Amazon To Invest $10 Billion In Space-Based Internet System (yahoo.com) 52
Yesterday, the FCC approved Amazon's plans for its ambitious Kuiper constellation of 3,236 internet-beaming satellites. We have now learned that Amazon will invest $10 billion into the space-based internet delivery system. From a report: The U.S. tech giant said on Thursday it is moving forward with its Project Kuiper, one of several systems planned to bring internet to customers without land-based connections. Project Kuiper aims to deliver satellite-based broadband services in the United States, and eventually around the world, and may offer connectively for wireless carriers and 5G networks. Amazon offer no timetable for the project but said it would begin deployment of its 3,236 satellites after the Federal Communications Commission approved the project.
"We have heard so many stories lately about people who are unable to do their job or complete schoolwork because they don't have reliable internet at home," said Amazon senior vice president Dave Limp. "There are still too many places where broadband access is unreliable or where it doesn't exist at all. Kuiper will change that. Our $10 billion investment will create jobs and infrastructure around the United States that will help us close this gap."
"We have heard so many stories lately about people who are unable to do their job or complete schoolwork because they don't have reliable internet at home," said Amazon senior vice president Dave Limp. "There are still too many places where broadband access is unreliable or where it doesn't exist at all. Kuiper will change that. Our $10 billion investment will create jobs and infrastructure around the United States that will help us close this gap."
Pale blue lag (Score:2)
Kuiper is certainly a name that makes me think of low latency communication and fast travel.
Dumbasses.
Re: Pale blue lag (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
^The horror!^
^A successful guy trying to one-up another successful guy's accomplishments.^
^Maybe he'll undercut him on price, too.^
^Will this madness ever cease?^
RIP every astrophysicist, astronomer, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
And with yet another mega-constellation of satellites, we can say goodbye to everything from looking up to watch the night's sky to astrophysicists researching distant stars or the creation of the Universe.
But hey, at least we'll have global access to cat videos and porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RIP every astrophysicist, astronomer, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: RIP every astrophysicist, astronomer, etc (Score:2)
Photos of the comet Neowise shows that the latest batch of satellites do interfere. Substantially. And Neowise was brighter and larger than your average extragalactic source of interest.
Re: (Score:3)
The photo that kicked off the news cycle about that issue was staged to exaggerate the effect. Nothing about the photo made sense unless you were actively trying to capture the satellites. The comments on Slashdot fairly well tore it apart.
Re: RIP every astrophysicist, astronomer, etc (Score:4, Insightful)
Can YOU, personally, afford a space-based telescope? I know I canâ(TM)t.
I have been an avid amateur astronomer since I was just a kid. Iâ(TM)ve enjoyed setting up my telescope in the backyard or now, because of light pollution, driving to a dark sky preserve just to get a clear glimpse of the night sky.
Now, that last bastion of seeing the heavens will be gone...not just for a little while, but for hundreds or thousands of years. Kids wonâ(TM)t know the night sky or be inspired by it the way I was as a kid. And, itâ(TM)s all so some dimwit can watch cat videos. Itâ(TM)s really sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Imaging sensors and CPU time are at all-time low prices. You too will be able to remove those satellites' contribution to your imagery digitally soon enough, assuming you can't already which is probably false.
Re: RIP every astrophysicist, astronomer, etc (Score:2)
Imagers are NOT cheap - you also need a scope with a equatorial mount (you can use an AZ for short exposures only) and dark skies. The latter are harder and harder to find with only a few dark sky preserves left in the US.
And, access to those telescope services is NOT free. This places it out of reach of most amateur astronomers...especially, kids.
Yes, with imaging software, you can stack up enough images to remove them from view at the cost of fewer usable images over the same time frame as you have to w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: RIP every astrophysicist, astronomer, etc (Score:2)
First, there arenâ(TM)t enough space-based telescopes.
Second, you have to rent time on those that systems.
Lastly, there is a thrill to look through the eye peace and see the wonders for yourself.
Being an arm chair astronomer is, frankly, dull and boring. I say, get out of the basement, brave the mosquitos and cold, and enjoy nature while you can. Itâ(TM)s worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
...you just get some space telescopes out there.
