5 ms·

> So they’re just creating a vlan named “starshield” and then depositing $70M in the checking account? It's always difficult to price products and services wit

> So they’re just creating a vlan named “starshield” and then depositing $70M in the checking account? It's always difficult to price products and services with high fixed costs and low marginal costs (like bridges). The best estimates I've seen are that Starlink costs $1B+ to operate. It sounds like they're finally profitable (at least on an ongoing basis); we'll see what happens when Kuiper finally comes online.

dotnet00 3y ago
I'd say Kuiper is still firmly an "if" right now considering how long they have left to put up the constellation and the cost+potential flight rate of Vulcan and New Glenn. They have a much higher bar to clear in terms of costs before they can be profitable, and especially with the lawsuit about that, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they decide to cut their losses and settle for a smaller constellation and restricted user base like OneWeb.
- nordsieck 3y ago
  > I'd say Kuiper is still firmly an "if" right now considering how long they have left to put up the constellation and the cost+potential flight rate of Vulcan and New Glenn. I think there is pretty broad consensus that they won't make their deadline. But I also see pretty broad consensus that, if they make a strong effort, that a variance is pretty easy to get. I'm not really in the industry, so I don't really know what to believe. > They have a much higher bar to clear in terms of costs before they can be profitable, and especially with the lawsuit about that, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they decide to cut their losses and settle for a smaller constellation and restricted user base like OneWeb. I always saw Kuiper as a strategic move by Amazon to attack SpaceX. IMO, they'd probably scrap the whole thing rather than settle for a OneWeb sized constellation. More broadly, I think satellite internet is a natural monopoly business. There's no reason for customers to go with the 2nd best service[1], so even though it costs more to launch the best constellation, it ends up being a better investment. Because of this, I don't really see OneWeb or Telesat's upcoming Lightning LEO constellation surviving longterm. There's just no good reason for their existing customers to be loyal to them. And the cost to maintain their constellations will be ongoing. --- 1. Obviously globally available bandwidth affects this, so there's probably room in the market right now for multiple providers. But as companies continue to invest revenue into improving their capacity, those conditions may go away. At which point, my original point stands.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    While overall I agree with your points, the reason I think they might settle with a smaller constellation is that they could sell it as an AWS service with direct integration with their data centers. For example, as a lower latency low bandwidth interlink between continents. It would be similar to how Starlink integrates with the networking at Google datacenters, but made explicit as an AWS service.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Price would be definitely something that could persuade me to take the number 2 service
    - nordsieck 3y ago
      > Price would be definitely something that could persuade me to take the number 2 service Sure. I guess what I was trying to say and didn't really do a good job of it is that the best network, if they price their service properly, should undercut everyone else. That's basically what it means to be the best, that they can offer global bandwidth for less money than anyone else.

dotnet00 3y ago

I'd say Kuiper is still firmly an "if" right now considering how long they have left to put up the constellation and the cost+potential flight rate of Vulcan and New Glenn. They have a much higher bar to clear in terms of costs before they can be profitable, and especially with the lawsuit about that, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they decide to cut their losses and settle for a smaller constellation and restricted user base like OneWeb.

nordsieck 3y ago
> I'd say Kuiper is still firmly an "if" right now considering how long they have left to put up the constellation and the cost+potential flight rate of Vulcan and New Glenn. I think there is pretty broad consensus that they won't make their deadline. But I also see pretty broad consensus that, if they make a strong effort, that a variance is pretty easy to get. I'm not really in the industry, so I don't really know what to believe. > They have a much higher bar to clear in terms of costs before they can be profitable, and especially with the lawsuit about that, I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they decide to cut their losses and settle for a smaller constellation and restricted user base like OneWeb. I always saw Kuiper as a strategic move by Amazon to attack SpaceX. IMO, they'd probably scrap the whole thing rather than settle for a OneWeb sized constellation. More broadly, I think satellite internet is a natural monopoly business. There's no reason for customers to go with the 2nd best service[1], so even though it costs more to launch the best constellation, it ends up being a better investment. Because of this, I don't really see OneWeb or Telesat's upcoming Lightning LEO constellation surviving longterm. There's just no good reason for their existing customers to be loyal to them. And the cost to maintain their constellations will be ongoing. --- 1. Obviously globally available bandwidth affects this, so there's probably room in the market right now for multiple providers. But as companies continue to invest revenue into improving their capacity, those conditions may go away. At which point, my original point stands.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  While overall I agree with your points, the reason I think they might settle with a smaller constellation is that they could sell it as an AWS service with direct integration with their data centers. For example, as a lower latency low bandwidth interlink between continents. It would be similar to how Starlink integrates with the networking at Google datacenters, but made explicit as an AWS service.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Price would be definitely something that could persuade me to take the number 2 service
  - nordsieck 3y ago
    > Price would be definitely something that could persuade me to take the number 2 service Sure. I guess what I was trying to say and didn't really do a good job of it is that the best network, if they price their service properly, should undercut everyone else. That's basically what it means to be the best, that they can offer global bandwidth for less money than anyone else.