Star Link Mini

[Donkster]

Just purchased the star link mini with a 50gb plan, I must say I’m impressed with the ease of use not much bigger than an A4 piece of paper. Thought mentioning it might help someone else on the fence.

Fast connection and great for working almost anywhere.
There bringing out a new lead which reduces the power consumption greatly soon for off grid

 

[MisterB]

Yes .I think it is around 250€ at the moment

Problem we have is it getting stopped & customs duty applied.Might not be a problem spain to uk but is a nightmare the other way around.

If it's unpacked and no packaging etc, how do they know you didn't bring it with you.... It's not being exported ......

 

[stewartwebr]

Needs to be a Gen 2 though, to be able to fully convert to 12v though the way I want to do it!

Interested to learn how you’re going to do it and what is so different between the two. I have been around the houses with conversations from the ridiculously expensive Star Mount on Gen 2 which was a disaster to now using Gen 3 via a 12 volt POE with cable running to JB on the roof. I open the rear heiki and plug in and for us it’s a far better solution than flat mount.

 

[gus-lopez]

If it's unpacked and no packaging etc, how do they know you didn't bring it with you.... It's not being exported ......

I was assuming we were talking about posting?

 

[MisterB]

Interested to learn how you’re going to do it and what is so different between the two. I have been around the houses with conversations from the ridiculously expensive Star Mount on Gen 2 which was a disaster to now using Gen 3 via a 12 volt POE with cable running to JB on the roof. I open the rear heiki and plug in and for us it’s a far better solution than flat mount.

If you read from 2281 onwards for about one page on the other starlink thread, you will see how I have done mine, no point repeating it all again on this thread. It's a lot easier than you think and now gives me a flat starlink that I can tilt if needed, move from one position to another, have it working when in motion, as it can be positioned under a skylight when driving and still works and it isn't permanently mounted on the roof, though could be if I wanted it to be. It only has one 12v cable as a feed to the dish as the router is mounted internally.
It's taken a few versions and trial and error to get this far and I don't take credit for everything.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[gus-lopez]

Needs to be a Gen 2 though, to be able to fully convert to 12v though the way I want to do it!

just looked on my starlink account & it offers 3 options for hardware
Standard 349€
Standard actuated 249€
mini 399€
The 'standard ' is Gen 3
The 'standard actuated' is gen 2

 

[MisterB]

just looked on my starlink account & it offers 3 options for hardware
Standard 349€
Standard actuated 249€
mini 399€
The 'standard ' is Gen 3
The 'standard actuated' is gen 2

Does the standard actuated allow the €49 per month full data allowance?

 

[DangerMousy]

I wonder how long it'll be before the EU competition authorities start complaining that Starlink has a de-facto monopoly & demand it's broken up

It's not going to be a monopoly for long: Eutelsat's OneWeb is already up and running, Amazon's Kuiper is on its way. Starlink were the first to market, but the others will catch up sooner or later.

 

[Carpmart]

It's not going to be a monopoly for long: Eutelsat's OneWeb is already up and running, Amazon's Kuiper is on its way. Starlink were the first to market, but the others will catch up sooner or later.

Good! Prices driven by competition is always good…

 

[pampam]

Can we use our dojo linked to starlink? Sometimes when we at events the card machine crashes and we up the creek? We linked it to phone and stuck it at end of fifty foot flagpole at retro at newbury

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Jewellbags]

Just purchased the star link mini with a 50gb plan, I must say I’m impressed with the ease of use not much bigger than an A4 piece of paper. Thought mentioning it might help someone else on the fence.

Fast connection and great for working almost anywhere.
There bringing out a new lead which reduces the power consumption greatly soon for off grid

Can it be used on the move ?

 

[DangerMousy]

Can we use our dojo linked to starlink? Sometimes when we at events the card machine crashes and we up the creek? We linked it to phone and stuck it at end of fifty foot flagpole at retro at newbury

Absolutely yes.....pop-up shops at outside events were one of the specific use-cases my former employer were targeting for Starlink. Mobile cell capacity is finite and often can't cope with a large number of temporary users in a concentrated location. Starlink totally circumvent this and provides vendors with reliable and stable connectivity.

 

[Guigsy]

It's not going to be a monopoly for long: Eutelsat's OneWeb is already up and running, Amazon's Kuiper is on its way. Starlink were the first to market, but the others will catch up sooner or later.

I don't think OneWeb is the same market. Much higher latency, much lower bandwidth. I think they'll go for business rather than chase volume like Starlink.