We will have to do this anyway. Just try to site a new telescope on Earth, in a place appropriate to its capabilities, subject to the gantlet of "environmentalists" and angry natives. Given the declining cost of space access, putting them in space will soon actually be cheaper.
Re: RIP every astrophysicist, astronomer, etc (Score:3)
But there are schools. They are are opening in most states, and many other countries. Besides, how is that an argument? We don't have Kuiper yet, the students need broadband access right now. By the time Kuiper is available, the pandemic will likely be over (let's hope so, anyway).
Besides, this is mostly about bringing internet to remote areas in other parts of the world, not first-world nations thta largely have internet connections already.
Re: (Score:2)
They are are opening in most states, and many other countries.
And most states, and most other countries, don't have a realistic plan for that, and it's going to lead to a surge in cases in those places.
Besides, how is that an argument? We don't have Kuiper yet, the students need broadband access right now.
And there will never, ever be another pandemic. Never!
Besides, this is mostly about bringing internet to remote areas in other parts of the world, not first-world nations thta largely have internet connections already.
Especially in the USA, but also in other nations, people living in remote areas of first-world nations have limited internet access options. Hell, many people living in cities have extremely limited options! Again, especially in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Says someone who does not realize the magnitude of the problem ...
I am an amateur astronomer, and just a few weeks ago when I was out looking at the NEOWISE Comet, I saw too many satellites, and one that flared very brightly.
This wreaks havoc on astronomical observations.
See how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't even bother to check links, did you? Just a smart sounding retort.
Here is an image that tells what the problem is, by Michael Merrifield, professor of astronomy in a UK university [twitter.com].
Here are more details on the original image [facebook.com].
The problem is real, and there is no solution in sight. And what is worse is that we only have a fraction of the satellites up there. It will get 10X worse ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And here are more images from the International Astronomical Union [iau.org].
But please do dismiss it with a clever quip ...
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how long until getting people and things into orbit face a not insignificant risk of colliding with one of the thousands of mini satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this going to stop astrophysics? The chance of one of these crossing a star is low, and there's a database that shows the path and current position of each satellite such that you can predict its position well in advance down to a millisecond. They can turn off the for the microsecond in which satellite blocks the star (which is a tiny point source). How often would it happen? Hardly ever. Wide field surveys, those may have some problems. .. but they too can turn off during transits.
Re: (Score:2)
Billions of people use the internet every day. Why should a few thousand scientists and astronomers outweigh the needs of everyone else?
So, because many people can't work from home... (Score:3)
... we're going to launch 3236 satellites, more than doubling the current tally orbiting our earth?
Well, that sounds feasible /s
I'm fairly certain there's just a little more to this than enabling broadband for remote workers and schoolchildren.
And does the earth really need another 3236 satellites, when debris in orbit is already a massive problem for space exploration?
Re: So, because many people can't work from home.. (Score:1)
I think SpaceX is approved for 42,000 satellites.
Re:So, because many people can't work from home... (Score:4)
As far as the business is concerned, it is safer this way for when things inevitably go wrong. There is already a problem with space debris collisions. There are currently about 15,000 officially tracked 'major' objects in the form of military, communications, scientific, and other satellites, plus more than 20,000 pieces of dangerously large debris, plus another half million tracked pieces of small debris under 30 cm. [nasa.gov]
Adding 42000 new SpaceX satellites for 3x the current number of major objects (that virtually everybody who works in space-related fields is against as a terrifying number at this point), and these proposed 3,200 satellites as a starting prototype, we'll be dramatically increasing the odds of issues. Not only will there be the satellites themselves, but also the debris from the launch deployment and occasional mistakes. At the proposed rate we'll exceed 100K cataloged satellites before a decade is over, and perhaps a few million additional pieces of debris that will need avoidance.
It is only a matter of when (not if) a major collision occurs, and if they're all working independently they can blame each other (reducing the stock damage through confusion), form an investigatory committee (making it look like they're taking action) and point out that the remaining thousands of satellites are still doing their job and working perfectly (to avoid a market drop). Of course the nightmare scenario of collisions radically increasing the debris as objects are destroyed will be downplayed.
If they were all working as a single unit the inevitable collisions wouldn't have anywhere to shift the blame. So less risk to work individually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until China, Russia, EU etc decide they don't want to rely on US networks and want their own mega constellations ala GPS.
