Starlink hexagon layer

[FerrariSailing]

One New Zealand telco is tv advertising cell to satellite using Starlink to start next year!

[philiosophy]

This is a very important subject for cruisers. I certainly do not know all the ins and outs as I am still cruising Asia. And getting cheap internet. That said at 250.00 a month It is exciting to have 50 gigs of decent internet on a crossing. That access to Met Service weather information as opposed to Irridium GO and Predict Wind costing 130.00 monthly plus 500.00 per year with glitchy setup,, sllllooooowwww connection speed, difficulty connecting etc. I wonder if the two different plans, 250.00 A MONTH, AS OPPOSED TO ABOUT 180.00 A MONTH for the so called Premium pkg.
Perhaps, Marine simply means, BOATS on the water, and RECREATIONAL VEHICLES means VEHICLES used on land. Again I am not fully versed on this.....But I know a lot of people would like to get more than they are paying for. I will leave it at that.

[SirChaunchy]

I recently joined the group that purchased a Starlink system so that I can get internet/WiFi out at the local islands here of the coast of California. To test it out, I just had it on the back deck on the tripod mount that came with it and fed the wire in to the router through the back window. When I was in the marina I was streaming a couple of news channels on my computer, doing e-mail, and streaming music that I piped around the boat on the stereo. As I left the dock and made a 180 degree turn to go out of the harbor, the system held steady with no loss. On the way out to the Channel Islands (about 12 miles out) I lost connectivity a couple of times, but mostly it held steady. I think it was more that I lost line of sight due to blockage by the cabin roof. Once anchored at Santa Cruz (26 miles off shore), I had perfect and steady reception all night. The next morning, I sailed along the southern edge of Santa Cruz so the island was between me and the mainland and I had great coverage even in a couple of my favorite anchorages that have cliffs all around. Having confirmed that the Starlink system was probably going to provide the service I was after, I needed a better way of mounting it. I found this small attachment on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRYPXFLW...roduct_details. It fits on the antenna pole of the Starlink and then slips right in to a fishing pole holder (see photos below). I mounted the fishing pole holder right on the rail that runs along the side of the roof of the cabin so it has excellent line of sight to the sky and is secure. I just fed the wire through the back window to the router. I don’t think I’m going to do any additional installation because it’s easy to get to now so when I want to go somewhere in my Airstream trailer, I can just pull it out and take it with me.

[Moo]

I don't think that starlink used the cells to determine what service you are on. They appear to be using a vector coastline of some sort, perhaps GHHS. The cells are not related to their service package boundaries.

[Moo]

Originally Posted by FerrariSailing

One New Zealand telco is tv advertising cell to satellite using Starlink to start next year!

Yea but that relies on spaceship one being available to launch the bigger satellites... pretty long odds at the moment

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by Moo

I don't think that starlink used the cells to determine what service you are on. They appear to be using a vector coastline of some sort, perhaps GHHS. The cells are not related to their service package boundaries.

That is incorrect. They use cells. It is why some inland waters are considered "ocean" by SpaceX and some but not all coastal waters are considered "land".

[Moo]

Originally Posted by Statistical

That is incorrect. They use cells. It is why some inland waters are considered "ocean" by SpaceX and some but not all coastal waters are considered "land".

Not incorrect: the cells are used for resource scheduling; a completely different aspect of the constellations engineering to the service plans. The distinction is water and land - hence using vector coastlines.

[Statistical]

Originally Posted by Moo

Not incorrect: the cells are used for resource scheduling; a completely different aspect of the constellations engineering to the service plans. The distinction is water and land - hence using vector coastlines.

Again no you are incorrect. First it isn't land vs water it is land vs ocean. Second SpaceX "definitions" are non-standard and based solely on what cell you are in.

Per SpaceX:

What areas are considered land vs ocean under the mobile plans?

Land: All areas labeled as "Available", "Waitlist", or "Coming Soon" on the Starlink Availability Map are considered land regions. Regional Mobile plans can be used on land within your continent (see continent map), while Global Mobile plans can be used on land anywhere Starlink has service around the world.

