Now, I don’t know, but I would assume its the latency. Starlink has a (impressively) low ping of < 100ms, while existing alternatives usually have 600ms+. Now, that’s only relevant if they are using it for stuff like flying drones.
Technically, and this is purely semantics, coverage is the major downside to starlink. They are faster, though.
The coverage of satellites has an exponential factor of the distance of that satellite to earth. If you had the satellite further out then its signal could reach a wider area before being cut off by the curvature of the earth. However, as the distance increases, so does latency.
Why is starlink being used, do you know?
Starlink has enough uplink to be able to handle live video streams and a latency low enough to do this with simple tools.
I’m not sure if that still happens, but I’ve seen some pictures of Ukrainian command bunkers literally getting drone feeds using discord screen share.
“Would you like to upgrade to Nitro”
It’s faster, cheaper, and on the tech side more reliable (definitely not politically reliable though).
Now, I don’t know, but I would assume its the latency. Starlink has a (impressively) low ping of < 100ms, while existing alternatives usually have 600ms+. Now, that’s only relevant if they are using it for stuff like flying drones.
I think you’d notice half a second even just browsing the Web.
Yes, but a wep page loading slow isn’t critical. Controlling armed drones in a battle is.
My guess is better coverage and latency with its sheer number of satellites.
They use low earth orbit, which require them to use more satellites, but lowered latency.
Technically, and this is purely semantics, coverage is the major downside to starlink. They are faster, though.
The coverage of satellites has an exponential factor of the distance of that satellite to earth. If you had the satellite further out then its signal could reach a wider area before being cut off by the curvature of the earth. However, as the distance increases, so does latency.