4 ms·

It is very hard for me to imagine space-based internet ever being able to be competitive financially with an earth-based option outside of special circumstances

It is very hard for me to imagine space-based internet ever being able to be competitive financially with an earth-based option outside of special circumstances.

toast0 2y ago
Running an LEO satellite constellation is very expensive. But installing and maintaining a wire to everyone's house is also very expensive. IMHO, it's a question of capacity and acceptable service levels. Starlink monthly pricing is higher than my DSL and nearby cable as well as my local muni fiber. But it's not so much higher as to rule it out. And the install fee is a lot lower than muni fiber. It's going to take a long time to get ROI on my installation cost for the muni fiber if I compare monthly cost to Starlink. Muni fiber service level should be much better, but Starlink service would probably have been good enough.
- deepsquirrelnet 2y ago
  Security in LEO will eclipse the cost of everything else. Right now it’s free. When it becomes critical infrastructure, it has to be protected.
  - toast0 2y ago
    Security in outside plant isn't free either. We're a long way away from widespread outages because someone thought they could get high with the proceeds of a stolen satellite, but there are lots of disruptions when people take down pole mounted fiber because they thought it would be worth something.
- jtbayly 2y ago
  But wires aren’t the only terrestrial option. I can’t fathom how many satellites it would take to support all the internet users as a monopoly.
  - toast0 2y ago
    Fair enough; I didn't read your comment very closely, I guess. Terrestrial radio seems a lot less expensive in areas with population. When you get out beyond rural and more into wilderness, satellite is likely cost competitive, because having a LEO constellation cover the wilderness comes at no additional cost, and having radio coverage in the wilderness involves setting up base stations with low usage --- you can do some things with longer range / larger cells, but it depends on terrain and maybe protocol limits? GSM had a concept of 'timing advance' that effectively limited the maximum cell size, but I don't know if that's a limitation if you're not using TDMA.

It is very hard for me to imagine space-based internet ever being able to be competitive financially with an earth-based option outside of special circumstances.

toast0 2y ago

Running an LEO satellite constellation is very expensive. But installing and maintaining a wire to everyone's house is also very expensive. IMHO, it's a question of capacity and acceptable service levels. Starlink monthly pricing is higher than my DSL and nearby cable as well as my local muni fiber. But it's not so much higher as to rule it out. And the install fee is a lot lower than muni fiber. It's going to take a long time to get ROI on my installation cost for the muni fiber if I compare monthly cost to Starlink. Muni fiber service level should be much better, but Starlink service would probably have been good enough.

deepsquirrelnet 2y ago
Security in LEO will eclipse the cost of everything else. Right now it’s free. When it becomes critical infrastructure, it has to be protected.
- toast0 2y ago
  Security in outside plant isn't free either. We're a long way away from widespread outages because someone thought they could get high with the proceeds of a stolen satellite, but there are lots of disruptions when people take down pole mounted fiber because they thought it would be worth something.
jtbayly 2y ago
But wires aren’t the only terrestrial option. I can’t fathom how many satellites it would take to support all the internet users as a monopoly.
- toast0 2y ago
  Fair enough; I didn't read your comment very closely, I guess. Terrestrial radio seems a lot less expensive in areas with population. When you get out beyond rural and more into wilderness, satellite is likely cost competitive, because having a LEO constellation cover the wilderness comes at no additional cost, and having radio coverage in the wilderness involves setting up base stations with low usage --- you can do some things with longer range / larger cells, but it depends on terrain and maybe protocol limits? GSM had a concept of 'timing advance' that effectively limited the maximum cell size, but I don't know if that's a limitation if you're not using TDMA.