• Inktvip@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        43 minutes ago

        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.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It’s faster, cheaper, and on the tech side more reliable (definitely not politically reliable though).

      • Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 hours ago

        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.

      • learningduck@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        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.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          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.