Starlink Upload Faster Than Download

I love starlink. When it arrived, I was getting 150/50 and I thought that it would just get faster over time. For months now it has been averaging 100/5 (today is 25/3). When I have to push big files up, I end up driving into town.

For upload, fixed broadband providers in Spain (100.65 Mbps), France (86.02 Mbps), Portugal (74.42 Mbps), and Lithuania (73.95 Mbps) all recorded median speeds greater than 70 Mbps, while the closest satellite provider, Starlink in Portugal, trailed at 32.05 Mbps.

DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://urloso.com/2y2GaA 🔥

The only thing with the upload issue (trying to test both fiber and SL) as mentioned on my original post, the 200mb video file hasn't been upload for more than 30 minutes, not even halfway to completion lol (using starlink). That's the reason I made the original post asking myself "is there something wrong with connection?" because when you think of it, not more than 50% completion for 30 minutes (200mb file) is really slow.

Compared to other satellite providers, Starlink dominates in terms of performance. Not only are download and upload speeds faster than the median HughesNet or Viasat connection, the low latency of Starlink is a game changer for remote customers without access to terrestrial fixed broadband. Check out our article Starlink vs HughesNet for more details. We also compare Starlink vs Viasat.

Potentially, yes. If you're a current user of Starlink internet service, you're experiencing a broadband connection with higher maximum download and upload speeds than Viasat (220Mbps/25Mbps compared to 150Mbps/3Mbps). Starlink also has lower latency than Viasat (25-50ms vs. 450-700ms), making gaming and other online activities that require fast response times much more feasible on Starlink than Viasat.

HughesNet, which relies on satellites in a much higher orbit than Starlink uses -- which means data takes a little longer to travel back and forth -- offers plans with maximum download speeds of 50Mbps. That's faster than some of the plans available with Viasat, but no match for Starlink.

Lastly, while the equipment fee of $599 -- and a whopping $2,500 for Starlink's more expensive Priority plan-- are steeper than those charged by HughesNet or Viasat, Starlink does not require a two-year contract. Though standard users get unlimited data, it did institute a still-generous 1TB cap in April (up to 6TB if you spend $1,500 monthly) for priority users, after which their speeds will be throttled until the end of the billing cycle. Once you consider the decent upload speed, these are considerable upgrades for anyone stuck with satellite internet. Those facts could undoubtedly change as Starlink grows, but they're intriguing aspects of the pitch that could help set it apart from the competition.

Our take - Viasat satellite internet lets you choose an internet plan that best fits your needs. Those internet service plans include some slower than you'll find with HughesNet and several faster. Packages also come with more data -- up to 500GB -- though, similar to HughesNet, you may find your data "deprioritized" if you exceed your monthly data allowance.

Cable internet provides connection through the same cables (often a hybrid fiber and copper line) that providers use to provide TV services. It's more reliable than satellite internet and offers faster download speeds, too. Most of the time, cable internet is bundled with TV to lure consumers into buying higher-priced packages. Companies like Cox, Spectrum and Xfinity offer cable internet.

Fiber internet is the gold standard of the broadband world. Often referred to as "future proof," fiber internet offers some of the fastest plans available and features symmetrical download and upload speeds. It's more reliable than cable and is less prone to being affected by peak usage times or congestion. Companies like AT&T, Google and Verizon offer fiber-optic internet.

A big reason why Starlink is faster and much less latent than other satellite Internet providers is because Starlink uses LEO satellite constellations. LEO's are much closer to the Earth than those used by HughesNet and Viasat satellite Internet.

Ookla found that median download speeds for Starlink are now stabilizing, and were about the same or better during Q2 2023 than the corresponding period last year across 15 countries, while speeds have taken a slight hit (decreasing more than 5 percent) in eight countries. That said, among the 27 countries surveyed during Q2 2023, Starlink proved faster than the aggregate score for of all fixed broadband providers combined in many countries.

