Slashdot Mirror


Google To Spend $1 Billion On Fleet of Satellites

An anonymous reader writes "Google is planning to spend over $1 billion on a fleet of satellites to extend Internet access to unwired regions around the world. 'The projected price ranges from about $1 billion to more than $3 billion, the people familiar with the project said, depending on the network's final design and a later phase that could double the number of satellites. Based on past satellite ventures, costs could rise. Google's project is the latest effort by a Silicon Valley company to extend Internet coverage from the sky to help its business on the ground. Google and Facebook Inc. are counting on new Internet users in underserved regions to boost revenue, and ultimately, earnings. "Google and Facebook are trying to figure out ways of reaching populations that thus far have been unreachable," said Susan Irwin, president of Irwin Communications Inc., a satellite-communications research firm. "Wired connectivity only goes so far and wireless cellular networks reach small areas. Satellites can gain much broader access."'"

170 comments

  1. Interesting... by thedonger · · Score: 1

    It's also a neat way to boost the sale of satellite transmission and receiving equipment. Will individuals need the equipment, or will an ISP of sorts swoop in monopolize the communication with the satellite?

    --
    Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    1. Re:Interesting... by thedonger · · Score: 1

      ...communication with the satellite?

      *The satellite that serves a given area.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    2. Re:Interesting... by AlecC · · Score: 2

      Very unlikely to be in geosynchronous orbit, which is a long way away - about 20, 000 miles compared to Low Earth Orbit at 120 miles or so. Inverse square law means that both ends would need much more power. Handing from one station to another on the fly is a solved problem.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    3. Re:Interesting... by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      The article says "180 small, high-capacity satellites orbiting the earth at lower altitudes than traditional satellites." For lower altitude (LEO) satellites, the same satellite doesn't stay fixed over the same area. As far as end users are concerned, you could probably look at Google's fiber optic deployments to see how it is with middle men getting between end users and Google's network hardware.

    4. Re:Interesting... by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google just bought Titan Aerospace, which builds and sells solar powered airplanes that can fly for 5 years straight. In theory they would intercept the satellite transmission and then beam the signal down to "the last mile", or in this case last 40,000 ft.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  2. Satellites aren't evil, sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only when they complete some sort of "giant data laser" will people wise up, maybe.

    1. Re:Satellites aren't evil, sure. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry. Sharks can't survive in space.

    2. Re:Satellites aren't evil, sure. by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure, wait until you see the latest product of Google Labs:

      Sharks with frickin' lasers attached to the top of their spacesuit!

  3. 180 satellites... by Thagg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Kind of like a social network of satellites :)

    Seriously, this makes a lot of sense. At the low altitudes that these will fly, the power necessary to reach the satellites will be much lower than geosynchronous or even Iridium satellites. Mass producing small satellites probably is cheaper than building a few big ones, as well.

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    1. Re:180 satellites... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What a great way to build an global sigint platform. I am sure that those sats could pick up any radar signal transmitted on Earth in real time.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:180 satellites... by mmell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They'd better be cheaply launchable as well. LEO satellites don't live in stable orbits. They have a definite, limited lifespan before they deorbit, as Earth's atmosphere doesn't "end here" - it just gets thinner and thinner as you climb (and no - it's not an asymptotic function of altitude. There is definitely a point where Earth's atmosphere ends, but it's above the orbit of LEO satellites).

    3. Re:180 satellites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the "end here" is arbitrary - it is asymptotic... until it impacts the solar atmosphere... And that varies depending on the direction you go.

    4. Re:180 satellites... by Dins · · Score: 1

      Meh, I'm sure the NSA already has that. Why not let Google in on the "fun".......

    5. Re:180 satellites... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      I think its fair to say that when the number of gas molecules per unit volume is the same as space in the rest of the solar system then you've left the atmosphere.

    6. Re:180 satellites... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to know what the real business plan is. Are they really after the part of the world's population that is currently unreachable, or is it a parallel effort to Google Fiber where they're hoping to get access to a greater percentage of the first world's internet traffic so they can monetize it?

