5 ms·

I don't see how replacing mobile carriers with space based infrastructure is physically possible.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
tristanj 7mo ago
It's not meant to replace terrestrial networks, it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover. Terrestrial cellular towers cost between $150k to $500k per tower, and are not economically feasible in less populated areas. There are also many dead-zones in mountainous regions, since cell signals are blocked by mountains. Starlink Mobile supplements this, it's simply cheaper for mobile providers to partner with them than do their own buildout. Currently only 5% of the earth's surface is covered by cellular signals. Starlink will push that up to 85+%, and is backward compatible with existing cellphones.
- panick21_ 7mo ago
  Well if you make the argument that it will replace terrestrial networks and that's why its worth X trillion $ then yes, you do actually need to cover the 1% of earth surface where the waste majority of people actually spend most of their time. The question is not if its a good business, the question if its a 2 trillion $ business, and if you only cover the 95% of earth without coverage. That more like a couple 100 billion $ business at best.
  - tristanj 7mo ago
    I never said it would replace terrestrial networks... you invented that claim yourself and are responding to a strawman. Starlink mobile is for rural areas, and the other 90% of the planet that's not well served by traditional terrestrial networks. And 40% of earth's population live in rural areas, so there is a large market for this kind of service.
    - newguytony 7mo ago
      In regions like Nigeria or the Philippines, Starlink costs over 100% of the average monthly income. The individual addressable rural market really is closer to 1% than 40%.
      - tristanj 7mo ago
        Starlink Mobile != Starlink You're talking about the wrong product. I am talking about Starlink mobile, their direct-to-cellphone mobile data offering, not Starlink internet...
        newguytony 7mo ago
        Starlink Mobile actually reinforces my point. Most don't have phones capable of using it. And even at that, it’s a low-bandwidth designed for SMS and emergency data, not a primary ISP replacement. Of course, you can believe what it could be... Much like all of Elons products, they are always coming
    - thfuran 7mo ago
      [dead]
    - muskstinks 7mo ago
      If its a big market, SpaceX will have to share this sooner than later as plenty of others are working on this. Nonetheless even in rural areas there is A LOT of coverage. And starlink has one sig issue: its bandwidth. For them to increase bandwdith they need to scale which is expensive and they have to reinvest every 5 years in replacing these satelites. A fiber layed down can work for a lot longer and can be replaced a lot easier.
- triceratops 7mo ago
  > it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover In a nutshell: they're serving a market that has less money to spend using more expensive tech than the current industry leaders. Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't scream "massive profit".
  - hattmall 7mo ago
    I think Airplanes are going to be pretty profitable. They are sort of running a market cornering operation there. But, there will be competition eventually. Starlink is way faster than the alternatives so most airlines have switched and Starlink has rapidly increased their prices for aviation. Idk if it's enough though, they are definitely running lots of promos for home customers.
    - raw_anon_1111 7mo ago
      Delta’s ViaSat based Wireless is fine. The latency is hire. But it really isn’t a competitive disadvantage.
      - telotortium 7mo ago
        If Starlink becomes common enough on flights, I absolutely believe it will be a competitive disadvantage.
        8note 7mo ago
        would you choose a flight that's $200 more expensive because it has starlink?
        koolba 7mo ago
        Maybe not $200, but $20-$50 for a cross country flight for sure.
        7mo ago
- tim-- 7mo ago
