4 ms·

It is very far from clear that Starlink is even sustainable. It needs many times more full-price subscribers than can afford it. Expect available data rates to

by ncmncm 4y ago

It is very far from clear that Starlink is even sustainable. It needs many times more full-price subscribers than can afford it. Expect available data rates to plummet as more sign up. And, anywhere with trees around (e.g., here), it doesn't work.

extheat 4y ago
Why not? Be more specific. The tree issue I believe could easily be fixed by broadcasting over a lower frequency that can penetrate more materials easy. Wi-Fi for example works at lower frequencies (2.5Ghz/5Ghz opposed to 12Ghz). This is more of a regulatory constraint. The effect could also minimized with more satellites.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  They would need new regulatory clearance, a new spectrum allocation, and probably all new satellites and terminals to operate in a different frequency band. And by my estimate they need a million subscribers just to pay for replacement satellites as the old ones burn up.
vessenes 4y ago
Sustainability is an interesting metric, probably two ways to look at it: On the “financially sustainable” question: Current public reported runrate is $40+mm/month in revenue = $500mm/yr ARR business on roughly 400,000 customers. Customers are still limited by geo for the reasons you mention - they need more satellite density, so I presume more customers would sign up than have right now, e.g. there is a lot of growth ahead in raw revenues. That should give the current business, as is, at least a $5bn valuation, frankly quite a lot more given the ease with which they can sign up whole countries worth of people. Can starlink add another 400,000 customers for less than $5bn? Absolutely. SpaceX has paid the capex for lift already, and right now it’s a matter of adding satellites and creating antennas and paying (at-cost) lift rates for the cheapest lift known to man. Starlink is going to be a $100bn+ business IMO very quickly, like next 5 years. Per your point, e.g. ‘is it good enough near trees’, or what percent of the earth can Starlink serve? On the one hand, it doesn’t matter a lot because that number is clearly north of 10%, and that makes the starlink broadband market 3 times the size of the US as is — and that ignores the various super-high-value markets like shipping, jets, and elsewhere that will pay 50x a ‘typical’ customer - but, I think the tree/coverage problem in general is a problem of low satellite density right now. My starlink is laid out as best I can near my house, and it’s at like “96% coverage” per the app; every ten minutes or so, it loses connectivity for a bit. That’s because all available satellites are occluded by my trees - with additional satellites, I wouldn’t have that problem. So, I would guess that problem gets less bad over time as they grow.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  By my estimate they need a million subscribers just to pay for launching satellites at the prescribed replacement rate (per 5 years) presuming 19000 units. But I have seen numbers from 9800 to 42000, quoting various people at SpaceX at various times.

by ncmncm 4y ago

extheat 4y ago

Why not? Be more specific. The tree issue I believe could easily be fixed by broadcasting over a lower frequency that can penetrate more materials easy. Wi-Fi for example works at lower frequencies (2.5Ghz/5Ghz opposed to 12Ghz). This is more of a regulatory constraint. The effect could also minimized with more satellites.

ncmncm 4y ago
They would need new regulatory clearance, a new spectrum allocation, and probably all new satellites and terminals to operate in a different frequency band. And by my estimate they need a million subscribers just to pay for replacement satellites as the old ones burn up.

vessenes 4y ago

Sustainability is an interesting metric, probably two ways to look at it: On the “financially sustainable” question: Current public reported runrate is $40+mm/month in revenue = $500mm/yr ARR business on roughly 400,000 customers. Customers are still limited by geo for the reasons you mention - they need more satellite density, so I presume more customers would sign up than have right now, e.g. there is a lot of growth ahead in raw revenues. That should give the current business, as is, at least a $5bn valuation, frankly quite a lot more given the ease with which they can sign up whole countries worth of people. Can starlink add another 400,000 customers for less than $5bn? Absolutely. SpaceX has paid the capex for lift already, and right now it’s a matter of adding satellites and creating antennas and paying (at-cost) lift rates for the cheapest lift known to man. Starlink is going to be a $100bn+ business IMO very quickly, like next 5 years. Per your point, e.g. ‘is it good enough near trees’, or what percent of the earth can Starlink serve? On the one hand, it doesn’t matter a lot because that number is clearly north of 10%, and that makes the starlink broadband market 3 times the size of the US as is — and that ignores the various super-high-value markets like shipping, jets, and elsewhere that will pay 50x a ‘typical’ customer - but, I think the tree/coverage problem in general is a problem of low satellite density right now. My starlink is laid out as best I can near my house, and it’s at like “96% coverage” per the app; every ten minutes or so, it loses connectivity for a bit. That’s because all available satellites are occluded by my trees - with additional satellites, I wouldn’t have that problem. So, I would guess that problem gets less bad over time as they grow.

ncmncm 4y ago
By my estimate they need a million subscribers just to pay for launching satellites at the prescribed replacement rate (per 5 years) presuming 19000 units. But I have seen numbers from 9800 to 42000, quoting various people at SpaceX at various times.