FYI Starlink and weather

[docj]

The more noise is heard to meet RV needs, the more likely that companies will take notice and work to address this market

Given the hundreds of thousands that Starlink is already reaching world-wide, I think it is naïve to believe that pressure from the US RV user community will cause Starlink to change its business practices. Having a deprioritized tier of service available allows the company to sell otherwise unused capacity. That's a good business position IMO.

 

[docj]

I have the RV. At first I signed up for residential, but thought it might not work everywhere, so I cancelled and got the RV. I waited like a month waiting to hear about the residential, but the Arab was shipped to me within 2 weeks. The first month was well over 100 all the time. Sometimes it gets as slow as 3 Mbps More satellites are getting sent up weekly though.

As long as the RV service is sold as deprioritized service then the fact that more satellites are launched is rather irrelevant. More satellites will provide more base capacity but that doesn't mean that the increased base capacity will be allocated to RV customers. More likely is that the expanded base capacity will be allocated to new residential customer and the RV customers will continue to use "excess" capacity on a deprioritized basis. That would make the best business sense.

 

[lemondrop9344]

Just an observation on Starlink RV Package performance being reported.
My son & I are sharing a Starlink Residential Package with roaming enabled. I presently have it installed on my RV at the campground where I'm parked. On the speed tests I've run, I consistently see download speeds in the neighborhood of 200 Mbps & upload speeds in the neighborhood of 40 Mbps. However, from time to time I do see some buffering when streaming media to my TVs. The TV buffering issue was also present in my 'sticks & bricks' residence with a cable provided ISP rated at 300 Mbps.
The point I'm tryhing to make, to some degree (IMHO) the results of a 'speed test' are not always informative to assess the observed performance of an internet signal. There are so many things 'happening' between where the data originates & how you observe it on your device. To determine a particular device or service is the 'culprit' for perceived sub standard performance can be misleading, if not downright wrong.
While I am by no means a network guru, if something was working great & it's now performing in a substandard fashion, the 1st question I would ask myself ............. what has changed? Yes, an ISP signal source could be over saturated, however I don't believe it's in the best interest of the ISP to allow so many clients to attach to the signal that it degradates the signal to point where it's is unusable without some sort of disclaimer in the Terms of Service.
Without details, I believe it can be misleading to blame the sub standard performance on the ISP
Just my thoughts, not intended to be a contrarian.