Musk and Bezos' Satellite Internet Could Save Consumers Billions of Dollars (thenextweb.com) 96
"The fight for space internet supremacy is on," writes the consumer policy expert at BroadbandNow, calculating the benefits of these additional broadband competitors:
Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites for broadband internet access are beginning to display signs of real potential. Recently, Amazon chief Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin pulled back the curtain on its space intentions by announcing Project Kuiper, a 3,236-satellite constellation. Additionally, Elon Musk's SpaceX Starlink recently launched a rocket containing 60 satellites from Florida's Cape Canaveral... Both players, alongside others like OneWeb, are spending billions in space in hopes of making further billions annually once the satellites go into service for consumers in the US and around the globe. SpaceX will initially launch service to North America, but once its full array is in place, the company has plans to roll the service out across the entire planet. Ostensibly, anywhere with access to open skies could be covered. Amazon has global aspirations for its project as well...
The arrival of this technology is likely to drive down monthly internet prices for hundreds-of-millions of Americans... According to further analysis of our market-wide pricing database covering plans and pricing from more than 2,000 ISPs, the average "lowest available monthly price" for the estimated 104 million Americans with only one wired broadband provider is $68. For the 75 million Americans with two choices, that average lowest price drops to $59. For the lucky 15 million Americans with five or more choices, it's $47. Because LEO technology will ostensibly be available everywhere in the US, as well as globally, this indicates the powerful influence the entrance of the technology will have on internet prices as new markets gain access to an additional true "broadband" option and competition heats-up.
Our projections show that that low-latency, LEO satellite internet is likely to have a similar impact on average regional prices as wired, low-latency wired providers. Extrapolating this additional competitor across all US households, the introduction of LEO satellite internet could save Americans over $30 billion... Shortly after, these same transformative benefits could spread to countries across the globe, permanently altering the landscape of the internet as we know it.
The arrival of this technology is likely to drive down monthly internet prices for hundreds-of-millions of Americans... According to further analysis of our market-wide pricing database covering plans and pricing from more than 2,000 ISPs, the average "lowest available monthly price" for the estimated 104 million Americans with only one wired broadband provider is $68. For the 75 million Americans with two choices, that average lowest price drops to $59. For the lucky 15 million Americans with five or more choices, it's $47. Because LEO technology will ostensibly be available everywhere in the US, as well as globally, this indicates the powerful influence the entrance of the technology will have on internet prices as new markets gain access to an additional true "broadband" option and competition heats-up.
Our projections show that that low-latency, LEO satellite internet is likely to have a similar impact on average regional prices as wired, low-latency wired providers. Extrapolating this additional competitor across all US households, the introduction of LEO satellite internet could save Americans over $30 billion... Shortly after, these same transformative benefits could spread to countries across the globe, permanently altering the landscape of the internet as we know it.
Billions of Dollars (Score:2, Funny)
Who spends billions on just internet? I don't even have a million.
Re:Billions of Dollars (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Billions of Dollars (Score:3)
Switched mobile phone providers, use phone as hotspot, browse on laptop (connected to 26" screen) so my messed up eyes can actually read it using "links" under linux.
So, no downloads of css, images, web bugs, javascript. 2 gigs/month is enough for text/html.
As an added bonus, sites like Facebook and Twitter and Medium tell me to f$ck off. It's prohibited discrimination against the visually handicapped, but let the Yanks complain about violations of the ADA.
It's amazing how much faster the internet fee
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Major ISPs?
It's a global network. (Score:5, Insightful)
American writers sometimes seem to assume the world starts fading away into a featureless sea of gray just past the US border. With moose and hockey players vaguely visible to the north, and suspicious-looking figures to the south.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't. The writer even mentions that it starts deployment in America first (no it isn't "global" yet). Chances are it will never go global.
Re:It's a global network. (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.quora.com/In-what-... [quora.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There's no physical limits that keep it restricted to the US, even with the initial constellation. These are LEO satellites, not GEO; they move with respect to the surface.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no physical limits that keep it restricted to the US, even with the initial constellation.
