Internet/data access on boats -- some tips

[IanD]

Triggered by discussions on another thread which I'd like to keep this separate to, I thought I'd post some information that people might find helpful...

 

Data/voice/music/video/TV

---------------------------

*Everything* nowadays on the mobile networks is actually data, there's no "voice" as such, it's just another set of packets of data.

If you're trying to receive data where the signal strength is low, two things happen. The first is that the network reduces the data rate because lower rate data needs less signal power, this happens on all types of data.

 

The second is that -- if possible -- the application processing the data uses more buffering and increases the latency (delay) to allow short signal dropouts to be "filled in"; longer delay allows the link to carry on working in poorer conditions. On top of this the application (e.g. Zoom) can also reduce the data rate, for example by reducing video resolution or frame rate, or pausing video in favour of voice -- all this is done in the background.

 

For some applications (like streaming radio or audio) this latency can be quite long (one or several seconds), which is especially useful if the receiver is moving (see later). Other uses like video calls (e.g. Zoom) can allow a delay of a few hundred milliseconds, so are not as robust. Voice calls (phone) can allow very little delay, these have the shortest buffer so are most susceptible to dropouts.

 

So if you have poor signals, the applications most likely to drop out are ones with higher data rates and lower latency. A rough order of priority from flakiest to most robust would be something like:

 

1. HDTV streaming (e.g. iPlayer) -- typically >6Mbps download

2= SDTV streaming (e.g. iPlayer, YouTube) -- typically 2Mbps download

2= "Professional" video calls with higher definition, multi-user video and presentation sharing (e.g. Zoom/Webex for companies) -- typically 1.5Mbps (up to 3Mbps for HD video), low-latency, bidirectional

3. "Consumer" video calls (e.g. Zoom with 1 person at each end) -- typically 0.6Mbps, low-latency, bidirectional

4= Streaming audio/radio -- typically 128kbps download, high-latency

4= Voice (phone) calls -- typically 32kbps bidirectional, very low latency

 

General Internet access could fall anywhere in this range, depending on what you're doing -- some applications are happy with any data rate at all, most need a medium rate, some need the highest rates to be usable. So how reliable your data coverage is when moving round the canals depends on what you want to do with it -- if you need higher data rates (e.g. professional video calls, HD streaming) you'll have problems more often, and vice versa. The other problem can be that applications which need equal up/down rates have more of a problem because your phone transmits at lower power than the basestations, so the uplink rate can be lower.

 

Note that different networks (e.g. EE, 3, BT) have different coverage, you can be in a weak (or no-) signal spot with one and have decent signal with another, depending on where the basestations are.

 

Router/aerials/MIMO/movement/3G/4G/5G

---------------------------------------------

Anything that increases signal strength will help, for example aerials (bigger or multiple are better) outside the boat. Doesn't mean that ones inside (or a phone, or in a window) won't work, but they'll fail more often. Again, from worst to best:

 

1. Mobile phone inside boat (steel box with holes in)

2. Standard router inside boat (bigger aerials than phone)

3. Mobile phone in window

4. Standard router in window

5. Mobile phone outside

6. Standard router outside (or with external aerial)

7. 2x2 MIMO router outside (or with dual external aerial)

8. 4x4 MIMO router outside (or with quad external aerial)

 

A lot of this is obvious, but maybe MIMO needs some more explaining. MIMO stands for "Multiple Input Multiple Output", which means using several antennas on both transmit and receive. As well as large dead spots due to coverage gaps (e.g. a remote stretch of canal) the radio signal can have dead spots (or lower signal level) due to reflections, and these are often between a few inches and a foot apart at the frequencies used by cellular networks. If you have two aerials spaced apart it's much less likely that they'll both be in a dead spot at the same time, so older routers (e.g. 3G) pick the stronger signal and use that, which reduces the chance of losing signal. Newer routers (e.g. 4G) can combine both signals instead of just choosing one, which improves reception further -- this is a benefit of a more modern router even if you don't think you often get 4G signals. But in either case, two aerials can give a lot more reliable reception, especially in a moving boat where you can be continually moving through dead spots.