  > Terrestrial cellular towers cost between $150k to $500k per tower I'd be interested to find out exactly where this cost exists. I would expect the majority of the cost (especially in rural/mountainous areas) to be more with power and backhaul, rather than the physical radio gear. Because it's rural, you should be able to easily just use coverage bands (ie 850 MHz or 900 MHz) with relatively high transmission power. This would easily be able to cover 300 km2. Because of the higher transmission power, and the fact that the tower would be in the middle of nowhere, wouldn't the OPEX be higher, with smaller numbers for CAPEX?
  - laughing_man 7mo ago
    A lot of the cost is regulatory. I used to work at a mobile provider, and it took months to get permission from all the various government agencies before we could actually start building. Even if the tower is in BFE, you still have to get all your plots to the FCC, you need EPA signoff for batteries and fuel tanks and such. Plus there's always state and local permits of various kinds. We had a custom workflow application just to track all of that and there were dozens of steps. Cell towers aren't very expensive on an ongoing basis, but every few years you're rolling out the next big technology (we went from analog to 1x to 3g to LTE while I was there) and it's a headache.
- muskstinks 7mo ago
  Every city has phone lines. A phone line allows you to replace it with fiber. A fiber and a tower has long loves. A star link server has 5 years. Setting up a terrestrial network is already done and it was relativly easy because you build it up from most profitable to lowest profitable. Star link only serves 9/10 Million people right now with already 10k satelites whith only a lifetime of 5 years and if this market is profitable, the margins will go down sign due to other competitors. Which are already working on it.
x0x0 7mo ago
It doesn't not seem like anything approaching a lucrative business. TAM: How big is the market for high speed internet that can pay $1200+/year and isn't already well-served by comcast/at&t/etc? And of course, this is all with finite spectrum too. So you can't serve the major cities. No doubt there exist buyers. But rural Montana doesn't have that many households. Add that 5 year replacement cycle and Musk's Trump alignment that has Europe building their own for security reasons.
- ericd 7mo ago
  > well-served by comcast/at&t/etc These are US telecoms, the satellites blanket the entire Earth at all times. Lower ARPU, but still. Also, it seems like they're swallowing a large percentage of flight/cruise/military internet. And direct-to-cell data coverage of the entire Earth.
pnw 7mo ago
5G Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) is already part of the 5G standard. It's not a replacement for terrestrial carriers, it's an expansion that enables devices to be always connected and select the appropriate terrestrial vs satellite connection transparently. ~75% of the land mass on Earth has no cell coverage, ~90% if you include the oceans. It's the same transition in theory that we had from landlines to cell towers.
- panick21_ 7mo ago
  Great, but the overwhelming majority of money is made from the place people actually live. Those places are called cities. Only about a few % of earth are built on, and even among those the top 1% is where most people live. Don't get me wrong, that fucking great business, but its not 'replacing terrestrial ISP' level great.
  - pnw 7mo ago
    They said the same thing about cell phones vs landlines back in the day. Based on Starlink's revenue doubling year on year, and a six fold increase since 2022, I don't think anyone really knows what the upper bounds for global access is yet. And traditional telcos are usually limited to a region whereas Starlink is global. Just the top 20 global telcos alone are almost $2 trillion in market cap and $1.35 trillion in revenue. Starlink has captured less than 1% of that revenue to date.
    - hattmall 7mo ago
      >They said the same thing about cell phones vs landlines Did they? I don't really remember that tbh.
      - serf 7mo ago
        my most altruistic view : they said it through actions. Rural areas were the last areas to join the mobile networks. This is just a practical thing though; why would you build a tower for a community of 900 people when there are still gaps in the major metropolitan areas? It can't all happen simultaneously regardless of how badly we wish it could.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