      My money's on the latter.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:180 satellites... by stewsters · · Score: 2

      Also, you will have less latency than if they were in geosynchronous orbit because they are closer. Which is a significant factor if people want to use them for real time communication.

    8. Re:180 satellites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LEO is much cheaper to reach then GEO. also, hall effect ion thrusters pretty much make it so a satellite can stay in orbit for over a decade without needing refueling.

      I would hope google would upgrade the satnet after 14 years when the satellites start falling out of orbit.

    9. Re:180 satellites... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      An ad company: 180 / 6 = 30 sats per letter ; we'll see soon in the sky "Google" in big letters..

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    10. Re:180 satellites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the former effect is achieved as a side effect, then it's a win-win. Sometimes acting on your own selfish interests is not a bad thing.

    11. Re:180 satellites... by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      I can't find an exact altitude for these satellites, but O3b (whom Google is working with on this project) is putting satellites in orbits 5,000 miles above Earth, which is definitely not LEO. That's lower than conventional geosynchronous communications satellites (which sit ~22,000 above Earth), but well above the low-Earth orbit cutoff (which is roughly 1,000 miles and below). At 5,000 miles, the atmosphere is thin enough to be considered non-existent. Now, Google might be looking at lower orbits for these newer satellites, but they haven't said yet.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    12. Re:180 satellites... by sessamoid · · Score: 2

      Kind of like a social network of satellites :)

      It does. They should give it a name, "Skynet" or something like that.

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    13. Re:180 satellites... by oobayly · · Score: 1

      I think they'll be called a KH11 Block V "DNE" - That'll be their revenue stream.

    14. Re:180 satellites... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      At the low altitudes that these will fly, the power necessary to reach the satellites will be much lower than geosynchronous or even Iridium satellites.

      Maybe dumb questions, but is there a limit to how low-power a device could be and still reach a satellite, if the satellite had a powerful antenna (akin to a radio telescope) to pick it up? Granted you'd need a large number of such antenna to cover the earth since they'd be highly directional.

      Second, is there a way to make a directional antenna small enough to fit in a phone that always points "up"? Part of me says, no, an antenna has to be a certain size to receive a given wavelength (long enough to penetrate atmosphere). But part of me thinks the larger antenna could be simulated with an array of smaller ones, like one little antenna at each corner of a phone, which could be 'aimed' by signal processing to point up.

    15. Re:180 satellites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably don't have this.... yet

      I mean, who do you think is paying for this? ROI on 3 billion dollars is hard to achieve via search results!

    16. Re:180 satellites... by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      At the low altitudes that these will fly, the power necessary to reach the satellites will be much lower than geosynchronous or even Iridium satellites.

      The link budget calculations have too many other things to say how important that is without looking at the other factors, especially when you consider that battery power, not Tx power, is what matters. Iridium satellites sit at 780km, but I haven't found any info about the Google proposal. Also, Iridium satellites run L-band (1-2GHz) but Google's are Ku-band (12-18GHz). Power amps are much less efficient at Ku, and there is greater rain fade. 2dB may not sound like much at first, but it means you need 43% more Tx power. You can have much higher gain antennas at Ku band, but that only matters if you can keep the things pointed right.

    17. Re:180 satellites... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      I figured that the Iridium and GPS constellations had some Sigint functions paying some cash to add a sigint receiver to each bird should not be that expensive. Even if you limit to strong emitters around the XBand you should a large number of SAM, AWACS, and AI radars.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:180 satellites... by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Despite making almost $13 billion primarily on search-related ads, Google is not a search company. Google is an intelligence company.

      I don't mean the spying kind of intelligence, either. I'm referring to their use of enormous data sets to feed complex decision algorithms that learn in real time what decisions to make. I would call it "artificial intelligence", except that much of the process is guided by humans. Perhaps "guided intelligence" is a better term.

