VPN will hide your activity from the ISP completely, starlink will have no idea you are illegally torrenting things they will only see large amounts of bandwidth being used and since they have unlimited bandwidth nothing can be done. So you will have all this peak useage at the end of the day when people are coming home from work and all turning on the TV to watch the new episode of whatever that came out. When kids get out of school they are all going to be turning on consoles and updating games, getting on youtube and streaming video, etc. Yeah at 3am you might get good service, but once it hits 5pm your internet is going to slow to a crawl. Thats how it was for 8+ years with other cable ISPs when they were overselling their lines. It's going to piss people off and they are going to goto another provider like Dish or Direct TV, or whoever in their area is taking advantage of the anger against starlink and offers a new plan. Then in 2 years they get pissed off and switch again, thats just the way that kind of thing goes when you have multiple competitors. But now Starlink is just another shitty ISP with junk service every couple years when people get pissed at the last service and all switch over.
Getting back to the numbers, 480k customers at $99/month is only $570Mn a year, that won't cut it. So you have to oversub and hope that not everyone will be using at the same time. So you oversub 10x. Now we are at $5.7Bn a year which is around that break even point or so, maybe a little bit of profit if they keep getting government subsidy. But understand that now you are talking 4.8 million customers in the US when you can only ever serve 480k at below advertised speeds of 20mb/s. So now you have to implement QoS and load balancing for your customers. Which means if you have some big event or a new game has come out, or a few new popular shows are releasing episodes once a week, you may have a couple million users in the US all trying to do normal things in the afternoons at the same time. Parents are trying to watch TV, kids are trying to play games and watch youtube, peoples phones that have just gotten home are uploading all the pictures and videos taken throughout the day. Now you might have 2 million people all trying to use this service and you can only give each one 4.8mb/s. Thats enough per household for 1 480/720p video stream, or 1-2 game consoles to just play with no updates. Thats assuming that 59% of your other customers aren't even using the internet. Thats just 41% of your users Friday afternoon trying to play a game of GTA, watch the new mandelorian, check out youtube videos of cars or whatever. It's setting things up for failure, thats just with 10x oversubbing. If you goto 100x oversubbing you have 2 million users out of 48 million in the US? Thats insane.
No them being rural does not mean they don't own or use TVs or youtube or game consoles. Them being rural only means they have few choices and there is almost no way for them to spread out over multiple ISPs. It does not mean there will be fewer users and you can oversub 500x.
@@2009dudeman thunderfoots numbers in general are bad by my estimate it should be about 1.5billion a year in costs for SpaceX if they don't move to super heavy for launches (which they are planning to at 400 sats per launch)
Additionally they are working on the 2nd generation satellite with 3x bandwidth as well all of that together both reduces costs and increases profit margins and the number and density of users on the network.
The main cost that just gets waisted with launching starlink satellites is actually the upper stage which a new upper stage has to be built for each launch at about 10million super heavy/starship the second stage is reusable so they aren't wasting that which can vastly reduce launch costs long term. Each launch currently costs spacex about 20million give or take 5 million minus the sat cost. With starship they are targeting 5 million but let's say it's 10 million. And you are launching 6.666x as many sats so 6-7x reduction of launch costs per sat.
@2009dudeman
you guys really overestimate the sustaine rates of things. 4k is 1mbps to 20mbps. 1mbps being cartoons and anime. 2ndly your assuming everyone watches in 4k and that everyone has a 4k device. most people are still on 720 or 1080p.
i have experience running a data center in calgary, ab, and some of that experience includes running on the ISP level.
to share some of my insight, the local internet exchange of calgary, a city of 1.3 million people peeks at a sustained rate of 40gbps. while not everything goes through the yycix, a significant portion does go through the yyicx. yycix.ca/peers.html
the local yycix would be used mainly for local traffic and cdn traffic / caching.
look who is on the list of peers; cloudflare, facebook, google, a few other isps, ect... some of those peers have 100Gbps connections. the locations i run are also peers, routing some of the internet.
if you assume a cache efficiency of 50% with is very easily do-able for big companies like google, than a city of 1.3 million people peeks at 80gbps of sustained usage. although i don't see pornhub or anything on that list.... maybe 160gbps if you want to be skeptical.
real life numbers, thats 1 million users to 160gbps, which gives 6250 people per gbps, therefore without slowing anyone down, that allows for 62, 500 users per 10gbps connection. however, 10gbps over wifi has its own problems, but none the less, real life numbers add up as well.
acording to thunerf00t, the breakeven is 4 million subscribers for 10k satellites.
if we assume only 1gbps per sattelite due to other factors, inefficiencies ect...
that is 6,250 users per sattlite, which is 62.5 million subscribers.
if we assume only 1% of what is promised is delivered, than that is 6.25 million subscribers, still over the 4 million breakeven.
sorry, but thunderfoot this video is garbage. i was at least expecting thunderf00t to mention other problems like the 5g frequencies proposed for later generations. how around the 50-60ghz mark you get into the frequencies that can directly cause pain, effect hormones, effect brainwaves, and be weaponised with minimal power levels.
