6 ms·

I have a feeling that Starlink will end up being an indirect recipient despite the rejection. Starlink might just end up making deals with the companies that w

I have a feeling that Starlink will end up being an indirect recipient despite the rejection. Starlink might just end up making deals with the companies that won their bids and sell their services/hardware as rebranded solutions. It's probably cheaper for these companies to do this instead of setting up their own infrastructure. Of course the real question is probably whether not following through on their obligations and getting fined is less than the amount they were awarded.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Starlink won in the 100Mbps category. Almost everybody else won in the 1Gbps category, so can't sub out to Starlink. The way the rules were set up, virtually any bid in the gigabit category beat the megabit category, so Starlink only won in the regions nobody bid in.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Does that reflect permanent limitations on Starlink speed? Somehow that's less impressive than it initially seemed...
  - throwaway0asd 4y ago
    Yes. You will likely see a maximum theoretical speed of about 600mbps (like WiFi). In practice it will be much slower, maybe half. It’s noise shooting through atmosphere, so there will be physical limitations.
  - preisschild 4y ago
    Wireless will always be worse than proper fiber. In a perfect world, we would all have active optical fiber from the backbone to our home routers. But 5G and satellite internet is cheaper...
    - bushbaba 4y ago
      Cheaper, in some situations. E.g. starlink would be horrendously expensive to provide service to everyone in downtown SF. But yes. For rural less dense deployments. Long range signal through the air is much cheaper.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        Agreed, problem is with everything SpaceX hard numbers are hard to come buy. So wireless will be cheaper, if satelites are cheaper than 5g and other groind based solutuons is hard to tell.
      - thereddaikon 4y ago
        Cell towers already provide internet to everyone in downtown SF and have for 20 years. Just because you aren't using your PC with it normally doesn't mean it doesn't count. Wireless is always cheaper than wired for an equivalent coverage area. It just requires less physical infrastructure. But in almost every other way it has inferior performance.
    - elif 4y ago
      Could you explain your reasoning? My understanding is that: fiber=c lasers=c fiber=nonlinear lasers=linear So in physics terms, starlink will eventually surpass buried fiber in latency for all situations where fiber routing divergence from linear exceeds the ~1000km orbital round trip.
      - yencabulator 4y ago
        Now compare the noise level in a buried fiber, versus satellite radio transmission. We've been getting a thunderstorm every evening here, and my Starlink slows down a lot -- not sure if it's ionization, the water content of clouds, or what, but it's definitely noticeable. And my previous point-to-point wifi would also essentially stop transferring data when it rained, just in case some Starlink hater thinks it's somehow worse than alternatives.
      - leplen 4y ago
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Starlink will get slower and slower as they get more subscribers. This is already happening. In many places it is well below half as fast as before. More, and more powerful, birds will help some, but if they need to loft 4000 a year their unit cost will matter. I expect they will cap subscriptions offered in some areas, particularly parts of Asia and Africa.
    - SEJeff 4y ago
      True, they aren't upgrading the satellites to the v2 ones that are 10x more powerful in total throughput and number of subscribers. They also aren't launching more satellites (and rockets) every year /s Oh wait, I was wrong on all of those!
      - dan1234 4y ago
        Don’t the next gen satellites require the new Starship for deployment, which is still nowhere near ready for launch (they aim for a first test launch by the end of this year, IIRC)?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        They have launched exactly zero of those "more powerful" satellites. And they are not launching at near the replacement rate for the final constellation. Higher-bandwidth birds just moves the bottleneck.
        Tepix 4y ago
        It appears you are doubting that they will eventually launch their 2.0 satellites with an order of magnitude more bandwidth. It's not like they haven't delivered in the past... The constellation is still growing quickly, they just passed 3000 launched Starlink satellites. By the time they go past the 9.000 satellites or so they should have Starship ready and kick their launch volume into overdrive. Have the 30,000 extra satellites (on top of the 12,000 already approved ones) even been approved yet? > Higher-bandwidth birds just moves the bottleneck. What does that even mean? There is no reason to believe they can't launch enough powerful satellites to reach faster speeds in those rural areas.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Nothing about the current situation is permanent. They're launching more and more satellites and it's only in the eastern half of the US that subscriber rates are growing faster than available capacity.
retrocryptid 4y ago
I think SpaceX would have to deliver downlink terminals at scale before third parties would be interested.
- chrisjc 4y ago
  Definitely, and there are several other areas that need to be scaled up as well. - Completing the gen 1 constellation, as well as getting gen 2 up. - All of the ground stations - Meeting the bandwidth requirements However, there are potentially other ways SpaceX might be able indirectly benefit. Another idea I've heard floating around is that Starlink can be used to link ground stations together. This might be very important in those especially hard to reach locations where laying fiber or establishing line of sight, etc might be too complicated/difficult/expensive. I've heard that this is not really a viable solution with gen 1s though.
gertrunde 4y ago
I'm not sure how viable that would be, given that two of the reasons given for cutting them out would still stand: - Not meeting the bandwidth requirements in practice. - High initial hardware cost. Starlink effectively being judged not able to meet the program requirements would surely rule them out to be used in connection with RDOF in any capacity?
parasense 4y ago
I would imagine a $500 dish, plus installation (which can be done oneself) is much cheaper than digging trenches for fiber or copper lines, or hanging lines on utilities with obnoxious right of ways. For the cost of the dish to be cited as a blocker is mysterious, it's actually cheap compared to the prices quoted to truly rural folks to get fiber pulled to their remote locations. It's a political move against Elon, just like the previous EV TAX incentive where the strings-attached involved having factories with union labor. Sure $500 is costly, but it's better than nothing.... that's the point.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > Sure $500 is costly, but it's better than nothing. It's not better than nothing if you can't afford the $500.
- janef0421 4y ago
  Starlink's primary competition in those areas is likely to be 4G or 5G wireless using a fibre backhaul, not fibre to the network access terminal.
  - chrisjc 4y ago
    Yup, this is another idea I've heard floating around. In some situations where fiber backhaul or line-of-sight is not feasible, Starlink could link their ground stations to these hard to service locations extending the reach of existing backhaul. Then the 4/5G can be set up using a mixture of fiber, line-of-sight or Starlink backhaul, depending on the situation and location. Of course this is another way that Starlink might be able to win some of these contracts. They could set up (or work with a partner) mini 4/5G networks in these rural areas and also use a mixture of fiber and Starlink backhaul. After all, they still need fiber backhaul for their ground stations anyways. Starlink customers end up not needing to buy the current, expensive hardware and just use relatively inexpensive 4/5G modems. I've heard this isn't possible with the gen 1 satellites, so still a theory until the Starship program is off the ground.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Starlink won in the 100Mbps category. Almost everybody else won in the 1Gbps category, so can't sub out to Starlink. The way the rules were set up, virtually any bid in the gigabit category beat the megabit category, so Starlink only won in the regions nobody bid in.