      Regardless, the more data they have, the more accurate their results. That accuracy is where their money really comes from. Consider one revenue stream, that of targeted advertising. They target ads to people with a higher chance of being interested in the advertised product. That means their algorithm needs to understand not just the consumer's interests, but also what the product does, and what other solutions compete with it.

      From global Internet coverage, without even looking at the data itself, Google can infer political trends (traffic response to major campaign events), working schedules (traffic cycles), and breaking local news (traffic spikes). In a developing country, Google gets to set the standard for service, gaining a de facto monopoly over those targeted ads, cell phone sales (because there will surely be a new Nexus model for compatible service), and of course, pure brand loyalty.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    19. Re:180 satellites... by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      The article says "Antennas developed by companies including Kymeta Corp. have no moving parts and are controlled by software, which reduces manufacturing and maintenance costs." Since the satellites are moving and the antennas have not moving parts, I'm not sure how highly directional they would be. I have a couple of Iridium antennas, and they're certainly omnidirectional.

    20. Re:180 satellites... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Considering that the DOD is the largest customer for Iridium, I doubt that Sigint stuff would get much of a take for the U.S. government (except for internal investigations). Do you really think they are at that level of paranoia?

    21. Re:180 satellites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not asymptotic. Surely, there is absolutely no atmosphere beyond the geostationary orbit - centrifugal force alone would fling it away. The atmosphere definitely ends there - if not earlier.

    22. Re:180 satellites... by Hodr · · Score: 2

      Also of note, O3b is seeing 500Mbit forward link data rates on a 1.3 meter dish and getting 150ms round trip delay on their MEO satellites (vs. 500+MS) on GEO.

      The caveat is that you need either an expensive tracking antenna or two regular antenna to keep from breaking signal as you negotiate satellites moving into and out of your window.

    23. Re:180 satellites... by Hodr · · Score: 1

      The antennas are still directional. They use phased arrays to perform beam steering. No "moving" parts and a low profile are the plus, but they are relatively low gain for the surface area and power used.

    24. Re:180 satellites... by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is relatively easy. You use a phased array for beam steering / directional sensitivity. If you put something the size of Aricebo in orbit, you could presumably directly read the electrical signals of a human brain. And the electrical activity at the rear of the brain can be directly translated to what is being heard. So no phone required at all, at least for the uplink!

      The same thing is possible for the downlink too, but there may be slight side effects. (Think "This is your brain in a microwave oven...")

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    25. Re:180 satellites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the DOD is the largest customer for Iridium, I doubt that Sigint stuff would get much of a take for the U.S. government (except for internal investigations). Do you really think they are at that level of paranoia?

      Given what we've learned over the past year, the satellites will be compromised by NSA before they're launched. If we're lucky, they'll only be compromised by NSA, not NSA, FSB, and PLA.

    26. Re:180 satellites... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Intelligence is useless if you can't search for useful information within it. Search and intelligence go hand in hand.

    27. Re:180 satellites... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Based on past satellite ventures, costs could rise.

      Based on recent developments, costs could plummet. IMHO, the only reason Google is even talking about this now is because SpaceX recently flew a (theoretically) reusable first stage. Of course, "practical" reusability is still in the works, but Musk is tight with the gurus of Google, and it doesn't cost them much in the short run to flog their "visionary" quest to bring broadband to the masses. And if Musk succeeds with reusability (which seems likely) they'll be able to deploy this constellation at a fraction of the currently advertised cost.

      Sounds like a win-win for all concerned...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    28. Re:180 satellites... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Granted you'd need a large number of such antenna to cover the earth since they'd be highly directional.

      The trick is to use a phased array, the individual antennas in the array have relatively low gain (and are hence physically small) on their own, however by driving them as an array you can create highly directional beams and you can do it in many directions and it turns out you can do the same thing for receive by doing weighted sums of the inputs.