Interplanetary internet?? 40 minutes ping time on a good day between Mars and Earth!
Can we get "Richard Branson goes to space: BUSTED" please.
I CAN'T WAIT !
His glorified parabolic flight to achieve the illusion of weightlessness.. it's less impressive than 62 year old tech, the x-15
hey, this wasn' just a jump straight up, it was also one with a solid fuleled rocket. this means an overrated silvester rocket. if the non-orbital jump straight up is enough for you, at least go for the blue origin ride, as this really is a rocket engine. you know, the one with cryogenic fuel, moving parts and a little more engineering than "this is a cylinder filled with gunk with an opening of *diameter* and a silvester rocket fuse we will light".
yeah he went up... then down immediately again
Alright understand this saying that something some billionaire promises to do is impossible isn’t that big of a revalation so the billionaire doesn’t care. Now saying a billionaire faked going to space. That will be something huge best to not investigate that at all unless you want to be a missing person.
This reminds me of the Irish bank looking for a €4 billion bailout in 2008. The CFO told the CE that €8 billion was actually needed. The CE responded was that if the are in for 4, they won’t be able to get out. This is a really good analysis, something that journalists are supposed to do rather than just paraphrasing press releases.
Musk: "Supersonic electric jet"
Me: That is the stupidest thing I heard in years... The few ways we know how to turn electricity into propulsion or is bound by the speed of sound because aerodynamics or only produce very weak thrust that can only be used in space because it isn't under the influence of gravity and there is no atmosphere, and still needs to carry a propellant liquid/gas.
This is really hard to understand can you rephrase this?
@@remix4098
The tangential velocity at the tip of an airplane propeller can not exceed the speed of sound because it result in the separation of the air flow boundary layer over the blades, causing noise and a loss in efficiency due to compressibility problems. If the propeller can't rotate faster than the speed of sound it can also not push a plane faster than the speed of sound.
Other ways to produce propulsion with electric like a Hall thruster are too weak to push a plane on out atmosphere and only viable on space were there is no atmosphere on the way to slow you down.
In short we do not have any kind of technology capable of procuring thrust above the speed of sound in a medium with just electricity.
@@vitor900000 so the only viable option is to use chemical combustion to thrust the plane forward above the speed of sound?
@@remix4098 Above the speed of sound? As far as I know its the only know way. That doesn't mean we can't find a way in the future with a new technology yet to be invented/discovered.
Planes can fly way below the speed of sound. So for a normal plane that fly at 150~300Km/h can easily be propelled by a electric motor. The problem now would be weight/range since batteries are heavy.
@@vitor900000 yes above the speed of sound. Sorry forgot that part.
Off course he's a liar.... hes a prime narcissist.He reminds me of a spoiled 5 year old with a rich daddy.
Yepp, And Lewis Hamilton
@Pro Curve lol... One would have to wonder what his children have to say about his role at fatherhood...
Yea, Tesla is a lie. These cars don't exist, right? SpaceX is a lie, sure. It's not like they deliver satellites and people to the ISS. Starlink works already. Stop to drink Kool-Aid pls.
@@sergeys7771 Ignorance is Bliss
thunderf00t is also a liar in this video...
I’ve watched every Thunderf00t video since the very first. However I’m now watching them through Elon Musk’s StarLink…
Yes, driving is very nice when no car is on the road.
@@kameljoe21 you are what people call a Simp
So now that starlink is up and running what say you!?
While many of the claims may be BS. I can affirm that starlink is revolutionary - making satellite internet practical and available to the masses. I don't care about the technology or promises. I care how it actually works in the real world.
In the last 5-10 years I would say it is one of the most influential changes in my quality of life. We had alternatives before starlink, but they were deeply flawed. I work in forestry, before starlink we often had various competitors - however it was limited to supervisors with a dedicated laptop to be used for phone calls for lower level employees due to bandwidth restrictions (which meant most employees were essentially cut of from communication with the rest of the world). Most times I would have to do a 1-4 hour round trip to get cell service instead of using our satellite internet - and often even that wasn't an option.
