Starlink

[cqaigy2]

We use DDNS Dynamic Domain Name System, that registers the ip to an A record so one can use a name in the connection configuration, that resolves to the current ip address of the equipment. We used to use static address, but the ISP's have a tendency to reset their gear, which put it into default condition and loses the static IP assignment. Now with the DDNS arrangement, we don't lose connections.

 

[ponytug]

Peter,

I monitor multiple remote locations using IP cameras and using a Synology server and other hardware in each location. Synology is a fantastic product, but I don't like their quickconnect (dynamic dns) implementation. So I'd prefer to have static IP's at each location so I know exactly how to get there without going through someone else's interface. Also, I built some remote monitoring using a PLC that runs as a specific address, using port 9000. I like to be able to directly address that from a remote location.

I'm open to new ideas. Other than subscribing to a dynamic dns service, do you know of a better way that would preclude my desire for static IP's instead of dynamic?

btw one of my locations is behind HughesNet's admin server using sat internet. Dynamic dns won't work with those since it is double layer. For that location I have to connect in using TeamViewer. It constantly updates the host and remote locations using its own bridging method, precluding a need for dynamic dns going through double layer.

I like synology as well, but as you say, not without their challenges. I hear you about the issues with dynamic dns, but for most things I have been able to make it work. So, yes, that would be my first choice as well. That HughesNet admin server...all that occurs to me are getting access remote server and use that as your conduit.

So, no, I don't have any great ideas, beyond the usual. Most dynamic IP addresses don't change very often (my current provider does it less than once a month). I have no idea how long Starlink keeps the IP addresses up.

Starlink probably won't be for every use case. Is there a tower that you can hit with microwave?

Sorry not to have been more helpful.

All the best, Peter

 

[plowhog]

That HughesNet admin server...all that occurs to me are getting access remote server and use that as your conduit. Is there a tower that you can hit with microwave?

My California location is surrounded by mountains, so I can't see any tower, nor can I get anything other than a fleeting cell phone signal. Even with a cell booster.

I did order Starlink for this location, and if it works well I will discontinue the HughesNet currently in service. The key decider, other than speed, will be if I can reasonably do remote access using Starlink. This is difficult to do with HughesNet without jumping through some technical hoops. I don't want to get too detailed about HughesNet since this is a Starlink thread, but here is a synopsis from a pretty good technical article about why you "can't" do remote access through HughesNet (without some workarounds):

"The IPv4 address given to your networked devices via the HughesNet modem is not a public IP address. It is a private IPv4 address in a range reserved for ISPs via RFC6598 for use in Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) systems. So, most customers with home routers are behind two layers of NAT–sometimes called 'double NAT'.

Many HughesNet customers are situated behind large NAT gateways run by HughesNet. The network traffic of all the customers behind each gateway appears, to the rest of the Internet, to originate from one IP address. This practice is common among cellular wireless providers and some other ISPs. Among other reasons, it attempts to stave off IPv4 starvation/exhaustion by assigning many customers to one IP address, as opposed to giving each customer their own IP address. Opening a port on your home router will not help, because the upstream HughesNet NAT gateways break end-to-end connectivity."

HughesNet GEN4 Networking FAQ

 

[plowhog]

Deleted.

 

[dmccarty]

Elon Musk blasts Jeff Bezos''' Amazon competitor to SpaceX'''s Starlink

Stories like this concerns be about the future of StarLink.

Why does that worry you about StarLink? Amazon is the one under threat as Musk tries to knock them out of orbit. Oh, wait, Amazon is not even in orbit. :laughing:

Starlink has around 1,000 satellites in orbit. Amazon has how many? Starlink has a functioning network. Amazon has what? Starlink is signing up customers NOW and Amazon?

It sounds like Starlink will have coverage over the latitudes that cover the US and parts of Canada this year. Which means they would also have coverage over parts of Europe. Much of Europe has decent internet coverage, but some, like rural Ireland, and I would suspect much of rural Scotland, do not have decent connections, if any at all. What I have not paid attention to is what is happening South of the Border, meaning the southern hemisphere. Seems like all Starlink has to do is setup some ground stations and they could be providing service in South America, Africa, Australia, and huge swaths of islands in the Pacific. The big sunk cost is the satellites and the ground stations should be chump change in comparison. Getting government approval is likely the bigger issue. Once the ground stations are in, then having more users on the network is more money, aka profit, for Starlink.