      The handheld end is more problematic, the directionality of an antenna is highly dependent on size and there isn't much you can do about that. There is also the problem that if it's too directional you have to aim it at the sattelite (either physically or electronically)

      handheld phone to geostationary orbit has been done with a phased array on the sattelite.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    29. Re:180 satellites... by cyberzephyr · · Score: 1

      Google was one of the first civilian companies to use Sat imaging in that unique way. Remember they bought and old sat back in the day and it turned into Google Earth.

      I'm just sayin.

      --
      I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
    30. Re:180 satellites... by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      You must be new around here. Doing anything other than simply giving it away is nothing but pure, unadulterated evil. Having a business plan is not considered an option in these parts.

    31. Re:180 satellites... by cyberzephyr · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone got it.

      --
      I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
    32. Re:180 satellites... by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they will have learned from Motorola/Iridium--considering they bought most of it.

    33. Re:180 satellites... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I said Sigint not Comint. The communications part is of Iridium is just a cover. Those radios and antennas can pick up signals other than those from Iridium phones like radars.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    34. Re:180 satellites... by TheSync · · Score: 1

      AO-13 was not in geosynchronous orbit, but a highly elliptical orbit with apogee near geosync distance (40,000 km), but perigee much lower (2500 km). You worked the satellite at apogee because it basically hung in the air there, and then briefly whisked around the planet to quickly to track around perigee. Transmitters tended to be 25 watts, which is more than most hand-held devices.

      Folks tended to use yagi antennas with at least 15 dB gain to work AO-13 at apogee (typically 10 directing elements, here is an image).

      On the other hand, I've talked to ISS astronauts with a 5W handheld transceiver and a rubber duck antenna. ISS is only 370 km away, plus it "sees" less of the planet so there is less interference from other RF sources.

    35. Re:180 satellites... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... yes they are

    36. Re:180 satellites... by jsim · · Score: 1

      But much full is going to be needed to keep in position, due to atmospheric drag.

  4. Did someone say satellites? by Dega704 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Said Elon Musk, perking up.

    1. Re:Did someone say satellites? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Did someone say satellites? Said Elon Musk, perking up.

      I think it's safe to say Google would not be seriously considering this idea in the absence of SpaceX launch prices. The ULA price for launching 180 satellites, assuming you cram 5 of them into each launch (a guess based on the usual definition of 'small' when talking about satellites), is a nice shiny $16,200,000,000. Give or take. And you haven't even built the satellites for that. The current SpaceX price would probably be $1.6 billion, since SpaceX is 1/10th of ULA, so the $1 billion estimate is probably predicated on the new pricing assuming first stage reusability. Without Spacex, and indeed, without SpaceX's most advanced capability (which isn't quite done yet), Google's idea would be a nonstarter.

      It's been said for decades that getting launch costs down would invite whole new use cases. This is a dramatic demonstration of the truth of that assertion.

  5. Complete Global Wi-Fi Saturation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if it would be possible, using this method, to essentially create a single wifi network that covers the entire world. I mean, in theory there'd be no need for 4G or 5G if you could get free or cheap wifi from a satellite. Sure, it might not be the fastest wifi, but it would be nice to be able to connect to the internet anywhere.

    1. Re:Complete Global Wi-Fi Saturation? by mmell · · Score: 0

      Guaranteed two second latency, minimum. It actually takes time to get a radio signal up there. Less for LEOS than for satellites in geosynchronous orbit, but still...

    2. Re:Complete Global Wi-Fi Saturation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends on the orbit, if it is a very low orbit, say 180km altitude, the latency will be 4*180000m/c=2.4ms. Note that this assumed that both the user and the ground segment station are covered by the same satellite. if the sat needs to relay to other satellites the latency will obviously increase, but thats not different than latency through fiber optic cables, you just need slightly longer distances since the satellite is at a higher altitude than the ground below it, but only little compared to the radius of the earth.

    3. Re:Complete Global Wi-Fi Saturation? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      I'm on the west coast of the US, and I can ping the Chicago Tribune in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... ) -- and, presumably, there are zero switches/routers floating between me and a satellite, whereas there are quite a few from the west coast to the midwest.