Now they leave the internet open. It can handle a whole camp of people browsing the web. Everybody can't be downloading stuff, but everyone can use it. Multiple people can make phone calls at the same time. Even if everyone is trying to stream videos, I can usually get enough data to check my emails and send new ones, albeit slowly. You have no idea how nice that is.
And when I'm out in the field on heli contracts, I can carry a sat phone and simply call a regular cell phone linked through starlink to get through to someone at the home base to organize pickups. Sat phones are great for outgoing calls, incoming calls not so much. Before it was much more complicated, and If I finished work early often 3-4 hour waits before our heli happened to be within radio range - and being out in the middle of nowhere can really suck, especially in the north. Even with a sat phone, it was often difficult to get in contact with our base camp.
Ok, so I've watched half of this video (15 min), and so far there is *nothing* about starlink in here. I think Elon Musk is not the only master of false advertising here...
Come on, Thunderfoot. 10 minutes in and it's just your previous video rehashed.
If only 50% of the video wasn't just copy-pasted clips and cringey memes from all his previous Elon Musk videos....
Grow an attention span
It's called recap :D
It's called priming and walling.
@@shartpoop3184 If the video were 30 minutes of Starlink analysis that's one thing. It's not though, it's 15 minutes of analysis and 15 minutes of reruns. Would you sit through an episode of a show you've seen 5 times before if a new episode was on the next channel? Would you call that a lack of attention span or just an unwillingness to waste your time?
12:00 That doesn't look or sound like Elon? Could it be, that your entire point is to just complain?
17:13 Not much of a market for internet...
It works exactly as described but its busted because his guessomatic generator gives fail math.
Phil’s math is way off and idk how he can claim there “isn’t much of a market” when it has 100k subscribers right now and can service the entire world. Even if a small percent of a country needs it they will still have millions of customers globally not to mention airlines and ships.
@@MiguelRuiz-vp1hu Dude many soldiers would pay several hundred a month if it meant a decent internet connection wherever they are.
@@Maddinhpws True. The military has already tested it in their planes and on the ground. I just like that certain channels like Thunderf00t and commonsenseskeptic have gone on the record claiming it won't make money and is a big disaster. It will be interesting to see how they pivot or lie about their past statements in 5-10 years when Morgan Stanley estimates Starlink will be making billions.
Another video to go along with Common Sense Skeptic, a complete lack of understanding of how an ISP works and how they connect and distribute to the greater Internet. Research the topics of free ISP peering and oversubscription ratios. Consider corporate contract profits for maritime, oil, gas, mining, gov and aviation connections.
My same request goes to you as it did CSS do a video on the complete failure of the 1996 telecommunications act and how bad the current state of internet connectivity is in the US. Maligning Starlink (regardless of founder) while it is still beta testing, attempting to correct satellite issues and finding partnerships and corporate contracts is in bad taste. The Internet, (the thing that serves your content for profit) should have competition for better service. You can't tell me existing providers including geostationary satellites provide anything better to rural North America.
The problem is not in the single satellite bandwidth, or their combined one. The problem is that it operates on limited spectrum.
It's not the capabilities of the satellite itself, but so to speak the limits imposed on it by FCC.
Link budget analysis of the parameters SpaceX
has provided in its FCC filings suggest that the maximum supportable forward link data rate to a user terminal in a 250 MHz channel is approximately 400 Mbps.
The maximum Starlink
forward link capacity to any point on the Earth is 8 channels x 400 Mbps = 3.2 Gbps.
The minimum Ku‐band satellite transmit beam on the Earth’s surface, per SpaceX’s Mod 3 application, is
a 22‐km diameter spot = 380 square km.
Now you multiply 3.2 Gbps by 0.7 take rate and divide by 10 Mbps reserved (2TB monthly cap) = 224 locations / dishes in that spot.
But you have 20% overhead due to
waveform overhead and over subscription headroom, and another 20% for spectrum
sharing with other satellite networks.
So, 224 * 0.8 * 0.8 gives approximately 150 locations / dishes per 380 square km.
Only 0.4 locations per square km can be served!
US is approx. 10 000 000 square km
So, 4 million locations / dishes in US at best.
That's at 100 Mbps at 2 TB monthly cap.
And honestly, even this is too good to be true of an estimation.
If you look at OneWeb, they offer the following
- Speed (to/from UT): 25-50 Mbps / 5Mbps
- Volume: 100 GB/Month
- Latency: 30ms
or this
- Speed: 5 Mbps / 1 Mbps
- Volume: 10 GB/Month
- Latency: 30ms
A quote from their document, answering questions to ofcom UK:
"OneWeb will provide broadband internet access to hundreds of thousands of users (corporate
and consumer) around the world"
See - not even a million world wide.