The lack of "physical limits" doesn't mean much. The way the SpaceX system (or any similar system) works the downlink is focused on a relatively small area on the ground. Where nations and their special interests are adverse to allowing SpaceX to operate (for whatever reason; political, financial, etc.) they will demand the service not be provided over some geographic area. Rouge ground stations will be impossible to conceal from state actors for more than very brief periods; the radiated RF is easy to d
Re: (Score:2)
Rouge ground stations will be impossible to conceal
So don't paint them (the rogue ground stations) rouge, Sarah Palin! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people argue with me on this? The article even says it. The "physical limits" of the satellite doesn't matter. The service will only be available in the US initially (as described). There is a reason(s) for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't it go global? It's an LEO network: It covers the globe. Every country where the service is not sold is a lost revenue opportunity. It'd be nearly pure profit, as the infrastructure is needed to service the US anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not every country is going to allow it and it also requires local infrastructure and spectrum. It won't be global.
Re: (Score:2)
> Not every country is going to allow it and it also requires local infrastructure and spectrum. It won't be global.
Look at polar and skewed orbital dynamics to clarify the concept of 'global coverage'. Also, space is currently not regulated by nations or geographical boundaries, so a transceiver will work anywhere unless engineered to turn on/off based on geography, just like satellite TV is steadily used to watch Telenovelas in countries where such racy fare would be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Most other countries require government control of the internet. And their citizens don't have access to the entire net like US has. Governments aren't gonna buy into some high latency satellite internet unless they have the ability to block sites, ban domain names at will, deny the ability to register a blasphemous domain name, or allow citizens to make posts critical of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
'Most?' Despite America's claim to be the land of the free, most other countries are happy enough to make internet access available to the public without extensive filtering. The restrictive ones are in the minority. Though I am sure the operators will be unhappy about losing access to China, due to the sheer size of the market there - they may even cooperate with the Chinese government to work something out, involving all customers in China passing traffic through downlinks to Chinese stations to pass thro
Re: (Score:2)
they may even cooperate with the Chinese government to work something out,
It's far more likely that China will launch its own
LEO internet system, complete with Great Firewall restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Will be interesting to see China's response (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Will be interesting to see China's response (Score:5, Informative)
Low Earth Orbit means that they are not stationary, they will fly in orbits over certain latitudes and be over, at some time, everything within those latitudes. To make a return Musk/Bezos will need to charge a fee to access the satellites - that is where various countries could stop use of an open/uncensored Internet. It will be interesting to see how China/... tries to prevent use that they do not like.
Re: (Score:3)
In Musk's case they could just hold the Tesla factory he's building there hostage.
But in general I'm sure they have a lot of options, anything from subtle hints of economic sanctions to shooting the satellite out of the sky.
Re: (Score:3)
Or simply jamming the signals over their territory. No violence required. BTW is LEO Network Neutral?
Re: (Score:2)
God knows they have the technology.
Re: (Score:2)
" It will be interesting to see if they deploy over China."
Given that satellites pretty much have to go round ... and round ... and round ..., any configuration that covers the US (including Alaska?) is of necessity going to cover China about equally well. Blame Newton, Kepler, et al for that. OTOH whether the Chinese give these things user-to-satellite bandwidth or allow ground stations on China's soil. That's a different issue. If the Chinese allow ground stations, they can presumably filter traffic a
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine: no ladder will ever reach those satellites to upgrade them. One good hack and they're bricked, too. At least Comcast can roll a truck.... sometimes that's all they can do, but at least that.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course if it's just garden-variety criminal activity, they won't destroy them, they'll compromise them so they can be twisted to whatever other use they see fit; spy on people, steal their identity and banking data, run rogue servers on it hosting illegal content, and so on.
Foreign operatives, on the other hand, might destroy them.
What I think will be the most immediate threat, as this system c
Re: (Score:3)
The next problem is space junk and garbage, and the illumination of them in the night sky, what it does to visual navigators, and what the preponderance of 24GHz noise does to ground moisture detectors, and so forth.
All this short-sightedness for a few bars of bandwidth. Egads.
