3 ms·

I don't think that latency is a decisive factor for most people / networks (as long as its below certain threshold). Most people will tell you it's a price-base

I don't think that latency is a decisive factor for most people / networks (as long as its below certain threshold). Most people will tell you it's a price-based decision. On the other hand, roughly 85% of the population worldwide is already covered by 3G or 4G networks. I am not sure that space will be able to offer lower prices for backhaul if the infrastructure is already there. A fiber PoP / tower has much lower OPEX than launching, operating a constellation of satellites.

xoa 7y ago
>On the other hand, roughly 85% of the population worldwide is already covered by 3G or 4G networks. First, and less importantly, source. Because phone companies love to toss out coverage numbers that are pure, unadulterated bullshit. But second that's less important because 3G and 4G are both completely uncompetitive for broadband. LTE is basically the minimum there. And awful data caps and congestion remain a serious issue all over the place. >A fiber PoP / tower has much lower OPEX than launching, operating a constellation of satellites. Is it? I mean, seriously. A lot of SpaceX's plans are based on estimated launch costs via Super Heavy, so necessarily somewhat speculative. But the target is sub-$100/kg, and at least in terms of fundamentals (like cost of fuel, Raptor effectiveness, estimated cadence) that doesn't look ridiculous. Each Starlink satellite apparently has a mass over around 230 kg. Add a bit of extra mass for some bigger sats in the mix, double the launch cost to be a bit more conservative, and we're still talking a launch cost per satellite of well under $60k a piece. They necessarily have everything needed to operate their design lifetime, because there is no maintenance that can be done on them. They're operating low enough that solar weather shouldn't be too constant a concern, and of course will never face OPEX costs like vegetation clearing or weather damage or corrosion or the like. Also doesn't face NIMBY tower politics either. Is it actually more expensive then running fiber and building/maintaining a tower? For very high density locations probably, but there's a pretty sizable population in the US alone for whom it seems on napkin math it could be very competitive.
- portillo 7y ago
  For the source, see [1]. "The coverage gap– those living outside of areas covered by mobile broadband networks4–continues to decrease below the 1 billion threshold and now stands at 750 million people. Since 2014 the gap has more than halved, from 24% to 10% of the global population." It's actually 90% covered by 3G and 4G. Regarding the costs, I am not sure where your 60k/sat is coming form. Currently, launch costs for SpaceX are in the millions (60 commercially, let's say 30 millions cost), and they are launching 60 satellites at a time, so at least 500k/sat. I am not sure that they will be able to cut the launch costs by a factor of 10, even considering resusability, larger launch capacity, etc, etc. [1] https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GSMA-State-of-Mobile-Internet-Connectivity-Report-2019.pdf https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads...
  - caconym_ 7y ago
    It is completely clear where the 60k number is coming from. Whether you agree with it or not (he did qualify it as speculative) if you don't know where it came from then you must have replied to his post without actually reading it.
    - portillo 7y ago
      You are right, maybe I should have said where the sub-100$/kg comes from. In the first Starlink launch, with 60 satellites of ~230 kg each, the cost of launch was ~$30M (considering that the "retail price" of a Falcon 9 launch is $60M, I guess that half the cost if a good assumption). Thus, the cost per kg was $30M / (60 * 230 kg) ~ $2,000/kg. I just don't see how they are going to achieve a x10 reduction in cost, even considering reusability, larger masses, etc, etc.
      - caconym_ 7y ago
        Yeah, I guess we'll see. Economies of scale and complete many-times reusability of both stages sound like plausible multipliers to me, but it's all speculation until the thing flies a few times and they get a mature production line up and running.
smachiz 7y ago
For rural coverage, fiber builds are _very_ expensive. For cities, you're right - 5G + high frequency wavelengths is probably cheaper - but not by that much assuming SpaceX's numbers are accurate. The problem is 85% of the population is absolutely not covered by high frequency spectrum - tower/DAS coverage is optimized for sub 1Ghz bands. We would need billions upon billions of additional tower builds to deliver an adequate experience on spectrum that basically requires line of sight. Even in cities. Some of that has been invested already (e.g. VZ can reuse their Fios plant in many locations), but certainly not everywhere. Satellites may very well be more cost effective.
ctdonath 7y ago
roughly 85% of the population worldwide is already covered by 3G or 4G networks. Consider the reverse. As internet access becomes a staple service for modern living, one’s options for location are restricted to where internet is available: 3G coverage at a barely functional minimum. Want to solve the housing crisis? poverty? Bring at least LTE performance (100Mbs better) everywhere at a competitive flat rate. Today, many options are untenable for want of a decent data rate.