Now, pear exchange is done between equals. The bigger ones, and the smaller ones having a monopolist position - you pay them.
Examples all over the place: Bandwidth Costs Around the World - cloudflare blog.
Corporate? Consider not - Starlink is mostly consumer, the corporate one is OneWeb.
@@2L40K That's great you can paste OneWeb, or Viasat's complaints to the FCC all you want. OneWeb declared bankruptcy and was sold, their constellation is only 254 satellites is already dwarfed by Starlink with 1600 active. That's still not how overprovisioning, coverage, and Starlink's business model works. Quoting raw coverage per square mile means nothing. Starlink's customers are rural, underserved locations, not cities. If another provider can offer service or has faster service for a given area that outperforms Starlink all the better, that's the whole point COMPETITION in providing better Internet.
@@2L40K Corporate contacts are just starting the whole Starlink service is still beta (www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-us-military-contract-custom-satellites/). If Starlink can provide better service or a better price companies will move or engage.
I click on Thunderf00t's Elon videos to hear, "I'm a conman, or maybe I'm a god. Zooming round the planet in my hyperlooping pod!"
ruclips.net/video/kcIedRXflTY/видео.html
Ironically the actual lyric is "car man", but it is a hilarious song.
@@eccentricity23 you have to wash your ears if you're hearing "a car man", my friend.
@@slawomirlech950 wow, i just listened it again, and only now do i see that it was "car man" instead of "conman"
It makes a lot of sense in context that it is Car Man, maybe because of Thunderf00t i heard it as conman and never unheard it.
Thats crazy
Just had my starlink dish arrive. Plugged in - 300 mbps 5 minutes later.
Live in the countryside. Previous ISP provided 2 megs - right now, Starlink can do no wrong.
20:00 Not correct, since customers do not use their full bandwidth all at the same time.
Considering the usefulness of Starlink in helping Ukraine beat back the enemy this video is busted!!!
Don't bother watching the first half of the video, it's just a recap of earlier videos not related to Starlink. That stuff starts only after 15min. So much for not overpromising...
The Projection is strong with Phil....
I watched it. I'm OK.
I watched it and enjoyed.
Loved the first 15 minutes.
I'm not goona lie, I'm not a musk fan, but these are easily my least favorite videos of yours. I had to skip the first half to even get to the part where you talk about starlink. I came here to hear about starlink not vaporware the redux. I watch these on x2 and you make me wish there was a x4.
Edit: I had "first third" but upon further review it's really more than half.
He keeps reminding people of the other stuff, because so many people are still in denial.
@@anzaca1 No hes padding his videos turning 7 minutes of content into 30. He repeats himself more than a broken record.
@@christopherblare6414
The quality of his content has been dropping for several years now.
@ツ2คкεuคu2 Dude, ruthlessly following Thunderf00t is just as bad as following musk. He's a nuclear engineer he can handle constructive Criticism
@ツ2คкεuคu2 is that a no true Scotsman fallacy? Sitting through 15 min of repeat is boring despite doing it for a reason.
"I swear it's not that hard" = I have no fucking idea.
PHIL! BE SHARP AND TO THE POINT. This should have been a 10 minute video.
"First they fight you, they think you're crazy, then you change the world" (in your imagination)... and it actually turns out that you're crazy.
Today we hear that Starlink has 1M active subscribers. I know a few of them and they're quite happy with their service.
you mean the waiting list (2 years afair) not the customers, many have prepaid but at best have the set but no access. take a look at some user reviews and you'll see that the routing is bizarre and the latency is horrendous with speed jumping constantly between aprox 140 and 50mbs. using anything with voice is a challenge but if you have no other way to get to Google... sure it's maybe better than only a phone connection if you're living in the wastelands. using it in my country would be completely pointless as we've got every corner covered by copper plus fiber and now WLAN hubs too. getting musk's versuon of a 56k to that wouldn't make much sense plus he's introduced proprietary connectors for horrendous prices while removing the standard rj45 connection from the thing... it's a clownshow ripping of hillbillies with a bad connection that's better than nothing
@@schrecksekunde2118 No, the waitlist does not factor in the number of 'active subscribers'. The word active is important here.
Routing is bizarre? You have BGP issues?
I switched ISPs to Starlink this summer from a local microwave relay provider. Latency is fine. Usually 20-40ms to the outside world.
Yeah, bandwidth is more variable than I would like, but that only shows up if I am actively checking or watching a download. Streaming in the evening works well.
Proprietary connector? You mean the cable between the antenna and the router? The horror.
Yep, no wired drop on the base router. So I threw them $25 and added one. The horror.