jessaustin 4y ago
Does that reflect permanent limitations on Starlink speed? Somehow that's less impressive than it initially seemed...
- throwaway0asd 4y ago
  Yes. You will likely see a maximum theoretical speed of about 600mbps (like WiFi). In practice it will be much slower, maybe half. It’s noise shooting through atmosphere, so there will be physical limitations.
- preisschild 4y ago
  Wireless will always be worse than proper fiber. In a perfect world, we would all have active optical fiber from the backbone to our home routers. But 5G and satellite internet is cheaper...
  - bushbaba 4y ago
    Cheaper, in some situations. E.g. starlink would be horrendously expensive to provide service to everyone in downtown SF. But yes. For rural less dense deployments. Long range signal through the air is much cheaper.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Agreed, problem is with everything SpaceX hard numbers are hard to come buy. So wireless will be cheaper, if satelites are cheaper than 5g and other groind based solutuons is hard to tell.
    - thereddaikon 4y ago
      Cell towers already provide internet to everyone in downtown SF and have for 20 years. Just because you aren't using your PC with it normally doesn't mean it doesn't count. Wireless is always cheaper than wired for an equivalent coverage area. It just requires less physical infrastructure. But in almost every other way it has inferior performance.
  - elif 4y ago
    Could you explain your reasoning? My understanding is that: fiber=c lasers=c fiber=nonlinear lasers=linear So in physics terms, starlink will eventually surpass buried fiber in latency for all situations where fiber routing divergence from linear exceeds the ~1000km orbital round trip.
    - yencabulator 4y ago
      Now compare the noise level in a buried fiber, versus satellite radio transmission. We've been getting a thunderstorm every evening here, and my Starlink slows down a lot -- not sure if it's ionization, the water content of clouds, or what, but it's definitely noticeable. And my previous point-to-point wifi would also essentially stop transferring data when it rained, just in case some Starlink hater thinks it's somehow worse than alternatives.
    - leplen 4y ago
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Starlink will get slower and slower as they get more subscribers. This is already happening. In many places it is well below half as fast as before. More, and more powerful, birds will help some, but if they need to loft 4000 a year their unit cost will matter. I expect they will cap subscriptions offered in some areas, particularly parts of Asia and Africa.
  - SEJeff 4y ago
    True, they aren't upgrading the satellites to the v2 ones that are 10x more powerful in total throughput and number of subscribers. They also aren't launching more satellites (and rockets) every year /s Oh wait, I was wrong on all of those!
    - dan1234 4y ago
      Don’t the next gen satellites require the new Starship for deployment, which is still nowhere near ready for launch (they aim for a first test launch by the end of this year, IIRC)?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      They have launched exactly zero of those "more powerful" satellites. And they are not launching at near the replacement rate for the final constellation. Higher-bandwidth birds just moves the bottleneck.
      - Tepix 4y ago
        It appears you are doubting that they will eventually launch their 2.0 satellites with an order of magnitude more bandwidth. It's not like they haven't delivered in the past... The constellation is still growing quickly, they just passed 3000 launched Starlink satellites. By the time they go past the 9.000 satellites or so they should have Starship ready and kick their launch volume into overdrive. Have the 30,000 extra satellites (on top of the 12,000 already approved ones) even been approved yet? > Higher-bandwidth birds just moves the bottleneck. What does that even mean? There is no reason to believe they can't launch enough powerful satellites to reach faster speeds in those rural areas.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Nothing about the current situation is permanent. They're launching more and more satellites and it's only in the eastern half of the US that subscriber rates are growing faster than available capacity.

