5 ms·

I'm in the wireless broadband industry, and no one I know thinks this space-based internet is a good idea. The rest of the world is going to small cells and th

I'm in the wireless broadband industry, and no one I know thinks this space-based internet is a good idea. The rest of the world is going to small cells and they are going for a cell the size of a large city? I'm a big fan of SpaceX, I'd prefer they stick to flying tourists and satellites. Railroads and airplanes got their start giving joyrides, why not do the same with space.

vincentleeuwen 9y ago
I don't think SpaceX ever flew tourists. That would be Virgin Galactic.
- Rebelgecko 9y ago
  I believe they took deposits to fly people around the moon this year but ended up canceling those plans
  - regnerba 9y ago
    Sort of. They did take a deposit but that had been based on the assumption that the Falcon Heavy would do the flight with a Crew Dragon. Those plans have been cancelled as SpaceX no longer plans to use the FH for human flights to the moon (or anywhere, even orbit). Instead they plan on using the BFR for that. I don't know what happens with that deposit that was made. Chances are it rolls over into getting whoever it was a flight on the BFR to the moon.
- nickik 9y ago
  Neither of them did, both plan to.
sunstone 9y ago
My understanding is that Google has already invested $1bn in the this tech with SpaceX. SpaceX's current $500m raise is for deploying this tech. You may be aware that Google has a had a bit of trouble with its ISP roll out using small cells and fibre. This system would allow direct last mile access. However this approach only makes financial sense for SpaceX because of it's much cheaper access to space so it's not surprising that "no one else in the industry" thinks it's a good idea. It's not a good idea for them.
- aquadrop 9y ago
  Damn, I'd prefer Google stay out of this. Well, at least it's not Facebook...
tbabb 9y ago
If I were them, I would do both with the same stone: Customers get terrestrial repeaters with their satellite antennas, and provide service to the local neighborhood. If you are in the vicinity of someone with a roof box, you connect to/buy from them. If not, you invest in a roof box and sell internet back to "the grid", rather analogous to roof solar. Basically like treating the satellite as backhaul for small cells, and also having the customer BE the small cell. No fiber laying or city government permits or telephone pole work or anything.
- elihu 9y ago
  That might be a pretty good option just from a protocol overhead standpoint. Maybe there are good technical solutions to this that I don't know about, but I'm inclined to believe that a satellite could communicate more efficiently with a handful of high-throughput ground stations at once than it could hundreds or thousands of smaller ground stations that are continually connecting and disconnecting as they gain or lose line-of-sight. That's a lot of control messages to deal with.
elihu 9y ago
It might not be a good way to provide Internet to urban centers, but for those who live in low-population-density areas it could be a compelling option (i.e. it beats dial-up).
adwn 9y ago
> I'm in the wireless broadband industry, and no one I know thinks this space-based internet is a good idea. The rest of the world is going to small cells and they are going for a cell the size of a large city? The funny thing is, 5 years ago you could have said: "I'm in the space launch industry, and no one I know thinks those reusable rockets are a good idea. The rest of the world is eking out every last bit of performance, and they are going to sacrifice payload capacity for this?" The established industry does not always know the best way forward.
virgilp 9y ago
Nobody in the mobile phone industry thought that iPhone was a good idea for Apple (no keyboard = hard to do email, no business market; only one operator, with bad network that was inefficiently used by iPhone; too expensive for regular consumers - the competition is fierce, many others tried to get in and failed). I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying you have no way of knowing whether you're wrong or not. Maybe something changed, something that will seem obvious in hindsight, and that makes all the difference in the world. As others said - the fact that SpaceX can launch those satellites much cheaper than anybody ever could, historically, may be the thing that changes the whole equation. Or maybe not - we'll see... but just because you are in the industry, that doesn't make it any more likely that you're right about this.
buvanshak 9y ago
This startup is just another vaporware to continue funding SpaceX. The money invested in it will ultimately end up in Spacex as it will be used to send all these satellites into the orbit. So Spacex just won a client for a long time, and that too at the cost of investors money.. In other words, and elaborate Pyramid scheme...
dzdt 9y ago
I don't see any reason they couldn't fly more satellites if their customer base justifies it. The problem they have relative to ground-based systems is the satellites are not stationary. So to increase coverage density on one spot, they have to increase density for everywhere else on the same orbit.
lorenzhs 9y ago
First up, let me be clear that wireless technology is utter black magic to me. SpaceX's satellite internet service may or may not work in densely populated areas, I have no idea. But what if their target market (at least for the beginning) were under-served rural areas? There are lots of villages and small towns in industrialised countries where the highest speed you can currently get is in the low single-digit MBit/s. Loads of people currently have no good internet access options but could afford SpaceX's service (based on what's publicly known about it, the estimates I've seen are that it will likely cost something between $50 and $100 per month). It would also be extremely interesting to businesses in such areas (Germany has quite a few of these, for example). I think there might just be enough potential customers in sparsely populated areas to make this a profitable service. They can also provide backhaul for cell phone services in such areas. Oh, and if they can get it working on ships (small sailing yachts, pleasure cruises, and commercial shipping could all profit from this) and airplanes, that might be another nice market to capture.
jccooper 9y ago
They're not a cellular network; their base stations are not innumerable tiny mobile devices. They'll be small but sizable permanent mounts, so they can control geographic density if needed. It's a different beast so the same pressures don't apply. Heck, it's not even certain to be direct-to-consumer. Starlink makes for a really nice backhaul system, which could be really handy to feed a bunch of smaller terrestrial cells, for example.
7952 9y ago
I wonder if talking about a "cell" is really an appropriate comparison. The Spacex technology is more an alternative to microwave fixed links and fibre backhaul. Just without any restrictions imposed by terrain, remoteness or time constraints. But the most important thing will be the cost of the recieving equipment. That will determine if it is affordable for domestic use or just in commercial or industrial applications.

vincentleeuwen 9y ago

I don't think SpaceX ever flew tourists. That would be Virgin Galactic.