      Of course, the satellites will be further away than this if they are not directly overhead, but still -- I think 2 seconds is definitely on the long side.

    4. Re:Complete Global Wi-Fi Saturation? by Megane · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure you have the math off. It's about 250ms each way to GEO, so that makes a 1 second ping time, not 2 seconds. Plus, I know this because one time I actually did a ping from wireless internet at a highway rest area. (What true geek wouldn't?) In LEO, the latency will be a lot less because ~150mi altitude vs ~25000mi is a big difference. And of course GEO isn't such a great idea unless you have a fixed dish antenna.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:Complete Global Wi-Fi Saturation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you use a less-than sign? Your comment got eaten.

    6. Re:Complete Global Wi-Fi Saturation? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      It takes just over 100ms to send a signal to geostationary orbit for your round trip time you have to multiply that by four (client-sattelite-server-sattelite-client) giving a minimum theoretical ping time of just under 500ms.

      Lower orbits should do better and it should certainly be possible to bring the latency down to a level where it is comparable to the latency experianced when browsing an australian website from europe.

      If you are seeing two seconds of latency from your sattelite provider there is some other factor at play besides the raw radio latency to/from orbit.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:Complete Global Wi-Fi Saturation? by OklahomaRed · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can get internet quality networking with low Earth orbit satellites at the same altitude of the Iridium system. The time overhead so too short it require and extremely high number of them. High Elliptical Orbits [HEO] Such at the USSR built for Arctic communications will keep a satellite in view of 1/3 or more of the Earth for 12 hours.

      The cost of HEO satellites is more powerful transceivers on both ends. The advantage is only needing 18 satellites or less cover the world. There is some question in my mind if covering the polar regions and mid ocean areas with full 24 hour coverage is necessary or worthwhile. Just an educated guess if you just covered the land masses 24 hours and picked up the oceans and poles on the quick lower passes of the satellites 12 might be enough.

      To deal with cost here is still a lot that can be done to compress text with tokenazation. Use tokens such as 00A3 = 'fiber optic cables' and so on. Much like the old commercial code books. I expect things like mmdf mailer might have to implemented as a store and forward mailer to deal with latency and interruptions inherent to radio links. I ran it for a while and if it were hardened against spam it would be a good mailer.

      Lower orbiting HEO's satellites trade off for more of them and require less powerful radio modems on each end. It's a simple linear algebra minimum cost problem. I expect it comes out with lots of satellites that cover 2 or 3 times the area of the Iridium system.

  6. How about a satellite or two for the US? by mlts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are a lot of places here in the US, where even basic DSL or cellular service is fairly hard to come by, and if one goes with a conventional satellite provider, it becomes very expensive very fast.

    This is something that I have high hopes for... done right, and assuming the uplink/downlink antennas are not too expensive, this would allow a baseline of Internet access in a whole region. Latency is "meh", but it is a lot better than what a lot of places have right now.

    1. Re:How about a satellite or two for the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now they prefer to use low altitude satellites to cover the entire globe uniformly except the poles. I guess they could target specific regions with geostationary satellites, but is that really better than adding more low altitude satellites?

    2. Re:How about a satellite or two for the US? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My workplace is in an unincorporated urban area of Los Angeles (91748) where Verizon has a monopoly on phone service and none of the cable companies offer service to commercial areas. Verizon realizes they have a monopoly on commercial Internet service, so has not bothered upgrading their phone lines. The DSL speeds are 1.5 Mbps down, 384 kbps up. They charge $50/mo for this. Some phone lines are capable of 3.0/.768, but talking with other nearby businesses it seems to be about one in 5-10 phone lines which are able to get the higher speeds. (The "higher" speed is $100/mo.)

      I went camping up in the San Bernardino Mountains this past weekend. The 3G internet speeds there on my phone were 1.8 Mbps down, 0.8 Mbps up. What Verizon is (not) doing with DSL in areas where they have no competition is absolutely criminal. If Google can pull this off, it'll be a work-around to the "one DSL company and one cable Internet company are sufficient competition" court decisions. And a good kick to the rear of the existing de facto monopolies as they'd be forced to actually offer competitive service and pricing or lose all their customers. The satellites being in LEO means they'll be circling the Earth, so they would cover the U.S. just as well as Central Africa.