retrocryptid 4y ago

I think SpaceX would have to deliver downlink terminals at scale before third parties would be interested.

chrisjc 4y ago
Definitely, and there are several other areas that need to be scaled up as well. - Completing the gen 1 constellation, as well as getting gen 2 up. - All of the ground stations - Meeting the bandwidth requirements However, there are potentially other ways SpaceX might be able indirectly benefit. Another idea I've heard floating around is that Starlink can be used to link ground stations together. This might be very important in those especially hard to reach locations where laying fiber or establishing line of sight, etc might be too complicated/difficult/expensive. I've heard that this is not really a viable solution with gen 1s though.

gertrunde 4y ago

I'm not sure how viable that would be, given that two of the reasons given for cutting them out would still stand: - Not meeting the bandwidth requirements in practice. - High initial hardware cost. Starlink effectively being judged not able to meet the program requirements would surely rule them out to be used in connection with RDOF in any capacity?

parasense 4y ago

I would imagine a $500 dish, plus installation (which can be done oneself) is much cheaper than digging trenches for fiber or copper lines, or hanging lines on utilities with obnoxious right of ways. For the cost of the dish to be cited as a blocker is mysterious, it's actually cheap compared to the prices quoted to truly rural folks to get fiber pulled to their remote locations. It's a political move against Elon, just like the previous EV TAX incentive where the strings-attached involved having factories with union labor. Sure $500 is costly, but it's better than nothing.... that's the point.

JohnFen 4y ago
> Sure $500 is costly, but it's better than nothing. It's not better than nothing if you can't afford the $500.
janef0421 4y ago
Starlink's primary competition in those areas is likely to be 4G or 5G wireless using a fibre backhaul, not fibre to the network access terminal.
- chrisjc 4y ago
  Yup, this is another idea I've heard floating around. In some situations where fiber backhaul or line-of-sight is not feasible, Starlink could link their ground stations to these hard to service locations extending the reach of existing backhaul. Then the 4/5G can be set up using a mixture of fiber, line-of-sight or Starlink backhaul, depending on the situation and location. Of course this is another way that Starlink might be able to win some of these contracts. They could set up (or work with a partner) mini 4/5G networks in these rural areas and also use a mixture of fiber and Starlink backhaul. After all, they still need fiber backhaul for their ground stations anyways. Starlink customers end up not needing to buy the current, expensive hardware and just use relatively inexpensive 4/5G modems. I've heard this isn't possible with the gen 1 satellites, so still a theory until the Starship program is off the ground.