Rebelgecko 9y ago
I believe they took deposits to fly people around the moon this year but ended up canceling those plans
- regnerba 9y ago
  Sort of. They did take a deposit but that had been based on the assumption that the Falcon Heavy would do the flight with a Crew Dragon. Those plans have been cancelled as SpaceX no longer plans to use the FH for human flights to the moon (or anywhere, even orbit). Instead they plan on using the BFR for that. I don't know what happens with that deposit that was made. Chances are it rolls over into getting whoever it was a flight on the BFR to the moon.
nickik 9y ago
Neither of them did, both plan to.

sunstone 9y ago

My understanding is that Google has already invested $1bn in the this tech with SpaceX. SpaceX's current $500m raise is for deploying this tech. You may be aware that Google has a had a bit of trouble with its ISP roll out using small cells and fibre. This system would allow direct last mile access. However this approach only makes financial sense for SpaceX because of it's much cheaper access to space so it's not surprising that "no one else in the industry" thinks it's a good idea. It's not a good idea for them.

aquadrop 9y ago
Damn, I'd prefer Google stay out of this. Well, at least it's not Facebook...

tbabb 9y ago

If I were them, I would do both with the same stone: Customers get terrestrial repeaters with their satellite antennas, and provide service to the local neighborhood. If you are in the vicinity of someone with a roof box, you connect to/buy from them. If not, you invest in a roof box and sell internet back to "the grid", rather analogous to roof solar. Basically like treating the satellite as backhaul for small cells, and also having the customer BE the small cell. No fiber laying or city government permits or telephone pole work or anything.

elihu 9y ago
That might be a pretty good option just from a protocol overhead standpoint. Maybe there are good technical solutions to this that I don't know about, but I'm inclined to believe that a satellite could communicate more efficiently with a handful of high-throughput ground stations at once than it could hundreds or thousands of smaller ground stations that are continually connecting and disconnecting as they gain or lose line-of-sight. That's a lot of control messages to deal with.

elihu 9y ago

It might not be a good way to provide Internet to urban centers, but for those who live in low-population-density areas it could be a compelling option (i.e. it beats dial-up).

adwn 9y ago

> I'm in the wireless broadband industry, and no one I know thinks this space-based internet is a good idea. The rest of the world is going to small cells and they are going for a cell the size of a large city? The funny thing is, 5 years ago you could have said: "I'm in the space launch industry, and no one I know thinks those reusable rockets are a good idea. The rest of the world is eking out every last bit of performance, and they are going to sacrifice payload capacity for this?" The established industry does not always know the best way forward.

virgilp 9y ago

Nobody in the mobile phone industry thought that iPhone was a good idea for Apple (no keyboard = hard to do email, no business market; only one operator, with bad network that was inefficiently used by iPhone; too expensive for regular consumers - the competition is fierce, many others tried to get in and failed). I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying you have no way of knowing whether you're wrong or not. Maybe something changed, something that will seem obvious in hindsight, and that makes all the difference in the world. As others said - the fact that SpaceX can launch those satellites much cheaper than anybody ever could, historically, may be the thing that changes the whole equation. Or maybe not - we'll see... but just because you are in the industry, that doesn't make it any more likely that you're right about this.

buvanshak 9y ago

This startup is just another vaporware to continue funding SpaceX. The money invested in it will ultimately end up in Spacex as it will be used to send all these satellites into the orbit. So Spacex just won a client for a long time, and that too at the cost of investors money.. In other words, and elaborate Pyramid scheme...

dzdt 9y ago

I don't see any reason they couldn't fly more satellites if their customer base justifies it. The problem they have relative to ground-based systems is the satellites are not stationary. So to increase coverage density on one spot, they have to increase density for everywhere else on the same orbit.

lorenzhs 9y ago

First up, let me be clear that wireless technology is utter black magic to me. SpaceX's satellite internet service may or may not work in densely populated areas, I have no idea. But what if their target market (at least for the beginning) were under-served rural areas? There are lots of villages and small towns in industrialised countries where the highest speed you can currently get is in the low single-digit MBit/s. Loads of people currently have no good internet access options but could afford SpaceX's service (based on what's publicly known about it, the estimates I've seen are that it will likely cost something between $50 and $100 per month). It would also be extremely interesting to businesses in such areas (Germany has quite a few of these, for example). I think there might just be enough potential customers in sparsely populated areas to make this a profitable service. They can also provide backhaul for cell phone services in such areas. Oh, and if they can get it working on ships (small sailing yachts, pleasure cruises, and commercial shipping could all profit from this) and airplanes, that might be another nice market to capture.

jccooper 9y ago

They're not a cellular network; their base stations are not innumerable tiny mobile devices. They'll be small but sizable permanent mounts, so they can control geographic density if needed. It's a different beast so the same pressures don't apply. Heck, it's not even certain to be direct-to-consumer. Starlink makes for a really nice backhaul system, which could be really handy to feed a bunch of smaller terrestrial cells, for example.

7952 9y ago

I wonder if talking about a "cell" is really an appropriate comparison. The Spacex technology is more an alternative to microwave fixed links and fibre backhaul. Just without any restrictions imposed by terrain, remoteness or time constraints. But the most important thing will be the cost of the recieving equipment. That will determine if it is affordable for domestic use or just in commercial or industrial applications.