Amazon has a LONG way to go, years, to get where Starlink is today. I hope Amazon, and others, gets a satellite network up and running ASAP so we can have competition, but they better get moving faster than they are now. By the time other satellite ISP are available, Starlink will already have been in the market for years and will have the market share. The competitors will have to provide a better product, for less money, to get people to change over from Starlink and I think that will be tough for them to do.

Later,
Dan

 

[ponytug]

+1 on dmccarty's comments.

Frankly, I think that if you have doubts about Starlink, just don't sign up. Just because someone else is wearing long side burns / wide ties / glasses / skinny jeans / New Balance 407s / ... doesn't mean you have to. Sit it out, let other thrash through whatever teething issues there are, and learn from their collective experience. I don't think that there is "right" answer for everyone. "Different strokes for different folks." This isn't a fine art auction where there is only one up for sale. Wait and see is perfectly valid.

Do I think universal fiber hookup is preferable to satellites? I do. Locally, is fiber ever making it the last six miles to us? Doubtful. None of our local providers are willing to even quote running fiber, and the recent FCC rural broadband grants went only to microwave in our area, rather than fiber, and on top of that, the auction specifically left out our property. So...yes, "Icicle's chance in Hades" comes to mind. Do I think that there is the political will in D.C. these days to do rural fiber for the whole country, like the thirties rural electrification? "Icicle's chance in Hades" comes to mind again. I would love to be wrong on that.

So, locally, for just us, in the foreseeable future we have the choice between DSL, or satellite providers, and with Covid the non-Starlink satellite companies don't have bandwidth for us. So, our choice is 1940s copper telephone lines or Starlink. Well, we could get a microwave tower permitted and built, but that is a $40,000 proposition for $400/mo service, at 50-100Mbit speeds, and no guarantee we could get the permits... not exactly something that obviously pencils out. Nor is it obvious that it adds to the resale value.

Will we consider Kuiper (Amazon), if and when it, arrives? Sure! If the cost is low enough, we might even run both for reliability reasons.

If someone else launches a service? Sure!

If cell service with wireless internet makes it out here? Sure!

To my mind, a bit is a bit and service lives or dies by bandwidth and reliability. Locally, we have terrible power quality, so satellite service has bonus points for us because it will stay up during power outages if we can supply local power, which we can. Our DSL and phone line lasts at most 8-10 hours (up from an hour, after I complained to the public utility commission and pointed out that the phone company wasn't meeting their contracted service level commitment), and when our internet goes, so does our cell service. Again, this is a very local decision, and "different strokes for different folks".

All the best,

Peter

 

[Snobdds]

It seems workable...I just want it for my cabin. I still can't find out if I can use this in multiple locations.

Gaming on STARLINK!! - YouTube

 

[cqaigy2]

My California location is surrounded by mountains, so I can't see any tower, nor can I get anything other than a fleeting cell phone signal. Even with a cell booster.

I did order Starlink for this location, and if it works well I will discontinue the HughesNet currently in service. The key decider, other than speed, will be if I can reasonably do remote access using Starlink. This is difficult to do with HughesNet without jumping through some technical hoops. I don't want to get too detailed about HughesNet since this is a Starlink thread, but here is a synopsis from a pretty good technical article about why you "can't" do remote access through HughesNet (without some workarounds):

"The IPv4 address given to your networked devices via the HughesNet modem is not a public IP address. It is a private IPv4 address in a range reserved for ISPs via RFC6598 for use in Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) systems. So, most customers with home routers are behind two layers of NAT–sometimes called 'double NAT'.

Many HughesNet customers are situated behind large NAT gateways run by HughesNet. The network traffic of all the customers behind each gateway appears, to the rest of the Internet, to originate from one IP address. This practice is common among cellular wireless providers and some other ISPs. Among other reasons, it attempts to stave off IPv4 starvation/exhaustion by assigning many customers to one IP address, as opposed to giving each customer their own IP address. Opening a port on your home router will not help, because the upstream HughesNet NAT gateways break end-to-end connectivity."

HughesNet GEN4 Networking FAQ

Have you downloaded the app to see if you have enough sky to connect up?

 

[shooterdon]

I am at the 45th parallel, so should be good....maybe even get the unit earlier. They certainly want good reviews...lol.

I know it will be “obsolete” in a few years. Big deal. How many cell phones have we owned? If it is supported for 4 years, it adds just over $10/mo to the cost. Some of you do not understand what it is like in remote areas. But I am glad....don’t sign up and the rest of us can enjoy faster service.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

I have no worry about Starlink but it does concern me when the former richest man calls on governments rethink approvals all ready granted Starlink. The bullying of Elon Musk has been going on for over 40 years and I doubt it will end in 2021.