xoa 7y ago

>On the other hand, roughly 85% of the population worldwide is already covered by 3G or 4G networks. First, and less importantly, source. Because phone companies love to toss out coverage numbers that are pure, unadulterated bullshit. But second that's less important because 3G and 4G are both completely uncompetitive for broadband. LTE is basically the minimum there. And awful data caps and congestion remain a serious issue all over the place. >A fiber PoP / tower has much lower OPEX than launching, operating a constellation of satellites. Is it? I mean, seriously. A lot of SpaceX's plans are based on estimated launch costs via Super Heavy, so necessarily somewhat speculative. But the target is sub-$100/kg, and at least in terms of fundamentals (like cost of fuel, Raptor effectiveness, estimated cadence) that doesn't look ridiculous. Each Starlink satellite apparently has a mass over around 230 kg. Add a bit of extra mass for some bigger sats in the mix, double the launch cost to be a bit more conservative, and we're still talking a launch cost per satellite of well under $60k a piece. They necessarily have everything needed to operate their design lifetime, because there is no maintenance that can be done on them. They're operating low enough that solar weather shouldn't be too constant a concern, and of course will never face OPEX costs like vegetation clearing or weather damage or corrosion or the like. Also doesn't face NIMBY tower politics either. Is it actually more expensive then running fiber and building/maintaining a tower? For very high density locations probably, but there's a pretty sizable population in the US alone for whom it seems on napkin math it could be very competitive.

portillo 7y ago
For the source, see [1]. "The coverage gap– those living outside of areas covered by mobile broadband networks4–continues to decrease below the 1 billion threshold and now stands at 750 million people. Since 2014 the gap has more than halved, from 24% to 10% of the global population." It's actually 90% covered by 3G and 4G. Regarding the costs, I am not sure where your 60k/sat is coming form. Currently, launch costs for SpaceX are in the millions (60 commercially, let's say 30 millions cost), and they are launching 60 satellites at a time, so at least 500k/sat. I am not sure that they will be able to cut the launch costs by a factor of 10, even considering resusability, larger launch capacity, etc, etc. [1] https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GSMA-State-of-Mobile-Internet-Connectivity-Report-2019.pdf https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads...
- caconym_ 7y ago
  It is completely clear where the 60k number is coming from. Whether you agree with it or not (he did qualify it as speculative) if you don't know where it came from then you must have replied to his post without actually reading it.
  - portillo 7y ago
    You are right, maybe I should have said where the sub-100$/kg comes from. In the first Starlink launch, with 60 satellites of ~230 kg each, the cost of launch was ~$30M (considering that the "retail price" of a Falcon 9 launch is $60M, I guess that half the cost if a good assumption). Thus, the cost per kg was $30M / (60 * 230 kg) ~ $2,000/kg. I just don't see how they are going to achieve a x10 reduction in cost, even considering reusability, larger masses, etc, etc.
    - caconym_ 7y ago
      Yeah, I guess we'll see. Economies of scale and complete many-times reusability of both stages sound like plausible multipliers to me, but it's all speculation until the thing flies a few times and they get a mature production line up and running.

smachiz 7y ago

For rural coverage, fiber builds are _very_ expensive. For cities, you're right - 5G + high frequency wavelengths is probably cheaper - but not by that much assuming SpaceX's numbers are accurate. The problem is 85% of the population is absolutely not covered by high frequency spectrum - tower/DAS coverage is optimized for sub 1Ghz bands. We would need billions upon billions of additional tower builds to deliver an adequate experience on spectrum that basically requires line of sight. Even in cities. Some of that has been invested already (e.g. VZ can reuse their Fios plant in many locations), but certainly not everywhere. Satellites may very well be more cost effective.

ctdonath 7y ago

roughly 85% of the population worldwide is already covered by 3G or 4G networks. Consider the reverse. As internet access becomes a staple service for modern living, one’s options for location are restricted to where internet is available: 3G coverage at a barely functional minimum. Want to solve the housing crisis? poverty? Bring at least LTE performance (100Mbs better) everywhere at a competitive flat rate. Today, many options are untenable for want of a decent data rate.