    3. Re:How about a satellite or two for the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We had a similar situation where I work, though it was T-1 or bust.

      Comcast came in eventually, and now, 2 years later, we have FiOS too.

      The company was paying $600/month, 12 phone lines and 1.5/1.5 mbps, AND Verizon didn't maintain the leased line, leading to lots of outages, often for days at a time.

  7. How will they recoup costs? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    Will they provide those people with cost-effective end user devices, too? I'm thinking that a lot of the under-served are 2nd / 3rd world, or extremely rural 1st world. Places where infrastructure of any kind is severely lacking. It would be nice to get these people onto the internet, of course, but I think they might benefit more from electricity first. When you live somewhere where you pay for electricity as per litre of diesel in your geny, I don't think internet access features high on the list of "Things I use electricity for".

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re: How will they recoup costs? by Trashcan+Romeo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Facebook Status Update: dying of dysentery

    2. Re:How will they recoup costs? by Albanach · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think you might be surprised at some of the case studies surrounding mobile/cell phone use in central Africa.

      here's a study from Tufts showing farmers in Ghana establishing the market price for crops, and labourers searching for job opportunities.

      There's lots of more recent coverage too if you do some Google searches.

    3. Re:How will they recoup costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad-funded internet?
      They could make a special version of say, Chrome, that has an ad-strip.
      Easiest, least unobtrusive way I can think of. What is 16pixels less height going to do given they'd be getting internet access funded by their use of it.
      Biggest problem will be useful ads for people in rural areas and lesser economies.

      Not sure if they'd be able to get that billion back quickly, or even reasonably soon, with these communities given the lesser ad-profiles. (just going on the little I know admittedly)

    4. Re:How will they recoup costs? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Those aren't sat-phones though, that's the point. So you'd need a cellular infrastructure on the ground (or hovering overhead?) to reach out to all those cheap, low power (i.e. cellular) handsets.

    5. Re:How will they recoup costs? by AlecC · · Score: 1

      As well as the market information given by others, which can effectively double income, Africa has developed mobile and small scale banking. So it could bring them financial services: money transfers from family working in the city, the ability to save safely or to borrow to fund new businesses.The relatively small amount of energy used by communications technology can pay off very fast. And they have a lot of sun there for solar power rather than a genny,

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    6. Re:How will they recoup costs? by Albanach · · Score: 1

      We already have relatively cheap two-way satellite comms. Go visit any mountaineering store - and those are niche items.

      I don't see why low cost, two-way, internet capable devices would be impossible given sufficient economies of scale.

  8. Sounds like Coca Cola by rjstanford · · Score: 3, Informative

    They've brought a surprising amount of electrical power - first wired, now often solar - to remote parts of the globe simply because refrigeration helps them sell enough more product to make the investment worthwhile. This can be quite a good thing if the infrastructure remains open enough.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    1. Re:Sounds like Coca Cola by bigpat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recall Dean Kamen saying how he agreed to help Coca Cola with their new soda machine that could dispense hundreds of different flavors if they helped him distribute his water purification systems in parts of the world where Coke was one of very few distributors. Win-win. Sometimes people can use companies not just to make money.

    2. Re:Sounds like Coca Cola by afidel · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I've also heard that NGO's attempting to get supplies into the most backwater bush locations will often contract with the local Coke distributor because they reach like 99.95% of the worlds population.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Sounds like Coca Cola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least something good came from those horrible new coke machines!

    4. Re:Sounds like Coca Cola by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      .... those horrible new coke machines!

      Just curious, what's your problem with them? I thought they were pretty damn awesome.

    5. Re:Sounds like Coca Cola by lexman098 · · Score: 2

      The touch screen is non-responsive sometimes and they can create large lines of people who need to A) figure out how the machine works and then B) figure out what flavor they want.