Re: (Score:2)
That applies to nearly any satellite. That's good evidence that industrial control software is insecure by cheapness: satellites aren't routinely hacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Most satellites weren't designed to be network gateways for BILLIONS of connections. Those designed for commercial use are often at least moderately protected. Those designed for amateur radio use are pretty simple, given Doppler and other conditions.
Instead, these are designed to be civilian-stupid to use. Because they inherently relay, an infection could brick many/all given ingenuity. Wanna bring down or cripple a geography? Kill its communications infrastructure. Dependency on this network creates a hug
Re: (Score:2)
China would not like an Internet without their filters
Or the UK's filters. Or Australia's filters.
It's not an interesting question really; Elon et al. do business in these nations so the Powers That Be have more than sufficient leverage to require, for instance, all Starlink traffic to be relayed exclusively through sovereign networks for whatever monitoring and filtering the prevailing despots believe is necessary.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably the way of GPS (Score:2)
My first thought is China would not like an Internet without their filters.
My though is that it will probably go the same way as GPS vs. Galileo, Glonass and Beidu. (and most current smartphone usually able to talk to at least 2 or 3 of them at the same time).
China will probably eventually deploy their own, find incentive to push their network to their citizens (much cheaper antena + illegal to own competitors' antenna)
In China, you'll get probably in trouble if you have non-chinese services (SpaceX', Amazon's etc.) enable, but in the end a lot people will still use them the way V
Light pollution (Score:2)
Moot point (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, it's long since time to make Internet access a utility. We shouldn't be beholden to a duopoly for Internet access in 2019. It's fucking ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
What about at the low, low price of $39.95 per month for Prime members?
Re: Moot point (Score:2)
I'd disagree. Just like developing countries are skipping over land lines and going straight to cell, this is another step on that path. And each generation uses a fraction of the resources of the previous generation.
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, it's long since time to make Internet access a utility.
We kinda did that here in aus. Our NBN network was government installed and owned which is sold as wholesale only. ISPs have to compete with each other on added services.
Well at least until the liberal gov sells the entire thing back to telstra.
Re: (Score:3)
Or just sabotages it. Here the Provincial government balanced the budget by demanding billions in royalties from the government owned electric company, money the company had to borrow. If they'd stayed in power, the next step would have been privatization as obviously it was losing money, why else was it in debt?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I shudder to think of internet access as a public utility though. We'd still be using 300 baud modems. Then too, there was something about lead in some town's water supply. What would that equate with on internet service? I'm sure it would be bad.
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd pay SpaceX three times what I pay for internet, even if it didn't work as well, just because I hate Comcast.
I'll definitely be one of the early adopters. Xfinity and AT&T can eat my ass.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd pay SpaceX three times what I pay for internet, even if it didn't work as well, just because I hate Comcast.
I'll definitely be one of the early adopters. Xfinity and AT&T can eat my ass.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not necessarily the best approach.
Everyone hates Comcast, AT&T and all the other scumbags.
But satellite internet is just fucking stupid.
Re: It doesn't matter (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No you won't. The system doesn't work that way. The tech knowledge of people on this site is at an all time low.
Re: (Score:3)
And here you are, raising the bar. *high five*
Re: (Score:2)
I'd pay SpaceX three times what I pay for internet, even if it didn't work as well, just because I hate Comcast.
Don't worry, you will soon come to hate SpaceX, probably three times as much as you hated Comcast.
won't be SpaceX *only*. (Score:2)
Don't worry, you will soon come to hate SpaceX, probably three times as much as you hated Comcast.
The thing is, with LEO sats, it's not going to be easy to have service monopoly in defined territories. (unlike the wired Cable/DSL/fiber monopolies I've heard you have in the US).
SpaceX is bound to not be the only one service provider.
As I've written elsewhere, I strongly suspect this whole thing is going to go the same way as GPS vs. Galileo, Glonass and Bei Du:
different competing nations (or companies in competing nations) eventually all building their own service, with lots of competition driving the pr
Re: (Score:1)
I'm guessing you cheap out on residential service?
