3 ms·

Iridium's problem was they didn't know who they were marketing service to. It seemed like a good idea before cell service was common and before roaming agreemen

Iridium's problem was they didn't know who they were marketing service to. It seemed like a good idea before cell service was common and before roaming agreements. Those things were in place before the constellation was operational. So they tried to target international business travelers and failed. The restart of Iridium succeeded by selling to the US government. I wonder if Starlink has the same problem, at least in the US. For rural areas, there are wireless ISPs for rural areas here in Colorado where you put an antenna on your roof. You get line of sight to an antenna on a nearby mountain for internet service. I don't see how Starlink can possibly compete with that on a technological or cost basis. It seems like most of the western US could have service like this for many rural markets, if it's not already available.

Robotbeat 9y ago
Regular satellite internet already provides price-per-gigabyte that is competitive (or superior to, in the case of Viasat) with mobile internet services. It's the latency that's lacking. With a LEO (and the then VLEO) constellation, Starlink could actually do better than some mobile internet providers as far as latency. 25-35 milliseconds for Starlink (maybe more in some cases) versus like 80-100 milliseconds for LTE providers (much worse for 4G and terrible for 3G). So I definitely think Starlink could compete in that market. But more as an equal than as the only option.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Latency? No, the problem is price and data caps. If SpaceX is going to make huge returns on starlink, they will have to be price competitive with at least the DSL providers that are in many rural communities. Many of your remote rural areas in the US have at least 6 to 10mbps for ~$60 a month, and that's plenty for most casual users. Even for video streaming.
  - BigJono 9y ago
    Keep in mind that 6-10mbps isn't going to be enough for casual users in a few years. Take gaming for example. Companies are regularly releasing 6-10 GB patches willy nilly because they assume their customers can download them in a matter of minutes/hours. And that's now, when there's still large urban areas in a lot of countries on DSL. Once that DSL is phased out, rural areas are going to need better sattelite options or expensive long stretches of fibre to not fall behind the curve.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Fixed wireless plans also have data caps, and you can get satellite unlimited plans affordably now (with soft caps, but so does most everyone else), at speeds greater than DSL. The main issue for rural satellite access is no longer bandwidth or even data caps but latency. And if you have DSL in rural areas, count yourself lucky.
- planteen 9y ago
  I'm not talking about competing with mobile networks. I'm talking about fixed wireless service.
bparsons 9y ago
What about places with no mountains? What about mobile users?
- planteen 9y ago
  Antennas on towers, like for cell networks. Starlink doesn't work for mobile users, either.

Robotbeat 9y ago

Regular satellite internet already provides price-per-gigabyte that is competitive (or superior to, in the case of Viasat) with mobile internet services. It's the latency that's lacking. With a LEO (and the then VLEO) constellation, Starlink could actually do better than some mobile internet providers as far as latency. 25-35 milliseconds for Starlink (maybe more in some cases) versus like 80-100 milliseconds for LTE providers (much worse for 4G and terrible for 3G). So I definitely think Starlink could compete in that market. But more as an equal than as the only option.

jjeaff 9y ago
Latency? No, the problem is price and data caps. If SpaceX is going to make huge returns on starlink, they will have to be price competitive with at least the DSL providers that are in many rural communities. Many of your remote rural areas in the US have at least 6 to 10mbps for ~$60 a month, and that's plenty for most casual users. Even for video streaming.
- BigJono 9y ago
  Keep in mind that 6-10mbps isn't going to be enough for casual users in a few years. Take gaming for example. Companies are regularly releasing 6-10 GB patches willy nilly because they assume their customers can download them in a matter of minutes/hours. And that's now, when there's still large urban areas in a lot of countries on DSL. Once that DSL is phased out, rural areas are going to need better sattelite options or expensive long stretches of fibre to not fall behind the curve.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Fixed wireless plans also have data caps, and you can get satellite unlimited plans affordably now (with soft caps, but so does most everyone else), at speeds greater than DSL. The main issue for rural satellite access is no longer bandwidth or even data caps but latency. And if you have DSL in rural areas, count yourself lucky.
planteen 9y ago
I'm not talking about competing with mobile networks. I'm talking about fixed wireless service.

bparsons 9y ago

What about places with no mountains? What about mobile users?

planteen 9y ago
Antennas on towers, like for cell networks. Starlink doesn't work for mobile users, either.