It's not meant to replace terrestrial networks, it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover. Terrestrial cellular towers cost between $150k to $500k per tower, and are not economically feasible in less populated areas. There are also many dead-zones in mountainous regions, since cell signals are blocked by mountains. Starlink Mobile supplements this, it's simply cheaper for mobile providers to partner with them than do their own buildout. Currently only 5% of the earth's surface is covered by cellular signals. Starlink will push that up to 85+%, and is backward compatible with existing cellphones.

panick21_ 7mo ago
Well if you make the argument that it will replace terrestrial networks and that's why its worth X trillion $ then yes, you do actually need to cover the 1% of earth surface where the waste majority of people actually spend most of their time. The question is not if its a good business, the question if its a 2 trillion $ business, and if you only cover the 95% of earth without coverage. That more like a couple 100 billion $ business at best.
- tristanj 7mo ago
  I never said it would replace terrestrial networks... you invented that claim yourself and are responding to a strawman. Starlink mobile is for rural areas, and the other 90% of the planet that's not well served by traditional terrestrial networks. And 40% of earth's population live in rural areas, so there is a large market for this kind of service.
  - newguytony 7mo ago
    In regions like Nigeria or the Philippines, Starlink costs over 100% of the average monthly income. The individual addressable rural market really is closer to 1% than 40%.
    - tristanj 7mo ago
      Starlink Mobile != Starlink You're talking about the wrong product. I am talking about Starlink mobile, their direct-to-cellphone mobile data offering, not Starlink internet...
      - newguytony 7mo ago
        Starlink Mobile actually reinforces my point. Most don't have phones capable of using it. And even at that, it’s a low-bandwidth designed for SMS and emergency data, not a primary ISP replacement. Of course, you can believe what it could be... Much like all of Elons products, they are always coming
  - thfuran 7mo ago
    [dead]
  - muskstinks 7mo ago
    If its a big market, SpaceX will have to share this sooner than later as plenty of others are working on this. Nonetheless even in rural areas there is A LOT of coverage. And starlink has one sig issue: its bandwidth. For them to increase bandwdith they need to scale which is expensive and they have to reinvest every 5 years in replacing these satelites. A fiber layed down can work for a lot longer and can be replaced a lot easier.
triceratops 7mo ago
> it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover In a nutshell: they're serving a market that has less money to spend using more expensive tech than the current industry leaders. Maybe I'm wrong but it doesn't scream "massive profit".
- hattmall 7mo ago
  I think Airplanes are going to be pretty profitable. They are sort of running a market cornering operation there. But, there will be competition eventually. Starlink is way faster than the alternatives so most airlines have switched and Starlink has rapidly increased their prices for aviation. Idk if it's enough though, they are definitely running lots of promos for home customers.
  - raw_anon_1111 7mo ago
    Delta’s ViaSat based Wireless is fine. The latency is hire. But it really isn’t a competitive disadvantage.
    - telotortium 7mo ago
      If Starlink becomes common enough on flights, I absolutely believe it will be a competitive disadvantage.
      - 8note 7mo ago
        would you choose a flight that's $200 more expensive because it has starlink?
        koolba 7mo ago
        Maybe not $200, but $20-$50 for a cross country flight for sure.
        7mo ago
tim-- 7mo ago
> Terrestrial cellular towers cost between $150k to $500k per tower I'd be interested to find out exactly where this cost exists. I would expect the majority of the cost (especially in rural/mountainous areas) to be more with power and backhaul, rather than the physical radio gear. Because it's rural, you should be able to easily just use coverage bands (ie 850 MHz or 900 MHz) with relatively high transmission power. This would easily be able to cover 300 km2. Because of the higher transmission power, and the fact that the tower would be in the middle of nowhere, wouldn't the OPEX be higher, with smaller numbers for CAPEX?
- laughing_man 7mo ago
  A lot of the cost is regulatory. I used to work at a mobile provider, and it took months to get permission from all the various government agencies before we could actually start building. Even if the tower is in BFE, you still have to get all your plots to the FCC, you need EPA signoff for batteries and fuel tanks and such. Plus there's always state and local permits of various kinds. We had a custom workflow application just to track all of that and there were dozens of steps. Cell towers aren't very expensive on an ongoing basis, but every few years you're rolling out the next big technology (we went from analog to 1x to 3g to LTE while I was there) and it's a headache.
muskstinks 7mo ago
Every city has phone lines. A phone line allows you to replace it with fiber. A fiber and a tower has long loves. A star link server has 5 years. Setting up a terrestrial network is already done and it was relativly easy because you build it up from most profitable to lowest profitable. Star link only serves 9/10 Million people right now with already 10k satelites whith only a lifetime of 5 years and if this market is profitable, the margins will go down sign due to other competitors. Which are already working on it.

x0x0 7mo ago

It doesn't not seem like anything approaching a lucrative business. TAM: How big is the market for high speed internet that can pay $1200+/year and isn't already well-served by comcast/at&t/etc? And of course, this is all with finite spectrum too. So you can't serve the major cities. No doubt there exist buyers. But rural Montana doesn't have that many households. Add that 5 year replacement cycle and Musk's Trump alignment that has Europe building their own for security reasons.

ericd 7mo ago
> well-served by comcast/at&t/etc These are US telecoms, the satellites blanket the entire Earth at all times. Lower ARPU, but still. Also, it seems like they're swallowing a large percentage of flight/cruise/military internet. And direct-to-cell data coverage of the entire Earth.

pnw 7mo ago

5G Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) is already part of the 5G standard. It's not a replacement for terrestrial carriers, it's an expansion that enables devices to be always connected and select the appropriate terrestrial vs satellite connection transparently. ~75% of the land mass on Earth has no cell coverage, ~90% if you include the oceans. It's the same transition in theory that we had from landlines to cell towers.

panick21_ 7mo ago
Great, but the overwhelming majority of money is made from the place people actually live. Those places are called cities. Only about a few % of earth are built on, and even among those the top 1% is where most people live. Don't get me wrong, that fucking great business, but its not 'replacing terrestrial ISP' level great.
- pnw 7mo ago
  They said the same thing about cell phones vs landlines back in the day. Based on Starlink's revenue doubling year on year, and a six fold increase since 2022, I don't think anyone really knows what the upper bounds for global access is yet. And traditional telcos are usually limited to a region whereas Starlink is global. Just the top 20 global telcos alone are almost $2 trillion in market cap and $1.35 trillion in revenue. Starlink has captured less than 1% of that revenue to date.
  - hattmall 7mo ago
    >They said the same thing about cell phones vs landlines Did they? I don't really remember that tbh.
    - serf 7mo ago
      my most altruistic view : they said it through actions. Rural areas were the last areas to join the mobile networks. This is just a practical thing though; why would you build a tower for a community of 900 people when there are still gaps in the major metropolitan areas? It can't all happen simultaneously regardless of how badly we wish it could.