 

5G is a much-hyped new technology, mainly for the huge data rates which are possible in the higher bands such as 6GHz and 26GHz (mmwave) -- but these are irrelevant for most boaters today, there's not much 5G 6GHz coverage outside a few cities and there will never be 26GHz coverage outside them because the reach is tiny. However in the "normal" network out in the sticks there can still be an advantage on both network and router sides, especially with 4x4 MIMO (4 aerials) which can not only help even more with dropouts but can use a technique called beamforming to steer reception towards the basestation you're connected to but also reject interference from other mobile phones and basestations -- again, this means either higher data rates, fewer dropouts, or both. There's also much bigger network capacity with 5G but this will mainly be an advantage to high-data-rate users in towns and cities, for example where lots of people are using HD video streaming.

 

The negative side of this is that 4x4 MIMO 5G routers and aerials are new, thin on the ground and expensive (about £500), so you've got to really want to get the best possible internet access to justify this -- for example people who need "professional" video calls for work, or are WFH using remote hosted software (e.g. CAD design). For example, I have several conference video calls every day with other teams and working-from-home people around the world, good quality (HD) is essential for the material we're sharing, and company policy is that video cameras should be on so everyone can see everyone else. Many other people nowadays are WFH where the software runs in the cloud and they need high enough data rates to drive a local display with low enough lag to be usable. The data rates and reliability these need are very different to a normal person-to-person Zoom call.

 

For most people a 2x2 MIMO 4G router with external aerials is absolutely fine and is half the price or less -- but make sure there are 2 external aerials, and make sure these are omnidirectional (same reception from all direction). A lot of the aerials sold for wireless internet access are directional, meaning strong pickup in one direction and weak in all the others. This is right for a house where you aim the aerial at the nearest basestation while monitoring signal strength or data rate, but on a boat you'd have to do this every time you stop (and some are designed for wall mounting so difficult to point in any direction), and would definitely not be good when you're moving.

 

A 3G router or one with a single aerial is probably a false economy nowadays, dual aerial 4G ones are not much more expensive and will give better and more reliable reception.

 

Starlink

--------

If you really need the kind of high-speed internet access you can get in a house regardless of where you are and have very deep pockets (and good electrics), it might be worth looking at Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite internet service. which currently achieves about 100Mbps/20Mbps download/upload speeds in the UK. Downsides include getting hold of it, using it on a mobile terminal like a boat instead of a static one like a house, dish size, power consumption (about 100W!), and cost (about £500 install + £90/month). People who are using it in houses with otherwise terrible internet access seem generally very happy with it, I don't know if anyone has tried it on a boat yet, and it's not clear that the current licensing conditions allow it -- but I know a terminal intended for mobile is in the works so this will definitely happen.

 

Conclusions

------------

How reliable you find wireless internet access on a boat will depend on which network you're on, what equipment you have, and what your data rate requirements are. There aren't many completely dead (no signal) spots but there are still a few, in most places you'll get a signal but the quality may vary.

 

The better your setup is (and the lower your required data rate is) the better the chance of you getting good enough data rates in more places; with a decent setup (e.g. external 4G 2x2 MIMO) most people with typical data needs will get good enough reception almost all of the time.

 

People who really need high data rates and the best possible coverage (e.g. for HD conferencing or HDTV streaming) should go for the best possible setup (external 5G 4x4 MIMO) but may still have occasional problems, and could consider using Starlink if they can afford the cost/power and solve the availability/licensing problems.

 

YMMV 😉

[TheBiscuits]

Oneweb is supposed to go live this month for selected partners, with extended rollout next year.

 

That's the one the UK government own a chunk of.  Not sure how far along they are with PNT navigation systems though.

[IanD]

47 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

Oneweb is supposed to go live this month for selected partners, with extended rollout next year.

 

That's the one the UK government own a chunk of.  Not sure how far along they are with PNT navigation systems though.

Oneweb plan to have a lot fewer satellites at much higher altitude (322 launched out of 648 planned, 1200km) than Starlink (1890 launched out of 42000 planned, 550km), but are targeting small numbers of businesses not large numbers of consumers (us).

 

https://www.inverse.com/innovation/starlink-alternatives

[TheBiscuits]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

Oneweb plan to have a lot fewer satellites at much higher altitude (322 launched out of 648 planned, 1200km) than Starlink (1890 launched out of 42000 planned, 550km), but are targeting small numbers of businesses not large numbers of consumers (us).

