3 ms·

Why was this flagged? Its clearly stating real numbers and I do make a clear point: Space is a 700 Billion dollar business split between building the stuff yo

Why was this flagged? Its clearly stating real numbers and I do make a clear point: Space is a 700 Billion dollar business split between building the stuff you want to send up, the 'sending up' part, and the operations part. Space-X 'magic' evaluation is between 800 Billion and 2 Trillion. snicker And this doesn't even calculate in, that if Space would really become interesting and profitable as another big disruptive market, everyone else will join. Or lets say they are joining already anyway.

myrmidon 5mo ago
For reference: Starlink is <$20bn yearly revenue (a bit over $1k/customer). Unless it manages to massively eat into mobile network market share (pretty unlikely in my view) growing past $100bn (yearly revenue) or so seems unrealistic to me. Even with cheaper launch costs, it is not clear to me that Starlink would ever be interested in offering service for like $80/year (=> price competitive with mobile carriers in low income nations).
- nomel 5mo ago
  > Unless it manages to massively eat into mobile network market share Several mobile carriers are already using them for backend of remote towers.
  - AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
    For something relevant? Why would they do this? Dark fibers is an easy thing and you need to put power to these remote towers anyway.
    - nomel 5mo ago
      You need a cell tower every 20 miles or so, less for a performant one. There's not dark fiber at that density in remote regions (remote is, by definition, lacking infrastructure). There's a better chance of power, and for the cases there's not, solar/battery is fine for a cell tower, especially one designed for lower power remote installations.
      - AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
        The initial cost for a dark fibre on a power pool is very low and can give you low latency and high bandwidth. Starlink antenna needs a lot more energy and has a high montly cost. That shouldn't be very economically for long.
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
  - AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
    And to add to this: They still have packet loss when they switch the satelites every 1-4 minutes.
    - nomel 5mo ago
      Packet loss is an assumption with cellular, so accommodations are built into all stages, including the variable rate vocoders used! And, a bit of packet loss is still better than literally no service, which was the previously, economically driven, state for these places. There's a 20% increase in satellites planned, with possible 300% increase in the future, so it should reduce.
    - fragmede 5mo ago
      If only there was some sort of transmission control protocol that was resilient to packet loss!

myrmidon 5mo ago

For reference: Starlink is <$20bn yearly revenue (a bit over $1k/customer). Unless it manages to massively eat into mobile network market share (pretty unlikely in my view) growing past $100bn (yearly revenue) or so seems unrealistic to me. Even with cheaper launch costs, it is not clear to me that Starlink would ever be interested in offering service for like $80/year (=> price competitive with mobile carriers in low income nations).

nomel 5mo ago
> Unless it manages to massively eat into mobile network market share Several mobile carriers are already using them for backend of remote towers.
- AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
  For something relevant? Why would they do this? Dark fibers is an easy thing and you need to put power to these remote towers anyway.
  - nomel 5mo ago
    You need a cell tower every 20 miles or so, less for a performant one. There's not dark fiber at that density in remote regions (remote is, by definition, lacking infrastructure). There's a better chance of power, and for the cases there's not, solar/battery is fine for a cell tower, especially one designed for lower power remote installations.
    - AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
      The initial cost for a dark fibre on a power pool is very low and can give you low latency and high bandwidth. Starlink antenna needs a lot more energy and has a high montly cost. That shouldn't be very economically for long.
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5mo ago
        [deleted]
- AntiUSAbah 5mo ago
  And to add to this: They still have packet loss when they switch the satelites every 1-4 minutes.
  - nomel 5mo ago
    Packet loss is an assumption with cellular, so accommodations are built into all stages, including the variable rate vocoders used! And, a bit of packet loss is still better than literally no service, which was the previously, economically driven, state for these places. There's a 20% increase in satellites planned, with possible 300% increase in the future, so it should reduce.
  - fragmede 5mo ago
    If only there was some sort of transmission control protocol that was resilient to packet loss!