[RE-wrenches] Starlink mini or cellular booster

[Zeke Yewdall]

I just recently got the starlink mini (for my house) in addition to the
regular starlink that I've had for about 4 years.  In the winter when I
average well under 1PSH, the lower power use (about 20 to 25 watts DC
direct, vs 60 to 100 watts on AC for the regular starlink) really helps.

One thing I found on the wifi from the mini is that default is 5GHz wifi,
which has poor range and won't work with at least some inverters and
monitors that will only connect to 2.4Ghz.  I turned on the 2.4Ghz wifi and
it has much better signal strength and works with inverters and monitors
better.  I don't see why 5Ghz makes any sense at all with starlink of any
sort, as it mostly gets you higher speed when closer to the router if you
have a very fast ISP, but 2.4Ghz can do well over 100Mbps, so plenty for
any starlink IMO.

The mini is not as fast as the regular starlink (in the 30 to 50Mbps range,
compared to 80 to 100+ Mbps for the regular one), and also is limited to
50GB per month, instead of essentially unlimited -- I think the regular one
may throttle you after 500GB/month maybe.  It also does not melt the dish
off as well as the regular one, so I do need to clear snow from it.

In my experience, cell boosters were fairly useless in the off grid areas I
typically worked in the mountains of Colorado.  Have to have at least one
bar of signal to boost, and most places had absolutely nothing.  If you
just have low cell signal, they may be worth it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20251202/b8fa7416/attachment.htm>