Biz class has worked really well for me for 11 years. The value received is worth $99 a month (which can be expensed anyway).
I don't really trust Musk or Bezos (Score:2)
But then, it's not as if I trust Comcast either. So if either of them undercut Comcast, and if they seem reliable (which Comcast has been, for me anyway) - I'll happily jump ship.
It'll be the end of our Tivo, but I bet it's been a year since we watched anything on that box anyway. Hey, anyone want a Bolt with Lifetime?
We pay $100/mo for GEO sat (Score:2)
We get 20Mbps much of the time, but video is throttled pretty badly.
If I could get the same deal but with more video bandwidth (throttling is OK, but I'd like to get decent SD bitrates at least) then I'd be happy to pay the same, since I'd have much less latency.
Re: (Score:1)
This is not a GEO system. The entire point of this thing is that it's a LEO system, which means low latency high bandwidth applications are possible. Basically range from you to satellite is a tiny fraction of range to an object in geostationary orbit, which means you need a lot less power to transmit and latency is reduced massively.
Re: (Score:2)
If I could get the same deal but with more video bandwidth (throttling is OK, but I'd like to get decent SD bitrates at least) then I'd be happy to pay the same, since I'd have much less latency.
This is not a GEO system. The entire point of this thing is that it's a LEO system, which means low latency high bandwidth applications are possible.
I obviously know that, since I pointed out that I would have lower latency. Thanks for playing, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Point being that comparison is inane. GEO system is simply completely different from LEO one on a matter of principle. It's like comparing dial up in another nation state to DSL connection to a DSLAM nearby.
Re: (Score:3)
"Point being that comparison is inane. GEO system is simply completely different from LEO one on a matter of principle."
The system is very different, but the only difference for the user is lower latency. In every other way, it is identical for them. It is a perfectly apt comparison and you're just upset that you can't read. Ssssssh.
Re: (Score:2)
The system is very different, but the only difference for the user is lower latency. In every other way, it is identical for them. It is a perfectly apt comparison and you're just upset that you can't read.
Not the original poster, but no, they're not very similar at all. The SpaceX LEO satellites will do beam forming down to spots just 8 km across. (Something like that. The details are in their FCC filing.) GEO satellites do no such thing. One satellite has to service the entire continent. They don't launch more than one. So the amount of available bandwidth is spread across literally every subscriber they have.
LEO satellite systems are radically different. You won't share any individual satellite wit
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, it's probably pretty fucking serious considering that Bezos is on board with it. Bezos is known to be exceedingly anal about actually getting systems that work, even if he has to hammer them together with his own hands.
Upload speed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Upload speed any good?
And what are the odds of Kessler Syndrome happening?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Musk's one, Starlink, has filed with the FCC stating 20Gbps per satellite. Each satellite will be covering a wide area so that will be shared between all users in that area, and split between up and download.
Bandwidth is likely to be further limited by the need to arbitrate all the ground base transmitters. You can't just have them all transmit when they feel like it, they have to avoid talking over each other. Likely some kind of time division system with slots allocated to users based on availability. So
Re: (Score:2)
*L*EO (Score:2)
And what are the odds of Kessler Syndrome happening?
The point of *Low* Earth Orbit is that there should enough tiny drag that even an end-of-lifed sat that has lost it manoeuvring capabilities to actively de-orbit, will eventually decay and fall on its own.
(That's also the reason of the ISS orbit: it's a bit cleaner at that distance as debris' orbits eventually decay).
I get it! (Score:2)
Where I live you get one and only one choice. Frontier. You get 150Mbit for $125 a month. Just two streets away you can get AT&T gigabit for $59. What's wrong with this picture?
(by the way, Frontier is the old FiOS service, which means they CAN provide much faster speeds including gigabit, but refuse to do so. bastards. I will NEVER buy a house in frontier territory again.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Easy solution; see if you can negotiate with one of your neighbours two streets away to pay them say $45 a month and have a fixed P2P antenna on their roof so you can use their gig connection.