 

https://www.inverse.com/innovation/starlink-alternatives

 

Yes, they don't want the aggro of dealing with consumers.  I expect one or more ISPs will resell their service in the UK from next year and provide consumer / SME support for it.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Yes, they don't want the aggro of dealing with consumers.  I expect one or more ISPs will resell their service in the UK from next year and provide consumer / SME support for it.

Not sure how that can work for boats (except cruise ships?), might possible work for consumers on land if they're close enough to use WiFi to link to the "community user terminal". The terminals will be expensive (>£1000), IIRC bigger and more power-hungry than Starlink, the network can only support a relatively small number of them, and the cost per month will be high -- they're targeting small businesses like cafes which can afford to pay a lot more per month than individual consumers because WiFi access brings more people in for longer who spend more.

Edited December 9, 2021 by IanD

[nicknorman]

The only thing I’d add is that data rates are not an absolute thing, it depends on what data. Certainly Three and I suspect other providers, run QoS algorithms (Quality of Service) which tends to favour certain types of data eg video streaming (tv etc). So you can have a pretty crappy web browsing experience with sluggish responses to clicks, and yet still be able to stream tv.

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The only thing I’d add is that data rates are not an absolute thing, it depends on what data. Certainly Three and I suspect other providers, run QoS algorithms (Quality of Service) which tends to favour certain types of data eg video streaming (tv etc). So you can have a pretty crappy web browsing experience with sluggish responses to clicks, and yet still be able to stream tv.

Indeed you can, I didn't mention QoS because only some providers use it, and it still doesn't change the data requirements of different end uses -- all it means is that if you try and web browse *and* stream video/TV at the same time, the video will get priority. Whether you can then get the video/TV to work still depends on the quality of the link.

 

As in many other things, making generalisations doesn't help, you need to look at the individual use case. "Streaming TV/video" requirements are very different for SD/HD. "Video call" requirements are very different for consumer and professional uses (as I described them). "Streaming audio" requirements are very different for Internet radio (where rates vary anyway) and high-quality music streaming. "Internet access" is very different for web browsing and running a remote terminal to software in the cloud.

 

YMMV... 😉

Edited December 9, 2021 by IanD

[vanboosh]

I don't know if I'm adding anything to this, but where we're located (Thames, near Kingston) we had a 4G router with a big mast/antenna outside the boat and got fairly terrible speeds from all networks apart from EE at 40mbps, but it was very expensive for unlimited data. We've now changed to a contract with Three, which includes unlimited data and a router that just sits by a window for half the price of the sim only deal from EE and getting 120-400mbps (online gaming at last!). Of course 5G locations are pretty limited at the moment (although our mooring postcode was actually listed as having no 5G service) but something to think about for some people, maybe?

 

Also, I know of someone that tried Starlink and said "it was cool, but the two smallish trees in the garden meant it would cut out completely and take a couple minutes to come back on when the sats went behind them" so I think you'd need to be somewhere pretty open or have a very tall mast... or wait until the rest of the sats have been launched. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by vanboosh

[Thomas C King]

20 hours ago, IanD said:

Starlink

--------

If you really need the kind of high-speed internet access you can get in a house regardless of where you are and have very deep pockets (and good electrics), it might be worth looking at Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite internet service. which currently achieves about 100Mbps/20Mbps download/upload speeds in the UK. Downsides include getting hold of it, using it on a mobile terminal like a boat instead of a static one like a house, dish size, power consumption (about 100W!), and cost (about £500 install + £90/month). People who are using it in houses with otherwise terrible internet access seem generally very happy with it, I don't know if anyone has tried it on a boat yet, and it's not clear that the current licensing conditions allow it -- but I know a terminal intended for mobile is in the works so this will definitely happen.

 

We "installed" Starlink last weekend. Some minor caveats:

1) It doesn't work where we are at the moment. Coverage is not 100% at the moment and you have to "register" your location on their site to get some guarantee of signal.

2) Trees get in the way, depending on where the satellite is. Given that canals are narrow and lined by trees, you'll need a high aerial mast in some locations.

 

I think you mentioned the other serious problem, the power consumption. I imagine it'll be particularly high when the dish detects it is covered in snow, because it heats up to melt it.

 

On the other hand, it's a doddle to install and setup. The dish looks quite nice too.