    6. Re:Sounds like Coca Cola by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      You have a good point there. Being the technologically inclined type, I get a certain level of both amusement and frustration of watching someone struggle with technology. It's like people see a computer screen and just freeze. 'Cause it's pretty hard to figure out to touch a flavor, then push the giant flashing button that says "press here" My first experience with one was standing behind a 40 year old biker-type watching him cuss out the machine because he couldn't figure it out. lol.

      And then you have the soccer mom with 14 kids, none of which can make a decision on what kind of diabetes water they want...

      Not gonna lie, I was hoping you had some insight into any technical problems with it. I used to work for the CM that helped them build it, I left before they started this project though.

    7. Re:Sounds like Coca Cola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try using it blind.

    8. Re:Sounds like Coca Cola by toddestan · · Score: 1

      My biggest problem with them is they limit the combinations available. For example, I want cherry root beer dammit! Luckily it's only a few taps on the touch screen to mix Cherry Fanta and Barq's together.

  9. I've seen a lot of James Bond movies by 14erCleaner · · Score: 3, Funny

    So I know where this might be going.

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
    1. Re:I've seen a lot of James Bond movies by 7bit · · Score: 1

      So I know where this might be going.

      Yeah, their experimental AI Neural Net has run out of cat videos to watch on youtube and has determined that this is the optimal way of finding new and unique cat videos to add to it's perfection.

      http://search.slashdot.org/sto...

  10. Didn't someone do this? by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

    I recall reading a while back about a project like this. They wanted to put satellites in orbit that would be continously streaming a pre-selected amount of internet (wikipedia and other such actually useful websites) so that you wouldn't necessarily get two-way communication, but you'd get access to all the latest and greatest from online resources.

    1. Re:Didn't someone do this? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      I've wondered if/when SiriusXM or even DirctTV might start "datacasting" in a similar manner.

    2. Re:Didn't someone do this? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I had the same idea, except mine involved piggybacking on the sat TV system - putting a drive in the decoders, which have ethernet ports anyway. I envisioned it as a way to distribute things like software updates - a protocol by which updaters may query other devices on the LAN for files of a specified hash, and if the sat decoder managed to grab it then it'll serve the file up. But I am not rich, nor have I any business skill, so my idea remains no more than a comment on slashdot.

    3. Re:Didn't someone do this? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I've wondered if/when SiriusXM or even DirctTV might start "datacasting" in a similar manner.

      I think the word is still broadcasting.

      For a short while, the BBC used to transmit computer programs in BBC basic over the air. With a suitably equipped BBC micro, you could download and run them.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:Didn't someone do this? by stg · · Score: 1

      Did it require special equipment on the user side? I have heard of this being done in Brazil, too, but all you needed was to tape the transmission, then load it normally with a tape player on the computer.

    5. Re:Didn't someone do this? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Way back in the early to mid 90's Channel One had a type of datacasting service where they would push certain web pages to a caching box, it later was expanded to a pre-DOCSIS dialup + cable modem type setup that allowed two way communications.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:Didn't someone do this? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      iirc they tried a few different methods over the years, IIRC they tried transmitting programs in the computers native tape format and they also tried using a special tape format that was designed to be used on multiple different computers (with a special loader program) and to be more tolerant of poor tranmission conditions. I think they may have tried program distribution over teletext at one point too but few people had a teletext decoder hooked up to their computer.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  11. Yes, reach the poor people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't afford anything you're selling but ok!

    1. Re:Yes, reach the poor people! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I wonder why Google and Facebook haven't figured out what Hulu has down to a science...but anyway I hope they generously continue to bleed money onto the world's impoverished masses!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Yes, reach the poor people! by geekanarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some poor people are poor because they always buy what you're selling.

    3. Re:Yes, reach the poor people! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Good one.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  12. How about breaking the Comcast tyranny also? by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    How about freeing the rest us from the tyranny of Comcast? I am tired of being under their thumb.