@@seanlarabee6300 enjoy it while it lasts
@@DrWhom Been a bit over six months, so seemed like a good time to update. Starlink has grown their subscriber base by about 50% in that time. My transfer rates are averaging a bit higher, but yeah, still more variable that I would prefer. Latency has not changed either way.
So yeah, still enjoying it.
Aged like fine milk.
Only in America, a guy could clame such dumb things and nobody remainds him of the past claims.
Try to do that here in Europe and the news midia will crush you
I feel like Thunderfoot does not understand lasers. He talks as if laser beams stay the same width farther away from the source, making it sound like you're trying to hit the detector on the other satellite with something as wide as a bullet, which yes would be quite unreliable. Except lasers don't stay the same width, and get wider further out (more like a shotgun with a very tight choke, instead of a rifle round that always stays the same width), making it a lot easier to keep a stable connection to the other satellite. The angle at which the beam spreads could be configured to be wide enough to match the precision capabilities of the laser pointing/tracking mechanism.
You aren't trying to hit the other sat with a bullet; you're hitting it with something larger than White House.
In fact, they've already BEEN bouncing lasers off mirrors (a few meters wide) on the Moon for decades, and detecting the light back on Earth. Moon is much further than the distance between these satellites, yet they can hit the target just fine.
We were developing similar concept called BEAM*LINK under CSA in the 90s; it's nothing new. The guy that made this video obviously has no industry knowledge and didn't do any research.
@@MisterFusion113 agree, this video is very theoretical, but is out of touch with the industry. Which is quite typical of academia.
That's not the problem. Problem is that that both source and target move at high relative speeds on significantly curved trajectories. On top of that, the link is supposed to be bidirectional.
@@nug700 Except that the Moon crosses the sky for 12 hours, while a satellite like these for like 5 minutes!
20:06 Clearly thunderfoot hasn't ever heard of a data cap. I'm jealous.
Data caps aren't even needed. The typical Xfinity customer consumes approximately 1 mbit/s on average in the year 2020. This makes sense since a single video stream is a few mbit/s, and this is likely the largest data consuming task most people will use, and they do it rarely.
Thunderf00t has to be taking the piss at this point. Someone of his alleged academic qualifications cannot possibly be so stupid or ignorant as to actually think this video is any kind of realistic assessment of the available information. So many things left out or misrepresented it's not even funny.
@@kirkc9643 I think that he is going outside his area of expertise because Elon Musk as a topic is very clickbait and easy to attract views. I can't blame him.
Not sure if you're from africa or something but over here in Europe I don't have data cap on DSL / cable connections, let alone on my servers in the datacenter for example. So either you guys are clueless and are comparing starlink with an internet of emulated p2p over mobile phone sorta connections. It is not. It's a replacement for stationary systems as, due to health concerns, we are decades away of introducing sattellite communications into any device that's truly mobile and should be carried on your body e.g.
So yes, it'd be a countryside replacement for landline based internet connectivity. And yeah, just streaming a 2 hour movie in 4k is about 15-30 GB of traffic. Let's just pray Starlink users never discover RUclips or Netflix and continue to dump comments on RUclips about how clueless others are. 💀😂
@@kontoname I'm in the US and I've never heard of anyone from my area not having any data caps. Maybe this is just one more thing that only the US can't seem to do. Also, the reason we don't do satellite internet with mobile devices isn't because of health concerns, its because its not feasible to do with a receiver small enough to fit in a phone, at least for any usable bandwidth(I recognize that you can do calls with satellite phones but that's about it). (also I was joking when I said that thunderf00t never heard of data caps, I just found it funny that he never considered them at all in his calculations, given how much of a constraint they are for me(I'd kill for internet of any bandwidth that has no data cap))
😂 the jab at Nigerian princes was really cliché
Anyways, I’m Nigerian and I sincerely admire your work. Its rather unfortunate that my people have become known for something so dishonorable.
Nonetheless, not all of us are like that….
I’ll proudly say, we still have a healthy population of good people left. I hope you get to realize this some day….🙂
Please keep up the good work 👍🏾
We know. Most of you, at least the immigrants to the US, seem to be hardworking and good ppl. It's always a shame when a subset of your group has an oversized influence on anything.
Sure, prince Ogye
@@alftitolito 😂😂😂
@@alftitolito
I’m not a Prince!
I’m just a regular guy who watches RUclips videos to broaden my knowledge of the world.
Like they say, knowledge is power! 😉
It looks like thunderfoot is far more invested in the hyped stuff elon musk invents than even elon musk himself 😋
I think I got this solved. The reason why people buy in to most of this “hyper” ideas is the following.
1) Computer simulations became super realistic looking.
2) Many software companies became very dominant.