Yeah, it violates the AT&T TOS, but nobody really pays any attention to them anyway and AT&T would have to come out and physically see the equipment being used in order to find it a violation. As long as you're not stupid about abusing that connection with stuff that'll get the owner a copyright notice then it
Space Junk (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks rich guys for adding to the already crowded LEO number of satellites. Another three thousand and thirty six satellites will add to the likleyhood of cascading collisions.
Adding one satellite increases the odds of cascading collisions. So what? The odds are literally astronomically against it, even with two huge constellations going up. Space is VAST. Even low earth orbit is vast. Stop reading concern trolling pieces from junk rags like National Geographic. Those people are basically innumerate at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Could... but won't (Score:2)
Dominance? (Score:2)
How could you achieve dominance with sat-based comm ?
Nothing is preventing competing companies and/or foreign country (e.g.: the EU launching a similar network) from launching their network.
Look at positioning, with already have competitors to GPS such as Galileo, Glonass and BeiDu, with most smartphone able to use at least 2 out of them simultaneously.
(Well nothing except Kessler syndrome, but that's also why *Low* Earth Orbit is chosen. At lower altitude there's a tiny bit of drag and eventually orbits de
Where did they get those numbers? (Score:2)
Alternative internet (Score:2)
Rural Broadband Money (Score:2)
"Save consumers money" (Score:1)
Is this really going to change anything? (Score:2)
Ok... so I have a dish on my house and I blast my SYN packet up to a satellite as it blazes past my home. Great! Now what?
It doesn't sound like it will forward it to another satellite but probably just echo it back to a ground station which will then do ... what?
Give it to AT&T to mishandle and overcharge.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok... so I have a dish on my house and I blast my SYN packet up to a satellite as it blazes past my home. Great! Now what?
It doesn't sound like it will forward it to another satellite but probably just echo it back to a ground station which will then do ... what?
You should read better news sources. Not only will it forward on to the next satellite, but it will do so using a ridiculously high bandwidth point to point laser link. The first batch of 60 satellites didn't have it yet, but the in service constellation will. NASA had a proof of concept built and tested in orbit so the technology is known to work, and SpaceX is exceedingly good at figuring out how to replicate something that works already, only cheaper.
SpaceX will run their own ground stations, and conn
a 3,236-satellite constellation (Score:2)
Orbit decay (Score:2)
At least, at low earth orbit, the sat's orbit will decay and fall even if the sat is defective and has lost its ability to actively de-orbit at end of life
This article is kind of superficial (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This article is kind of superficial
And the blog you linked isn't? I read the one about inter-satellite laser links and it was one informative paragraph and 10 paragraphs of concern trolling. Talk about superficial...
So sad (Score:2)
Satellites aren't getting better. Hell, they have physics against them. Terrestrial companies have seriously dropped the ball, trying to sell a gazillion bits per second, when I just want my 2k of data to shuffle back and for
Re: (Score:2)
These new satellites will be faster since they will have physics on their side; Geosynchronous satellites (most present ones for communications) are much further out than LEO. LEO has another advantage over cable: speed of light doesn't slow down in air/vacuum compared to glass. This means latencies around the world can end up being improved with LEO satellites.
Maybe we can start outsourcing to rural Indiana (Score:2)
instead of rural India.
Internet is like water these days. With access to high speed reliable internet, it will open up rural areas to the wider job market that often get sourced overseas.
Low latency? (Score:1)
great idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love 100+ ms ping times almost as much as I love giant dishes and losing internet access every time it rains or snows aka when I'm stuck indoors. Fantastic idea. I'm glad they really discussed the viability of this before doing it.
They did. And if you had read even one sentence about their conclusions, you wouldn't be babbling about satellite from the 1970s. The antennas will be outdoors, yes, but they'll be phased arrays the size and shape of a pizza box. Ping times will be 7 ms. They're in low earth orbit. Your only legitimate complaint is rain fade. But my AT&T DSL has that problem, so I'm not sure why you think that's a major obstacle.
Anybody ruining AT&T, Verizon et al is welcome (Score:2)
Can't wait.
"Save Consumers" means "Increased Margins" (Score:1)
How much total bandwidth will the system have?? (Score:2)