Ocean: All areas colored as black on the Starlink Availability Map are considered ocean regions, including islands unless they are labeled "Available", "Waitlist", or "Coming Soon". Only Mobile Priority Data can be used on the ocean, including on these unlabeled islands. Use in local territorial waters, is contingent on government approval.

Your system would be complex and require the sats and dishes to be aware of coastlines. All that complexity would provide no utility.

SpaceX breaks the entire worlds into cells. If marks those cells as "land" or "ocean". Sats, and dishes simply need to know what cell the user is in and what service level is required for service there. Sats don't even need to know a user's exact location just what cell they are in which greatly reduces a lot of the routing and housekeeping complexity.
That is why SpaceX adopted the U3 system to begin with. They certainly don't need to evaluate the users location vs detailed maps of all coastlines in the world.

After six months of questions on if it worked this way (it seemed to) SpaceX finally provided a black and white answer. So no need to speculate your own system confusing people in the process.

Observations from users match this explanation and definition provided by SpaceX. There are places where people are literally 100 ft from land and are considered "ocean" (this is pretty common in the Bahamas) just due to how the cells align. There are places ON land in uninhabited islands which are considered "ocean". There are corners of inhabited islands which are considered "ocean" (part of the island is "land" and part is "ocean). Parts of the Chesapeake Bay and Med are "ocean" although most of it is "land". Likewise there are places where due to how the grids line up you can be > 10nm offshore in the actual ocean and be considered "land".

[Moo]

Originally Posted by Statistical

Again no you are incorrect. First it isn't land vs water it is land vs ocean. Second SpaceX "definitions" are non-standard and based solely on what cell you are in.

Per SpaceX:


Your system would be complex and require the sats and dishes to be aware of coastlines. All that complexity would provide no utility.

SpaceX breaks the entire worlds into cells. If marks those cells as "land" or "ocean". Sats, and dishes simply need to know what cell the user is in and what service level is required for service there. Sats don't even need to know a user's exact location just what cell they are in which greatly reduces a lot of the routing and housekeeping complexity.
That is why SpaceX adopted the U3 system to begin with. They certainly don't need to evaluate the users location vs detailed maps of all coastlines in the world.

After six months of questions on if it worked this way (it seemed to) SpaceX finally provided a black and white answer. So no need to speculate your own system confusing people in the process.

Observations from users match this explanation and definition provided by SpaceX. There are places where people are literally 100 ft from land and are considered "ocean" (this is pretty common in the Bahamas) just due to how the cells align. There are places ON land in uninhabited islands which are considered "ocean". There are corners of inhabited islands which are considered "ocean" (part of the island is "land" and part is "ocean). Parts of the Chesapeake Bay and Med are "ocean" although most of it is "land". Likewise there are places where due to how the grids line up you can be > 10nm offshore in the actual ocean and be considered "land".

Nope you are wrong, no speculation here. The space hex hexagons have been on their maps since day one. They are part of the control process.

"My" actually SpaceX's system does of course require satellites to know where they are and hexagons are good for that. The terminal knows where it is via GNSS systems the SpaceX servers decide whether to serve content or not (NOT the satellites).

I know many instances where vessels have never left the "land" hexagons as you call them but have had the letter from SpaceX. A vector map of the world that defines land and sea makes it no more difficult to calculate a binary condition true/false than the hexagons.

Bye bye

[nohal]

It is quite sure that Starlink uses the H3 hexagonal grid. What "nobody" knows is what do they actually do with it exactly and what resolution is the one that defines the coverge cells in their internal systems.
There is no Starlink coverage here (the nearest covered area is about a hundred miles away, in another country) and Elon has my money for several years just shifting the availability date. Yet there were multiple boats here the whole summer season using their normal dishes to connect to the net. None of them had the marine plan. That means the official coverage map is at best informational.
So excuse me please, but unless you are able to to back your speculations by some data, these are nothing more than speculations.
What is absolutely sure is that they are not using GSHHG as this dataset is way too inaccurate to allow for the behavior described in many posts here, including yours (besides lacking in resolution everywhere, GSHHG is about .25 NMi off in great parts of the world).