So This makes people believe that if they can do it on a computer, it can be done in real life. But it does not work like that. Real life is much more complicated than computer simulation.
Given that in theory Hyper loop is possible, its almost impossible to implement this idea in real life. In real life uses real material resources and real physics.
I mean considering it's:
A: already built
B: already working
I think we are way past the simulation at that point. Only thing that can change at this point is the system not reaching the level of effectiveness first envisioned, but it's already outperforming landlines in many countries and blowing other satellite broadband out the sky, so it can't get worse than what already work
@@mobiuscoreindustries I was more on the Vegas Hyper Loop, but Hyperlink is more real, but most likely not commercially successful in the future.
@@MrSergecj the thing is that it's already successful RIGHT NOW. It's already providing a much better service than all Safelite broadbands and outdoes a lot of landlines too. It's important to realize that even the "all or nothing" beta is already generating a more than. Satisfactory service. It's an anchor on how useful the service is, which means it can't get "useless" because it already has a market and a customer base on it's very first iteration
I watched this video in 1080p over starlink, my wife and kids are also watching tv at 1080p, so far it works wonderfully for us, with at least 99% uptime. well worth $1700 a year, as it provides me with the internet connection I need to work.
Jeez
still extremely inferior to fiber optic cables. People who have actually tried both see star link for a poor imitation that it is to actual cables in the grown
@@reggiefreeborn2143 that is the problem though the people that are buying starlink don't have fiber optic cables and won't be getting them anytime soon. Starlink literally advertises itself for rural areas because it isn't feasible to run fiber lines to these houses that are a km apart each
Same here. I have had Starlink for nearly two years. It's the only option for me other than cellular, which is unreliable and has speeds ten times lower than Starlink where I live. I am very pleased with Starlink. Well worth it in remote areas.
@@reggiefreeborn2143 No one that has access to fiberoptics should be considering Starlink. This is not Starlink's customer base.
I'm surprised he hasn't come up with Tesla solar freakin' roadways yet.
Probably because he's not a conman/fraud like Thunderf00t so desperately wants him to be. Sure some of his ideas were insane and would never work in reality, like Hyperloop, but there's also real products you can use right now such as Tesla and Starlink.
@@angrymokyuu1951 Lmfao Tesla before Musk was NOTHING. It gained its iconic and disruptive reputaiton only after Musk joined.
@@angadsingh9314 That's because, when the innovators who actually founded Tesla were looking for early investment, they ended up going with Musk. Like I said: he gets zero credit for something he didn't do.
@@angrymokyuu1951 Show me literally anything these people had other than a name and trademark before Musk came along.
He wouldn't come up with solar roadways because they are stupid and anyone who actually follows musk for the innovation he delivers would know that.
Another thing to consider is that our power grids would be heavily burdened by a mass adoption of electric cars. With "green energy" being such a big deal, most money spent on it will go for renewables but the return on power is abysmal. This means that already, states like California that have been "going green" for years have already been issuing restrictions on charging of EVs. Their grid growth is not improving much, so if they go for "all electric", it would be a disaster and time to get the power grid up and running under this strain is not coming in the near future due to the "renewables" money sink.
Sorry late to finding this one. The first mistake when people look at Starlink is they assume it is Musk's project. From all indications it is not, it is Shotwell's. I don't know who had the idea but the solid numbers and the more realistic timelines, not the mention the emphasis on cash flow and how smoothly it fits into the Spacex operational and development plans argue that it is Gwynne who is the driving force.
So lets look at where Starlink is right now. The actual first Beta test version of the constellation is about to complete its deployment and is generating $100m or more in yearly revenue with $10-15m added every month. Customer acquisition costs have dropped to less the a 6 month payback. The laser satellite interlink has been tested. The Air Force has tested the mobile aircraft deployed dish. The commercial aircraft certification process has begun. Finally the first full set of laser interlink enabled V1.1 satellites are about to be deployed in polar orbits and will be in position about the time that that certification could be completed allowing Starlink to offer oceanic coverage.
Yeah this is my feeling too, nobody at SpaceX but Elon really believed in Starship and figured it would end up being Shuttle all over again and could sink the company, so they came up with a plan to launch Starlink Sats to offset the costs of launching Starships, and the system would in turn help offset Starships development costs keeping the company alive... lucky for them though it looks like Elon has figured out his whole Starship System to that point I believe that won't happen. Catching Super Heavy mid air with the tower is gonna off set a lot of the time penalties that plagued Shuttles launch cadence and even Falcon 9's launch cadence for that matter. So we should be able to see at least 100 Starship launches per year is my bet, launch costs at about $16M a pop. A fundamentally revolutionizing of Space, but not anywhere near what Musk was initial promising, and by no means a sure ticket to Mars. Space will still just be a place for governments and the ultra-wealthy, just maybe now the regular wealthy too, and if we are very lucky, industry.
don't you understand? everything musk touches turns to shit. since he never invented anything he can only take over succesful companies and as soo as he touches them they fall apart. trust me thunderf00t told me everything about it.