And Kuiper is several years away. Unless they want to pay SpaceX to launch them.

I think a Chinese constellation will be their first serious competitor.

 

[gus-lopez]

Does the standard actuated allow the €49 per month full data allowance?

Yes I believe so as you have to start with that to reduce,like I did, to the "deprioritised" You cannot start on it. It also appears you can choose "roam" from 40€/month?

Can we use our dojo linked to starlink? Sometimes when we at events the card machine crashes and we up the creek? We linked it to phone and stuck it at end of fifty foot flagpole at retro at newbury

yes

 

[Barti Ddu]

Can we use our dojo linked to starlink? Sometimes when we at events the card machine crashes and we up the creek? We linked it to phone and stuck it at end of fifty foot flagpole at retro at newbury

I should think so. For the last two Glastonbury festivals every other food vendor (including Mister Whippy ice cream vans) has had a Starlink aerial pointing up into the sky to ensure their card-acceptor payment terminals keep on going "kerching"!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[fred_jb]

? My plan is 50gb for £50 per month. Then if I set it to use more it’s £1 per gb
The game changer is you can pause it and not pay when not using it

The data plans and hardware kits vary between UK and EU, but I am not sure that the £50 per month 50GB limited contract available in the UK can be paused in the same way as the £85 contract can.

 

[fred_jb]

not sure we’re the star link website shows the lead but here’s one I found online for info

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/40518400...pid=5339023013&customid=&toolid=10001&mkevt=1

There are a few videos online about people using a USB lead to power the Mini but you need a high power 12V to USB C adapter to plug the lead into, one capable of outputing a higher voltage than the standard 5V. I believe some fast chargers conforming to the PD standard can supply up to 100W at voltages up to 20V.

However, this does not save any power in itself. Any savings assume you would otherwise power it from its standard mains adapter, with that working off a 12V to 240V invertor as there would be some power losses in the inverter, though USB adapters are not 100% efficient either so I don't think there are great savings to be had.

My Mini is powered by a 12V to 48V converter and after it has settled drops from an initial 40W consumption to 30W. You can see the power usage in the statistics section of the Starlink app.

 

[fred_jb]

Can it be used on the move ?

I believe that the limited to 50 GB contract does not allow in motion use with the Mini dish, at least for UK users. It is not totally clear from the info I have found, but I think it may be allowed with the £85 contract. If you are resident in the EU the terms and conditions may be different.

 

[Gromett]

I don't think OneWeb is the same market. Much higher latency, much lower bandwidth. I think they'll go for business rather than chase volume like Starlink.

That is correct. I can't see how they can compete in any way to be honest.

And Kuiper is several years away. Unless they want to pay SpaceX to launch them.

Amazon already have signed contracts with SpaceX to launch them, Blue Origin didn't get their act into gear in time.

A bitter pill: Amazon calls on rival SpaceX to launch Internet satellites

Jeff Bezos’ rivalry with Elon Musk takes a back seat to Amazon’s launch dilemma.

arstechnica.com

I suspect even this won't be enough for them to meet the minimum number in orbit for their license. I suspect they will be begging the government for an extension before too much longer.

I think a Chinese constellation will be their first serious competitor.

The Chinese don't appear to be wanting to serve rest of the world. They are basically getting China coverage so they can enforce the Great Firewall. I suspect China won't bother with the rest of the world?

No other provider does their own launches, and SpaceX lands and resuses boosters. I honestly don't see how any other company can succeed without cross subsidising. Amazon's Kuiper may be the only other viable option.


I really want Kuiper to get going and provide some price competition. Would be nice to see my £75 a month fall a bit.

 

[Gromett]

Guigsy check this out.

Kuiper Systems - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted Amazon approval to deploy its planned constellation of 3,236 satellites in low Earth orbit.[5] Deployment is planned in five phases, and internet service will begin once the first 578 satellites are launched. Under its granted FCC license, Amazon is required to launch and operate 50% of its satellites no later than July 30, 2026, and must launch and operate the remaining satellites no later than July 30, 2029.[6]

I can't see them getting 1,618 into orbit by July 2026? Can you?

BO doesn't have reusable rockets to they have to build each one in full each time including those pesky engines they seem to struggle making.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[ianto999]

There are a few videos online about people using a USB lead to power the Mini but you need a high power 12V to USB C adapter to plug the lead into, one capable of outputing a higher voltage than the standard 5V. I believe some fast chargers conforming to the PD standard can supply up to 100W at voltages up to 20V.