You seem to be running behind on current events. All the political entities listed already have their own GPS type systems.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that sounds feasible /s
Why the sarcasm? Starlink has launched over 500 in a few years. You're comparing high cost large special purpose satellites launched one at a time to low cost bulk deployment satellites. There's lots to hate about here, but the technical capability of launching this many satellites is not a limitation.
And does the earth really need another 3236 satellites
No, and IMO it doesn't need Starlink either.
Re: (Score:2)
No, and IMO it doesn't need Starlink either.
It's easy to say that if you've never lived anywhere that the only internet access option is GEO sat.
Re: (Score:3)
The world is full of trade-offs. We should not appeal to a minority who specifically opted in to that trade-off. As you already stated, they have an option. Getting a 100/40 low latency connection when in the city companies aren't even willing to pull cables is an obscene trade-off for wreaking the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
The world is full of trade-offs. We should not appeal to a minority who specifically opted in to that trade-off.
Many of those people are living in those places because they couldn't afford to live anywhere else. You are justifying discrimination against the poor for being poor.
Re: (Score:2)
You are justifying discrimination against the poor for being poor.
Err no. The poor are more than capable of living in the city. Very few people choose to live in the country because they are poor. The poor are likely to live on the outskirts of cities rather than city centres, but run them a fucking cable. I mean didn't you give the ISPs in America $200bn to do just that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many of those people are living in those places because they couldn't afford to live anywhere else. You are justifying discrimination against the poor for being poor.
OK, so how does one recoup a $10B investment selling to people who can't afford to live anywhere but so far away from town they can't get any other internet service?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And does the earth really need another 3236 satellites
"The earth" doesn't have needs. People need things to improve our lives though. Do you understand the concept of doing things to benefit people?
Re: (Score:2)
Moot point.
There's ways to get broadband to rural areas without requiring thousands of satellites - it's just the economic will isn't there, there's no big government push to facilitate this, which is one of the problems with a market that is entirely privatised. It's all about return on investment, vs. improving people's lives.
I don't believe for even a nano-second Amazon is planning this for any altruistic purposes - and the mention of areas without broadband and providing it, is a smoke screen. It's clea
now that is one huge tax writeoff (Score:1)
in the offing.
All traffic using this system will naturally be searched, catalogued and indexed and then used against you in the form of targetted advertising.
If you care about privacy at all, you will stay well away from this pink elephant.
I wonder (Score:3)
The main cost of fibre is digging a hole. (Diggy diggy hole, diggy diggy hole.) Sorry about that, dwarves on the line.
But if there's an existing pipe, crawlers that can pull a fibre from one end to the other have existed for decades.
Ten terabits per fibre could supply 1024 households with gigabit ethernet. Rather better than a satellite cluster.
And I doubt a fibre plus crawler will cost ten billion or even ten million.
Re: (Score:2)
The main cost of fibre is digging a hole. [...] But if there's an existing pipe, crawlers that can pull a fibre from one end to the other have existed for decades.
Great, that's a good plan for places that never have quakes. That rules out the most populous state in the USA for starters.
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking that satellite is still a bit expensive for bandwidth. Then it occurred to me what strategic use this could have; getting around local bureaucratic road blocks and being an infrastructure of last resort. For instance; there are a lot of small municipalities who want to create their own networks -- and they can do it cheaper in rural areas than the ISPs would provide it for -- since there isn't enough competition for rural internet in many cases. Now, Google can provide internet access to thes
FO Jeff (Score:2)
Get stuffed Jeff. I'll never use your spy network in the sky.
E-ven-tu-a-lly (Score:1)
homework? (Score:2)
yep, that was me 30 years ago.
Fiber is cheaper (Score:2)
Rolling out fiber may not be cheap, but once done those lines remain useable for a very long time. Spacecraft in low earth orbit, on the other hand, not only exist in a hostile environment, but also have to deal with atmospheric drag, meaning they won't stay up there indefinitely. Is that period actually long enough to recoup the investment? Perhaps - but that likely requires a substantial subscription fee.
The problem is that people with money living in sufficiently large population centers typically alread
America fuck yeah! (Score:3)
only place where instead of solving the problem (cable provider's state sponsored monopoly) companies drop billions to try to make other billions in profit on top.