 

The main idea for us is to extend our coverage. We have video-calls during the week so there are plenty of places we simply cannot moor. So we're using Starlink, EE, and Three.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Thomas C King

[IanD]

1 hour ago, vanboosh said:

I don't know if I'm adding anything to this, but where we're located (Thames, near Kingston) we had a 4G router with a big mast/antenna outside the boat and got fairly terrible speeds from all networks apart from EE at 40mbps, but it was very expensive for unlimited data. We've now changed to a contract with Three, which includes unlimited data and a router that just sits by a window for half the price of the sim only deal from EE and getting 120-400mbps (online gaming at last!). Of course 5G locations are pretty limited at the moment (although our mooring postcode was actually listed as having no 5G service) but something to think about for some people, maybe?

 

Also, I know of someone that tried Starlink and said "it was cool, but the two smallish trees in the garden meant it would cut out completely and take a couple minutes to come back on when the sats went behind them" so I think you'd need to be somewhere pretty open or have a very tall mast... or wait until the rest of the sats have been launched. 

Starlink coverage isn't 100% right now in the sense that you can guarantee reception in every single spot, you do have to have a view of some satellites and this can be  locked by trees.

 

Coverage is improving as more satellites are launched, right now I wouldn't rely on it as my only connection -- but when it does work (often where mobile coverage is poor out in the sticks) the speeds are good.

 

Like all the other solutions, it has pros and cons... 😉

1 hour ago, Thomas C King said:

 

We "installed" Starlink last weekend. Some minor caveats:

1) It doesn't work where we are at the moment. Coverage is not 100% at the moment and you have to "register" your location on their site to get some guarantee of signal.

2) Trees get in the way, depending on where the satellite is. Given that canals are narrow and lined by trees, you'll need a high aerial mast in some locations.

 

I think you mentioned the other serious problem, the power consumption. I imagine it'll be particularly high when the dish detects it is covered in snow, because it heats up to melt it.

 

On the other hand, it's a doddle to install and setup. The dish looks quite nice too.

 

The main idea for us is to extend our coverage. We have video-calls during the week so there are plenty of places we simply cannot moor. So we're using Starlink, EE, and Three.

Using Starlink as well as mobile is better than either alone, if you can afford it. Do you have a business-quality router that can combine both links (and/or both network SIMs) to get higher data rate/reliability or do you have to switch between them?

[Thomas C King]

12 minutes ago, IanD said:

Using Starlink as well as mobile is better than either alone, if you can afford it. Do you have a business-quality router that can combine both links (and/or both network SIMs) to get higher data rate/reliability or do you have to switch between them?

 

We switch between, but that's not a bad idea, maybe I'll look into it.

[IanD]

32 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

 

We switch between, but that's not a bad idea, maybe I'll look into it.

We used one at work which concatenated the data from two SIMs before we got fiber installed, but I can't remember what model it was. I think you can get ones which can combine not just SIMs (e.g. two different networks) but also a wired link, which is what the Starlink dish would look like to it.

 

They're not cheap, but probably still half the cost of Starlink... 😉

 

"Channel bonding" is the feature you're looking for:

https://www.sas.co.uk/blog/4g-wan-bonding-vs-load-balancing

https://www.ems-imo.com/

https://www.e-lins.com/EN/H700-4G-Router.html

https://www.4gon.co.uk/peplink-pepwave-max-700-load-balancing-3g4g-bonding-router-p-6246.html

Edited December 10, 2021 by IanD

[Thomas C King]

So our Starlink is working in an area with poor mobile connectivity (near Wootton Rivers).

 

Google speed test:
80Mbps Down

12.6Mbps Up

Latency 29ms

 

Power usage at the moment:

48Wh. I think this is because there isn't any liquid or frozen water on the dish, so it's not heating up. Previously when I tested it was around 200Wh (although here it hadn't found a satellite, so maybe that was the issue).

 

I'm pretty pleased.

[Idle Days]

On 09/12/2021 at 16:23, IanD said:

Triggered by discussions on another thread which I'd like to keep this separate to, I thought I'd post some information that people might find helpful...

 

Data/voice/music/video/TV

---------------------------

*Everything* nowadays on the mobile networks is actually data, there's no "voice" as such, it's just another set of packets of data.

If you're trying to receive data where the signal strength is low, two things happen. The first is that the network reduces the data rate because lower rate data needs less signal power, this happens on all types of data.