However, this does not save any power in itself. Any savings assume you would otherwise power it from its standard mains adapter, with that working off a 12V to 240V invertor as there would be some power losses in the inverter, though USB adapters are not 100% efficient either so I don't think there are great savings to be had.

My Mini is powered by a 12V to 48V converter and after it has settled drops from an initial 40W consumption to 30W. You can see the power usage in the statistics section of the Starlink app.

Hello - which converter do you use? Trying to work out how to wire one into my van…

 

[DangerMousy]

I don't think OneWeb is the same market. Much higher latency, much lower bandwidth. I think they'll go for business rather than chase volume like Starlink.

Yes OneWeb is focused on the b2b market right now, but don't forget Starlink started off as direct sales only, but are now partnering with MSPs to resell (I know the negotiations between my former employer's satellite team and Starlink were incredibly painful at the beginning as Starlink didn't really understand the needs of the b2b market). So it wouldn't surprise me if OneWeb expand their options sometime in the future.

I really want Kuiper to get going and provide some price competition. Would be nice to see my £75 a month fall a bit.

What I think is really interesting is the potential of space-based communication without specialist equipment. Have a read of this: https://www.vodafone.com/news/techn...t-space-based-5g-call-conventional-smartphone There's a long way to go, but it could be a game-changer.

 

[fred_jb]

Hello - which converter do you use? Trying to work out how to wire one into my van…

.
I am using this converter:

VOANZO 12 to 48V Step Up Voltage Converter 5A Voltage Regulator for Vehicles Security Systems Medical Equipment Instrumentation https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0BHYRMPXL?tag=mhf04-21

How you wire it up depends on which model of Starlink we are talking about and depends on what you are trying to achieve.

If it is the Mini and you just want to avoid the need for mains power then you could in theory power it directly from one of these converters, bearing in mind that as far as I know these devices don't contain any surge arrestors or other protection for the dish. You would need to connect the output to a suitable DC socket that would accept the Mini power cable. I believe this has a barrel connector with 5.5mm outside diameter and 2.1mm inside diameter.

With a 48V supply you could easily power the dish via its standard length cable as the mains adapter only outputs 30V and that works fine. With a 48V supply you could possibly use a longer DC cable if you need it. However, bear in mind that if you place the Mini at the end of a very long cable, for example to get a clear view of the sky that will also place the built in wifi router further away, so weakening the signal. That is why I use a separate WiFi router and power the dish over the network cable that this configuration requires.

The other possibility, and likely to be more warranty friendly would be to get the USB connector cable that it is rumoured Starlink will be releasing soon. I am not sure if this will include a suitable 12V to USB C adapter. If not you would need to buy a third party one that conforms to whatever spec Starlink quote, likely to be a high power type meeting the PD fast charger spec. I believe these output a maximum of 20V so you may be limited in what cable length will work. I have seen some YouTube videos where people have had problems trying to use USB power over a long cable.

I hope that helps.

 

[Coolcats]

I wonder how long it'll be before the EU competition authorities start complaining that Starlink has a de-facto monopoly & demand it's broken up

Absolutely the destruction of national telco’s and the domination of America and filling the bank account of a rather unpleasant individual So yes let’s have a look at it through the eyes of the competition authorities.

 

[Guigsy]

Yes OneWeb is focused on the b2b market right now, but don't forget Starlink started off as direct sales only, but are now partnering with MSPs to resell (I know the negotiations between my former employer's satellite team and Starlink were incredibly painful at the beginning as Starlink didn't really understand the needs of the b2b market). So it wouldn't surprise me if OneWeb expand their options sometime in the future.


What I think is really interesting is the potential of space-based communication without specialist equipment. Have a read of this: https://www.vodafone.com/news/techn...t-space-based-5g-call-conventional-smartphone There's a long way to go, but it could be a game-changer.

OneWeb will always be more laggy and lower bandwidth than StarLink. There's no getting around the laws of physics. Their satellites are quite a bit higher.

Equally, mobile phone comms isn't easy. The GSM and LTE protocol wasn't built for the tower moving past at thousands of miles per hour, or to work over such long distances. The current methods they are using are massive hacks at the satellite end to account for dopler shift and to override the lag. The data rates are tiny to cover these issues. Hence don't expect anything more than dialup modem speeds from current phone modems. There's a reason a Starlink dishy eats a couple of dozen watts, many times what a phone could manage.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[fred_jb]

Equally, mobile phone comms isn't easy. The GSM and LTE protocol wasn't built for the tower moving past at thousands of miles per hour, or to work over such long distances.