@@Nekroleinchen Yeah that ThunderF00t zero bias from him.
@@Nekroleinchen lmao. You summed up the echo chamber here pretty well
Starlink now has over 3 million customers and estimates of revenue this year exceed 6 billion - This video is totally busted.
there are many premium customers like oil rigs, yacht's , ships , passenger ships, aircraft ,train services , busses , trucks, business users as well as normal homes and RV owners etc.
I worked as as software developer for an existing leading satellite communications company here in the UK where the product was being used for sea vessels. Trust me when I say this, this idea is not new at all. Satellite comms is a niche market and not at all suitable for mass consumption. There are already "spot" satellites and geostationary satellites that can provide internet connectivity. But you will not enjoy using them. Firstly the latency is poor and the speed is poor too but the thing that will get you is the cost. I worked on software to compare connectivity speeds of other ships so that we could switch them between very expensive connections to even more expensive and slower connections based on GPS to "save money". This is not cheap. If you are in the middle of the Pacific ocean you aren't going to be watching Netflix. It's madness.
I'm not against the video, I'm just going to quietly downvote every video from now on, that is five times as long as it should be, because it's the same clips he has shown 10 times before.
Thanks for reminding me to click the like button 👍
Well that's an uplifting comment. Wow.
You could do him to be shorter. I, on the other hand, like my breakfast and having me reminded about his scamming life-style.
That people fall for this.
Sadly I cannot down-vote you. :-(
At this point tf00t could probably just recycle his old videos instead of making new ones.... oh wait.
At one point in time tf00t used to make all sorts of interesting critique videos, science videos, etc. Now he just fixates on a single person and they can do no right, even if some of their ventures are successful - something happened when he had some sort of upset between himband Sargon, and he's never come back from it.
Con is short for confidence. That’s also their favorite word.
$1 billion in data costs means 100 billion GB of data transferred per year. Since we know the average bandwidth usage per household, we know that's enough bandwidth for 21 million households in America. More in Europe.
So $1 billion per year in data costs would mean SpaceX had $25 billion per year in revenues from all the customers it takes to use up 100 billion GB of data.
Bravo, thunderf00t! "BUSTED!"
This didn't age well.
Which bit do you think aged the worst?
I think I giggled the most when TF's 'debunk' of laser comms between satellites went totally fact free but boiled down to "that sounds hard ha ha ha'. Especially in light of how many laser to laser links are bouncing around above my head right now.
So Starlink for RV is now available. It offers "de prioritized" data and you can even get it in "waitlisted" service areas. So basically they've opened up the gates to everyone. I could not resist giving it a try, so I now have a system that I'll be driving around with. Typically, I get download speeds of 20-50 Mbps and upload speeds of 5 to 25 Mbps. Ping times are around 50-70 ms. I've been using it at home for work, internet browsing and streaming video for around a week. While the stats are significantly worse than my normal provider, I 'm not really seeing bad performance during normal use. Sometimes zoom calls get choppy, but I don't do that much anyway. And the newer Starlink system I received (square dish) uses about 40W of power. They have a feature where you can automatically disable the snow heater to keep power consumption down. I don't get much snow in Florida anyway. Oh yea, I had to switch to my regular internet while typing this because we're in the middle of a thunderstorm and starlink connection is gone for a while.
No idea what will happen over the next few months or years. The hardware is sunk cost for curiosity. I can turn the service off at any time and re activate it only when traveling (in 1 month increments at $135/mo). Obviously this is not for everyone.
Just watched the busted playlist and now a new elon gem appeared.
Elon is a jewel that keeps on giving. Full of ideas, sadly not as full of success / sound science.
Damn Starlink is really struggling with 2,200,000 customers. That minimum of $3,168,000,000 a year is just really straining on them 😂😂 You're getting old dude..
is it your understanding that 2million users worldwide is a lot?
@@kurknielsen Can't move the goal posts 😂😂
@@GoldenTV3 what are are your goal posts again ? because elons was 20 million.
@@kurknielsen Uhm i thinkkk like im a kitty kat and i dance dance and i dance dance dance im a kitty kat
@@kurknielsen And dude they will easily achieve it. It may take 4-5 years, but this no is easily with in reach. This is why Space X is worth $150 B right now.