 

The second is that -- if possible -- the application processing the data uses more buffering and increases the latency (delay) to allow short signal dropouts to be "filled in"; longer delay allows the link to carry on working in poorer conditions. On top of this the application (e.g. Zoom) can also reduce the data rate, for example by reducing video resolution or frame rate, or pausing video in favour of voice -- all this is done in the background.

 

For some applications (like streaming radio or audio) this latency can be quite long (one or several seconds), which is especially useful if the receiver is moving (see later). Other uses like video calls (e.g. Zoom) can allow a delay of a few hundred milliseconds, so are not as robust. Voice calls (phone) can allow very little delay, these have the shortest buffer so are most susceptible to dropouts.

 

So if you have poor signals, the applications most likely to drop out are ones with higher data rates and lower latency. A rough order of priority from flakiest to most robust would be something like:

 

1. HDTV streaming (e.g. iPlayer) -- typically >6Mbps download

2= SDTV streaming (e.g. iPlayer, YouTube) -- typically 2Mbps download

2= "Professional" video calls with higher definition, multi-user video and presentation sharing (e.g. Zoom/Webex for companies) -- typically 1.5Mbps (up to 3Mbps for HD video), low-latency, bidirectional

3. "Consumer" video calls (e.g. Zoom with 1 person at each end) -- typically 0.6Mbps, low-latency, bidirectional

4= Streaming audio/radio -- typically 128kbps download, high-latency

4= Voice (phone) calls -- typically 32kbps bidirectional, very low latency

 

General Internet access could fall anywhere in this range, depending on what you're doing -- some applications are happy with any data rate at all, most need a medium rate, some need the highest rates to be usable. So how reliable your data coverage is when moving round the canals depends on what you want to do with it -- if you need higher data rates (e.g. professional video calls, HD streaming) you'll have problems more often, and vice versa. The other problem can be that applications which need equal up/down rates have more of a problem because your phone transmits at lower power than the basestations, so the uplink rate can be lower.

 

Note that different networks (e.g. EE, 3, BT) have different coverage, you can be in a weak (or no-) signal spot with one and have decent signal with another, depending on where the basestations are.

 

Router/aerials/MIMO/movement/3G/4G/5G

---------------------------------------------

Anything that increases signal strength will help, for example aerials (bigger or multiple are better) outside the boat. Doesn't mean that ones inside (or a phone, or in a window) won't work, but they'll fail more often. Again, from worst to best:

 

1. Mobile phone inside boat (steel box with holes in)

2. Standard router inside boat (bigger aerials than phone)

3. Mobile phone in window

4. Standard router in window

5. Mobile phone outside

6. Standard router outside (or with external aerial)

7. 2x2 MIMO router outside (or with dual external aerial)

8. 4x4 MIMO router outside (or with quad external aerial)

 

A lot of this is obvious, but maybe MIMO needs some more explaining. MIMO stands for "Multiple Input Multiple Output", which means using several antennas on both transmit and receive. As well as large dead spots due to coverage gaps (e.g. a remote stretch of canal) the radio signal can have dead spots (or lower signal level) due to reflections, and these are often between a few inches and a foot apart at the frequencies used by cellular networks. If you have two aerials spaced apart it's much less likely that they'll both be in a dead spot at the same time, so older routers (e.g. 3G) pick the stronger signal and use that, which reduces the chance of losing signal. Newer routers (e.g. 4G) can combine both signals instead of just choosing one, which improves reception further -- this is a benefit of a more modern router even if you don't think you often get 4G signals. But in either case, two aerials can give a lot more reliable reception, especially in a moving boat where you can be continually moving through dead spots.

 

5G is a much-hyped new technology, mainly for the huge data rates which are possible in the higher bands such as 6GHz and 26GHz (mmwave) -- but these are irrelevant for most boaters today, there's not much 5G 6GHz coverage outside a few cities and there will never be 26GHz coverage outside them because the reach is tiny. However in the "normal" network out in the sticks there can still be an advantage on both network and router sides, especially with 4x4 MIMO (4 aerials) which can not only help even more with dropouts but can use a technique called beamforming to steer reception towards the basestation you're connected to but also reject interference from other mobile phones and basestations -- again, this means either higher data rates, fewer dropouts, or both. There's also much bigger network capacity with 5G but this will mainly be an advantage to high-data-rate users in towns and cities, for example where lots of people are using HD video streaming.