Yes, good points - though thousands of miles an hour at that altitude (about 350 miles) changes the angular displacement relatively slowly as a complete orbit still takes about 90 mins, so, unlike a ground station the satellites can be seen for extended periods from a big chunk of the ground below, regardless of receiver position and ignoring things like tree cover. This is not the same as losing line of sight to a ground based tower racing past at ground level or conversely you gunning your van between tower locations at thousands of miles per hour!

 

[Guigsy]

Yes, good points - though thousands of miles an hour at that altitude (about 350 miles) changes the angular displacement relatively slowly as a complete orbit still takes about 90 mins, so, unlike a ground station the satellites can be seen for extended periods from a big chunk of the ground below, regardless of receiver position and ignoring things like tree cover. This is not the same as losing line of sight to a ground based tower racing past at ground level or conversely you gunning your van between tower locations at thousands of miles per hour!

The protocol is designed around client devices only going 150 km/h. Which is partly why phone service on high speed trains is so bad. It gets more difficult when it's the mast end that's going 27,000 km/h.

 

[fred_jb]

The protocol is designed around client devices only going 150 km/h. Which is partly why phone service on high speed trains is so bad. It gets more difficult when it's the mast end that's going 27,000 km/h.

Still not the same thing as passing a tower, or a tower passing you at that speed horizontally, at ground level, where you would almost instantly lose your line of sight connection. In contrast the satellite remains easily visible (in radio terms) with just the effective distance from the receiver increasing as it moves away from near overhead and towards the horizon, though this will be minimised by the Starlink algorithm continually switching you to satellites which are more nearly overhead, so effectively giving a signal source distance only varying a little over time. I believe the FCC have already given Musk permission to extend his initial trials of this service, so I doubt there are any insuperable obstacles to getting this working, hence the fearful opposition from the mobile network operators.

 

[fred_jb]

The protocol is designed around client devices only going 150 km/h. Which is partly why phone service on high speed trains is so bad. It gets more difficult when it's the mast end that's going 27,000 km/h.

Thinking about this further I doubt either phone mast or mobile phones bother directly measuring what speed they are moving away from each other in order to impose some limit on this. So maybe the 150km/h figure is really a proxy for what really matters, which might be the rate of change of signal strength and the consequent frequency of needing to switch to new cells. If so then the movement of overhead satellites and the slight lengthening of signal path before switching to a new satellite would probably be quite well tolerated even by existing phone chipsets, given adequate transmission power. While that may be available at the satellite end, I am amazed that standard mobile phones can transmit strongly enough to communicate with cell towers 350 miles above! I would be using a wireless headset and not holding a phone against my head if it is running at maximum transmission power. No doubt enhanced chipsets will be produced that are better optimised for this sort of scenario in future.

 

[Guigsy]

Thinking about this further I doubt either phone mast or mobile phones bother directly measuring what speed they are moving away from each other in order to impose some limit on this. So maybe the 150km/h figure is really a proxy for what really matters, which might be the rate of change of signal strength and the consequent frequency of needing to switch to new cells. If so then the movement of overhead satellites and the slight lengthening of signal path before switching to a new satellite would probably be quite well tolerated even by existing phone chipsets, given adequate transmission power. While that may be available at the satellite end, I am amazed that standard mobile phones can transmit strongly enough to communicate with cell towers 350 miles above! I would be using a wireless headset and not holding a phone against my head if it is running at maximum transmission power. No doubt enhanced chipsets will be produced that are better optimised for this sort of scenario in future.

Yeah, I think the issue on terra firma is actually down to how quickly a network can hand your phone off from one mast to another. As you suggested, a Starlink satellite is in view for a few minutes, so provided you aren't passed between them too often, it's probably not too bad. Apparently they are moving fast enough to have to worry about Doppler effects though. As they pass over, they've got to account of the frequency shift for both incoming and outgoing signals.

Your phone has a few slivers of antenna in it. A Starlink Dishy is all antenna using cutting edge technology to maximise the signal. And a Dishy is considerably more power hungry than a phone too. It's going to be a while before you can expect a candybar sized handheld device to provide good bandwidth to a satellite comms network.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

What I think is really interesting is the potential of space-based communication without specialist equipment. Have a read of this: https://www.vodafone.com/news/techn...t-space-based-5g-call-conventional-smartphone There's a long way to go, but it could be a game-changer.

Starlink are working on this and have already got a satellite in orbit with a basic capability.

https://www.starlink.com/gb/business/direct-to-cell