5 ms·

If you happen to live within line of site of a cell tower buying a MIMO antenna and beaming internet off of a data plan is also somewhat viable, but Starlink is

If you happen to live within line of site of a cell tower buying a MIMO antenna and beaming internet off of a data plan is also somewhat viable, but Starlink is probably better on bandwidth and packet loss

fluoridation 4mo ago
I wonder about the economics, though. Intuitively it doesn't seem like it can be more efficient to launch constellations of satellites than run kilometers of cables, even if you have to run 20 km for each customer. That's, what, $10k a pop? So around two orders of magnitude cheaper than a satellite? Something isn't adding up for me.
- Panzer04 4mo ago
  Starling is 10k satellites shared across the entire planet. A satellite will serve thousands of customers, whereas a fixed line only serves one. I think 10k is also severely understating the cost per customer. There's like hundreds of metres between these houses at a minimum, and in some areas possibly Kilometers from house to house.
- fragmede 4mo ago
  Intuitively, what's the cost to get to orbit? SpaceX's Falcon reusable rocket lowered the cost to get to space by an order of magnitude or so, so you have to factor that in.
  - fluoridation 4mo ago
    I only counted the cost of the satellite itself. I assumed you can get it into orbit for free, so if it costs a cent more than that, it's a further argument against.
    - elcritch 4mo ago
      Starlink is manufacturing the satellites at scale. They’re likely to cost not much differently from large ground based 5G towers at some point. The antennas are “digital” so no expensive mechanical systems needed.
      - fluoridation 4mo ago
        Even if I grant that, radio towers don't deorbit after a few years. I have no idea what you mean by antennas being digital.
        inemesitaffia 4mo ago
        Older sats (and OneWeb) use parabolic dishes. Some fixed, some steerable. Apart from being SDR's, Starlink and its newer competition use phased array antennas. So they can provide extra capacity to denser areas.
  - inemesitaffia 4mo ago
    From the S1 satellites are $600k and launch is under $20 million
- toast0 4mo ago
  > even if you have to run 20 km for each customer. That's, what, $10k a pop? I don't know if we're still talking Africa or in general, but $10k doesn't get you anywhere near 20 km around me. I got municipal fiber recently, and our agency passes through the costs. On a 7 drop project of about 1 mile, aerial on existing poles, my share was $5k; plus I had to pay my own way to get conduit installed from the pole to my house, that was nearly $7k. Underground utilities are expensive!
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
- inemesitaffia 4mo ago
  The pre Starlink and pre AI estimate in the US was $20k per mile excluding terminating equipment and right of way and assuming regular soil. Now everything costs more and they'd rather build AI DC's

fluoridation 4mo ago

I wonder about the economics, though. Intuitively it doesn't seem like it can be more efficient to launch constellations of satellites than run kilometers of cables, even if you have to run 20 km for each customer. That's, what, $10k a pop? So around two orders of magnitude cheaper than a satellite? Something isn't adding up for me.

Panzer04 4mo ago
Starling is 10k satellites shared across the entire planet. A satellite will serve thousands of customers, whereas a fixed line only serves one. I think 10k is also severely understating the cost per customer. There's like hundreds of metres between these houses at a minimum, and in some areas possibly Kilometers from house to house.
fragmede 4mo ago
Intuitively, what's the cost to get to orbit? SpaceX's Falcon reusable rocket lowered the cost to get to space by an order of magnitude or so, so you have to factor that in.
- fluoridation 4mo ago
  I only counted the cost of the satellite itself. I assumed you can get it into orbit for free, so if it costs a cent more than that, it's a further argument against.
  - elcritch 4mo ago
    Starlink is manufacturing the satellites at scale. They’re likely to cost not much differently from large ground based 5G towers at some point. The antennas are “digital” so no expensive mechanical systems needed.
    - fluoridation 4mo ago
      Even if I grant that, radio towers don't deorbit after a few years. I have no idea what you mean by antennas being digital.
      - inemesitaffia 4mo ago
        Older sats (and OneWeb) use parabolic dishes. Some fixed, some steerable. Apart from being SDR's, Starlink and its newer competition use phased array antennas. So they can provide extra capacity to denser areas.
- inemesitaffia 4mo ago
  From the S1 satellites are $600k and launch is under $20 million
toast0 4mo ago
> even if you have to run 20 km for each customer. That's, what, $10k a pop? I don't know if we're still talking Africa or in general, but $10k doesn't get you anywhere near 20 km around me. I got municipal fiber recently, and our agency passes through the costs. On a 7 drop project of about 1 mile, aerial on existing poles, my share was $5k; plus I had to pay my own way to get conduit installed from the pole to my house, that was nearly $7k. Underground utilities are expensive!
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
inemesitaffia 4mo ago
The pre Starlink and pre AI estimate in the US was $20k per mile excluding terminating equipment and right of way and assuming regular soil. Now everything costs more and they'd rather build AI DC's