Hummer is doing more on the electric truck front
Your numbers are off in the cost savings on rocket reuse.
Being off is the premise to make his points.
@@diezgp Well, so far, Musk is off more on his original estimates than Thunderf00t is off on his estimate of the actual cost. Musk said that he could save 99% or more of launch cost. Thunderfoot is saying he is only saving 10% or so (I don't remember and I'm not going to rewatch the video but his number is close to that.) Musk is probably actually saving around 50% -- possibly a little more.
@@ThatBoomerDude56 He is off about the number of customers per satellite. ISPs oversell bandwidth because it never happens that everybody is connected downloading hundreds of gigabytes at the same time.
He is off about the price of bandwidth, he checked the prices on AWS (WTF!). In his mind AT&T probably cut a nice deal because they have to buy a lot of bandwidth from Amazon. Hilarious.
And well, he is off about the cost savings on rocket reuse.
It's embarrassing.
@@diezgp Thank you. I was hoping Thunderf00t was off in the Starlink bandwidth and income potential. But I haven't had the time or knowledge to look up anything on it.
Musk has tended to vastly underestimate how hard things are going to be in the rocket business. And he's not getting near his original estimates in cost savings.
But his savings have been significant. As well as important in this stage in the industry's development. And Thunderf00t would enhance his credibility if he were to try to be a better cost accountant and give credit where credit is due.
It's simply not true that re-landing a rocket is either insignificant or that it has been done before. (The Douglas Delta Clipper was not even close to being a fully functional launch vehicle.)
@@ThatBoomerDude56 Because Musk's job is to push tech, and get investors, and manage the projects.
You do all of those things by overselling, and then hitting a goal that's still damned impressive. Nay sayers are left looking like morons "he didn't save that much!!!" while everyone else is sitting there going "He saved me 50%!!!!!"
Glad to see he hasn't failed.
@Thunderf00t: Starlink works, there's a German entrepreneur by the name of Horst Lüning who has a starlink antenna and showed that it works! Maybe not for gaming, but it gives you internet access! So what are you debunking here exactly?
Elon stated it will be gaming standart İnternet for a really cheap price that's accessable by everyone around the globe . But it will be a gimmick for the rich to show off and an alternative to business that prevents mainstream internet access like shipping etc.
Elon is always over promising and under delivering. He debunks the over promising part and exposes the under delivering part.
@@alqualonde2998 I literally game on my starlink connection. it's way better than my shitty vdsl connection. I get about 20ms to local servers which again, way better than what i got before and is perfectly acceptable for gaming. I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination. what is being debunked here?
@@alqualonde2998 Current prices are not really outlandish at all. I can't remember what I was paying for satellite back in the day but it was probably more. I would expect prices to come down too.
@@chaos.corner are you from us ? I say that because us has one of most outlandish internet prices on the world. I have a 100 Mbit connection with stable 24 ms ping and it costs me 9usd. I earn over a thousand USD each month when converted using today's rates. That's what good ground infrastructure can do. And it doesn't come with any additional risks of putting over 40k sats in orbit.
@@alqualonde2998 Yes, that's definitely a good price. Mine costs about 8x that for a similar connection. Some price difference is justified by different circumstances but the vast majority is not. Still, those high prices do make Musk's effort more into viable territory. Not that it's necessarily there.
To boldly go where no grifter has gone before. Elon Musk.
American media works like this...if the person is rich they don't question them instead they worship them because of money
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt
Except, when the critic is right, and the man in the ring is an imposter.
@@paulwatkins7220 The Teslas work fine. And they are years ahead of the competition in engineering, forcing the competition to get their rears in gear and catch up. So even if everything else were vaporware, that alone makes Elon count.
Isn't the failure rate of new projects around 90% almost everywhere?
@@OolTube02 Who is talking about tesla? I was (clearly) answering 5n8k3's comment about criticism of Elon and starlink.
@@paulthew2 And the Roosevelt-quoting commenter was about trying and sometimes striking out, rather than never trying at all. Because sometimes you hit something.
That something is Tesla.
Maybe Starlink is going to work, maybe it isn't. But it is one of many ventures, some of which are stellar successes today.
The thing is, you have to try stuff. Or else we'd still be living in mud huts.
@@OolTube02 He's """"trying"""" with other people's money and time... Likely yours too, you dolt. So far, almost all of this project has been paid for by various government grants (primarily US Gov) not effin "Musk - Hero of our time"
Con man cons optimistic idiots into paying and supporting his whimsical schemes; if successful he makes more bank, if not, oh well, at least some of the idiots who paid for the failed project will defend this travesty and be hyped for the next one.