 

The negative side of this is that 4x4 MIMO 5G routers and aerials are new, thin on the ground and expensive (about £500), so you've got to really want to get the best possible internet access to justify this -- for example people who need "professional" video calls for work, or are WFH using remote hosted software (e.g. CAD design). For example, I have several conference video calls every day with other teams and working-from-home people around the world, good quality (HD) is essential for the material we're sharing, and company policy is that video cameras should be on so everyone can see everyone else. Many other people nowadays are WFH where the software runs in the cloud and they need high enough data rates to drive a local display with low enough lag to be usable. The data rates and reliability these need are very different to a normal person-to-person Zoom call.

 

For most people a 2x2 MIMO 4G router with external aerials is absolutely fine and is half the price or less -- but make sure there are 2 external aerials, and make sure these are omnidirectional (same reception from all direction). A lot of the aerials sold for wireless internet access are directional, meaning strong pickup in one direction and weak in all the others. This is right for a house where you aim the aerial at the nearest basestation while monitoring signal strength or data rate, but on a boat you'd have to do this every time you stop (and some are designed for wall mounting so difficult to point in any direction), and would definitely not be good when you're moving.

 

A 3G router or one with a single aerial is probably a false economy nowadays, dual aerial 4G ones are not much more expensive and will give better and more reliable reception.

 

Starlink

--------

If you really need the kind of high-speed internet access you can get in a house regardless of where you are and have very deep pockets (and good electrics), it might be worth looking at Starlink, Elon Musk's satellite internet service. which currently achieves about 100Mbps/20Mbps download/upload speeds in the UK. Downsides include getting hold of it, using it on a mobile terminal like a boat instead of a static one like a house, dish size, power consumption (about 100W!), and cost (about £500 install + £90/month). People who are using it in houses with otherwise terrible internet access seem generally very happy with it, I don't know if anyone has tried it on a boat yet, and it's not clear that the current licensing conditions allow it -- but I know a terminal intended for mobile is in the works so this will definitely happen.

 

Conclusions

------------

How reliable you find wireless internet access on a boat will depend on which network you're on, what equipment you have, and what your data rate requirements are. There aren't many completely dead (no signal) spots but there are still a few, in most places you'll get a signal but the quality may vary.

 

The better your setup is (and the lower your required data rate is) the better the chance of you getting good enough data rates in more places; with a decent setup (e.g. external 4G 2x2 MIMO) most people with typical data needs will get good enough reception almost all of the time.

 

People who really need high data rates and the best possible coverage (e.g. for HD conferencing or HDTV streaming) should go for the best possible setup (external 5G 4x4 MIMO) but may still have occasional problems, and could consider using Starlink if they can afford the cost/power and solve the availability/licensing problems.

 

YMMV 😉

 

Thank you, and excellent summary of the current situation. 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Thomas C King said:

So our Starlink is working in an area with poor mobile connectivity (near Wootton Rivers).

 

Google speed test:
80Mbps Down

12.6Mbps Up

Latency 29ms

 

Power usage at the moment:

48Wh. I think this is because there isn't any liquid or frozen water on the dish, so it's not heating up. Previously when I tested it was around 200Wh (although here it hadn't found a satellite, so maybe that was the issue).

 

I'm pretty pleased.

Wh isn't really the right way to describe power consumption; most people find the Starlink dish uses a bit over 100W when it's tracking satellites, so about 10A from a 12V battery allowing for losses.

[Das Boot]

On 12/12/2021 at 17:05, IanD said:

Wh isn't really the right way to describe power consumption; most people find the Starlink dish uses a bit over 100W when it's tracking satellites, so about 10A from a 12V battery allowing for losses.

So on a 120 Ah wet leisure battery you get 6 hours or so use before voltage drop creeps in - that's before any resistive losses from cable runs? How are you powering this?

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Das Boot said:

So on a 120 Ah wet leisure battery you get 6 hours or so use before voltage drop creeps in - that's before any resistive losses from cable runs? How are you powering this?

I'm not powering it at all, just pointing out how much power it consumes. You'd need a boat with very heavy-duty electrics to keep up with this, big battery bank and probably a generator.

[Das Boot]

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm not powering it at all, just pointing out how much power it consumes. You'd need a boat with very heavy-duty electrics to keep up with this, big battery bank and probably a generator.