[Moo]

OK so my career has been in telecoms specialising in satellite and remote area communications. These days I specialise in marine electronics and communications and we have been installing starlink in both the modified RV form and the proper marine antennas for a while now. So while I don't work for Starlink my speculation is at least informed.

Nohal, you say you are in TDF (presumably Argentina and cruising; Ushuaia?). If so the nearest official coverage is just across the channel in Chile. Just a couple of miles away to the South or 10 miles to the West. Your anecdotal evidence from the last summer is of no relevance to the current situation as geofencing and plan TOS have only been implemented and enforced in the last two months or so. So excuse me but don't twist the story!

What is clear is the Starlink is NOT using the H3 hexagons (at H3 resolution) for geofencing. They are using the geographic location of antennas combined with whether they are moving or not. I never said they were using GSHHG, but something like that, however your argument that it has errors up to .25NM fits very well with reported errors from Starlink users. They could be using hexagons but a much finer resolution. I am quite confident that the H3 cells are being used for constellation resource management based on the coverage of the satellites it makes sense.

Anyway; the point is, overlaying the Starlink Hexagon coverages on OCPN or any other chart is not going to help anybody see whether or not they should have coverage. So don't waste your time

[wholybee]

Starlink could not be more clear on what land vs. ocean is, and how they delimitate the two. Anecdotal stories from vessels that claim they never left a "land hexagon" when they actually might have, or letters that Starlink sent out but then never actually required someone to subscribe to priority don't mean anything.

The stories I have heard from sailors that have had service cut, and had to then turn on priority, seem to line up with the coverage map.

[Moo]

Originally Posted by wholybee

Starlink could not be more clear on what land vs. ocean is, and how they delimitate the two. Anecdotal stories from vessels that claim they never left a "land hexagon" when they actually might have, or letters that Starlink sent out but then never actually required someone to subscribe to priority don't mean anything.

The stories I have heard from sailors that have had service cut, and had to then turn on priority, seem to line up with the coverage map.

Starlink have not laid out exactly which is which in documentation that I have seen. Would you care to link to this incredibly clear document? Something with a bit of detail other than the little snippet in your screenshot which does not reflect reality..

I have direct experience with several vessels that have never ever left land hexagons as per the coverage map and have had the letter and their service cut. So in my experience (not anecdotal) with numerous vessels I know that the hexagons mean nothing.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by wholybee

Starlink could not be more clear on what land vs. ocean is, and how they delimitate the two. Anecdotal stories from vessels that claim they never left a "land hexagon" when they actually might have, or letters that Starlink sent out but then never actually required someone to subscribe to priority don't mean anything.



The stories I have heard from sailors that have had service cut, and had to then turn on priority, seem to line up with the coverage map.

That’s our experience as well - our Roam service using its Mobile Data gets disconnected with an out of location message that exactly matches the hexagons visible on the coverage map here on the west coast of Australia. We toggle the opt-in Mobile Priority Data and almost immediately get reconnected, even at 10kts boat speed. When we look like we’re back in a land hexagon we turn off the opt-in MPD. Our statement shows very little opt-in data charges - they don’t seem to charge for any amounts of used opt-in data less than 1.0GB.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by fxykty

That’s our experience as well - our Roam service using its Mobile Data gets disconnected with an out of location message that exactly matches the hexagons visible on the coverage map here on the west coast of Australia. We toggle the opt-in Mobile Priority Data and almost immediately get reconnected, even at 10kts boat speed. When we look like we’re back in a land hexagon we turn off the opt-in MPD. Our statement shows very little opt-in data charges - they don’t seem to charge for any amounts of used opt-in data less than 1.0GB.

And pretty much our experience as well
Couldn't be easier