In the UK, for example, Starlink's service has been consistently faster than all other providers in download speeds in the period from Q2 2022 to Q2 2023, topping 100Mbps, while the aggregate of rival broadband providers combined has only recently crept above 75Mbps, according to Ookla's charts.

In Africa, where Starlink only started providing a service this year, Nigerian subscribers enjoyed faster median download speeds during Q2 2023 than that offered by fixed broadband providers at 63.69Mbps compared to 15.60Mbps, Ookla claimed.

Hi MISTY AND STEWART,

As I mentioned in my other post, I installed Starlink and it is faster than anything I have used here in the countryside outside Baton Rouge .

But I have not tested Starlink for Teams Meetings. I will try and update once I use it for online meetings. Online meetings will be the real test!

This is a test at the same time using the Starlink Residential + Portability plan showing more usable upload speeds. They're still lower than busy places/times, but they are usable in terms of upload speeds for video calls.

One of the biggest challenges with Starlink is the continual changes. Portability (the ability to use it outside of your home address) only became available in April 2022. The RV plan also is only a few months old. Recently, Starlink changed their software to disable the network connection if they see you going faster than 10 MPH. What will be next?

Princess probably has to throttle more than other cruise lines because 60+% of the ship has internet access. There is no way they can supply 80 mbps with even with starlink with that many people on the service. 8-9 mbps down should be adequate for anything other than streaming high res video.

StarLink worked well even in Honningsvag. Today we were in Tallinn and all is good. We did not go to Iceland or Greenland. The speed just now was 2.95 download and 12 upload. Does not sound that good but sure is better than any previous cruise.

Starlink was a lifesaver when that was the only option (thank you Elon), but the higher upload speeds and reduced latency (lag time) offered by the fiber network make it the superior service in my opinion.

The U.S. speed was faster than during the third quarter of 2022, when the median download speed was 53 Mbps. Median upload speed increased to 9.7 Mbps and median multi-server latency dropped to 60ms during the quarter. Performance declined in June and July but increased from August onward. It reached a high of 79 Mbps last month.

During Q1 2023, Ookla gathered Starlink data from three new countries: Nigeria, Peru and the Philippines. According to Ookla, the results are promising. Specifically, median download speeds for Starlink in Nigeria (61.75 Mbps) and the Philippines (110.78 Mbps) were both faster than all fixed broadband providers combined. In Peru, it was statistically too close to call at 77.17 Mbps for Starlink and 72.93 Mbps for all providers combined. However, fixed broadband providers claimed faster upload speeds in Peru and the Philippines, and in Nigeria, it was too close to call.

Why was there such a huge difference? It's simple physics. Unless we ever get quantum networking, we can't network faster than the speed of light. Starlink uses low earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations, flying above us at a relatively close 550 to 1,200 kilometers (km), while HughesNet and Viasat have far higher geosynchronous orbits of about 35,000km.

Sure, although the biggest delay is on the way up and down from the satellite, which adds an extra 1000 km to the signal path, while the fiberoptic cable has only about 30% disadvantage, so the benefits of having faster propagation is only felt at continental scales. The distance between points should have to be more than 3000 km or so, and for these distances you have to hop the signal from satellite to satellite, each of which adds its own processing delay which is dominating the whole thing anyways.

The path of most income is to agree to anything china wants and have the rural chinese as potential customers. Musk is interested only in making enough money to get to mars. Censorship means very little to him. I dont see any long term viability in starlink though. Present day LTE networks already have better latency, upload and reliability than starlink. Sure, in some 3rd world countries the local networks might be shoddy and starlink could make sense, but vector in the power drain of the equipment used 24/7 and the long term costs for single users become prohibitive. Communities might well be willing to put up with the operating cost.

But among the 27 countries Ookla surveyed during Q2 2023, Starlink had speeds faster than the aggregate of all fixed broadband providers combined in 11 countries (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, and the UK). ff782bc1db