Or a standard alternator. They'll typically kick out between 60 A and 110 A without you having to go outside the car market. And all but the most basic split charge units are more than capable of handling that and distributing it as needed. Diesel generators are a bit of a no-no at most moorings. If they're not banned (and often they are) nearby boaters will start kicking off as on a lovely summer's night even if they are silent, they'll start setting off the mandated CO alarms in peoples cabins.

[ditchcrawler]

[IanD]

15 hours ago, Das Boot said:

Or a standard alternator. They'll typically kick out between 60 A and 110 A without you having to go outside the car market. And all but the most basic split charge units are more than capable of handling that and distributing it as needed. Diesel generators are a bit of a no-no at most moorings. If they're not banned (and often they are) nearby boaters will start kicking off as on a lovely summer's night even if they are silent, they'll start setting off the mandated CO alarms in peoples cabins.

If you can't run a diesel generator then you can't run a diesel engine/alternator either...

 

A Starlink dish is a pretty heavy electrical load in terms of energy used because of the hours it's on, probably about 1.5kWh/day if it's the main internet access which is about 3x the energy use of a decent fridge. Allowing for battery charge/discharge losses this needs about 2.5kWh/day from the power source, say 200Ah at 12V, so maybe 2-3 hours engine running time *every day* just to power the dish. It would at least double or treble the total electrical load of a typical boat, and almost certainly put the power use out of the reach of solar panels even in summer.

 

So you could do this by engine running but it will cost a lot in fuel and engine wear and noise/pollution -- with electrical energy use this high most people would say a diesel generator is needed to keep up.

[Morat]

It's a shame Starlink uses so much power. We installed one at work for a remote office a month ago it was giving 150Mb down and ~34ms ping to our own firewall for VPN use. It's a huge step above Geo-sync satellite systems.

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Morat said:

It's a shame Starlink uses so much power. We installed one at work for a remote office a month ago it was giving 150Mb down and ~34ms ping to our own firewall for VPN use. It's a huge step above Geo-sync satellite systems.

 

It's a shame but it's not unexpected -- it's a massive actively-steered phased array with a *load* of electronics in there, including hundreds of channels of RF receivers, so it's not surprising that it takes way more power than a normal satellite dish.

 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/12/teardown-of-dishy-mcflatface-the-spacex-starlink-user-terminal/

 

And realistically there's no other way to build it since it has to simultaneously track multiple satellites moving quite fast overhead -- see here...

 

https://starlink.sx/

Edited July 12, 2022 by IanD

[Morat]

Ooh yes, nice article.
There is much Clever Stuff inside the Skylink box, that's for sure. "Ours" is different and is rectangular. I assume it's a new version.

I still want one for our boat!

 

Ah little google later and good news! 35W - still not exactly nothing but I think it makes it more feasible.

Here's an article from a yotty type

https://seabits.com/starlink-finally-useful-aboard/

Edited July 12, 2022 by Morat
New Info! Breaking News!!

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Morat said:

Ooh yes, nice article.
There is much Clever Stuff inside the Skylink box, that's for sure. Ours is a different version, and is rectangular. I assume it's a new version.

I still want one for our boat!

Yes, the new rectangular one is to try and get the cost down, it's a bit smaller and rectangles cut out of big PCB panels more economically than circles do.

 

Starlink need to get the cost down because IIRC the older circular antenna costs more than 2x as much to manufacture as they were being sold for, the new rectangular one has brought this down -- but the purchase price is still lower than the cost, Starlink are subsidising this to get more people to adopt it, so bigger volumes bring the cost down further.

 

They've just announced a mobile (for boats etc.) station but it's very expensive ($5000/month?), it's aimed at commercial shipping/cruise liners/superyachts not narrowboats 😞

 

Given the cost of the satellites I'm pretty sure Starlink are either losing money or at best breaking even, the Holy Grail for them is when they get the inter-satellite laser links up and running (being trialled at the moment) so they can start selling low-latency links to high-frequency traders for an absolute fortune...

 

(they laid a new straight-line fiber optic cable across the Atlantic just for this market, spent hundreds of millions of dollars to shave a few milliseconds off the delay -- Starlink should reduce this further, this market is worth billions to them)

Edited July 12, 2022 by IanD

[Morat]

Yes, the cost reduction is true. Also, they reduced the power consumption by 2/3 which is very welcome. However, it might be a bit tricky to get a Starlink box now as they've sent 15,000 units to Ukraine 😮

That's quite a commitment to the cause!