    1. Re:How about breaking the Comcast tyranny also? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Where is the bottleneck? what part of your community is locking you into Comcast?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:How about breaking the Comcast tyranny also? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Their exclusive contracts with the existing infrastructure. Oh, we're an open town - I can change providers any time I like, but it requires moving to a new house.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:How about breaking the Comcast tyranny also? by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      It is the ONLY internet service offered in my area. Eeeesh, I cannot believe that a Comcast drone is trying to astroturf me....

    4. Re:How about breaking the Comcast tyranny also? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Really? Your local telco doesn't offer any DSL service? I believe you, but your situation is REALLY rare.

    5. Re:How about breaking the Comcast tyranny also? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also live in an area where where there are "multiple" options for internet, which really means that you only have one option because the other one is already fully consumed by others and there is an indefinite wait list to get the other service. So we continue to pay the $60/mo for 1.5MB speed as that is our only option besides satellite internet which starts at $100 a month. Stinking communications companies trying to stay in business... :)

  13. Make every phone a satellite phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suddenly, the wireless carriers couldn't be less relevant.

    1. Re:Make every phone a satellite phone by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Oh they will be relevant... They hold the spectrum space your satellite's are going to need....

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  14. Iridium flares by wdconinc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sounds an awful lot like Iridium satellites: cell phone connectivity in the middle of nowhere. Their business plan must have overlooked that there is hardly anyone in the middle of nowhere, so they went bankrupt. The primary result is satellite flashes (iridium flares) that are brighter than Venus.

    1. Re:Iridium flares by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only part they overlooked was not that there wan't anyone in the middle of nowhere, but that most of the people in the middle of nowhere found $5/minute on a large, dedicated device a touch on the pricey side.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Iridium flares by Megane · · Score: 1

      Iridium had problems because it was just a little bit ahead of its time. First of all, it uses analog hardware. To use it for digital data, you need a modem, and you can forget about going beyond 9600 baud. If they had done it a few years later, it could probably have been digital. With no digital capability, the only people who had any real use for the service were ships at sea and polar explorers.

      The other big problem was launch costs. Then the whole project went bankrupt and was bought cheap. Launch costs are coming down with SpaceX now in the picture, and guess what? They're replacing them in 2015-2017 with a next generation Iridium.

      It seems to me like what Google is planning isn't dumb at all. This may be just the right time to do it.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Iridium flares by westlake · · Score: 1

      The only part they overlooked was not tthat... most of the people in the middle of nowhere found $5/minute on a large, dedicated device a touch on the pricey side.

      With billions of dollars of infrastructure to build and maintain, how can the Google service be made more affordable?

    4. Re:Iridium flares by Teancum · · Score: 2

      There are many ways to improve satellite data service compared to what Iridium is doing. You are comparing 1980's technology to stuff in the 21st Century, where I think there has been some improvements in terms of the quality of computer equipment being used. Bandwidth has definitely increased, as has satellite to ground or the reverse in terms of radio technology being employed. That by itself can make the service considerably more affordable.

      Iridium was a good first try, but it is the first generation of constellation satellites. Somebody had to be first if the concept was going to be proven as a viable system, so what Google is proposing is the next generation system. Iridium is upgrading their whole network as well BTW.

    5. Re:Iridium flares by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Google is an advertising company.
      More eyeballs equals more money.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    6. Re:Iridium flares by Animats · · Score: 1

      Iridum turned out to be a huge success, but not for the expected reason. The U.S. Government bought into it, buying half the capacity, just in time for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. DoD and the State Department have lots of people in the middle of nowhere who need to communicate, and Iridium does the job for them. Most ships of any size have an Iridium phone or two on board.

      Iridium airtime is now around $1/minute. U.S. Government usage is now under 25% of use, and the number of users is slowly increasing. There's an SMS message capability, and lots of devices in remote areas report in using it. Messages cost about $1/KB, which, considering some US carriers were charging $0.20 per SMS message, isn't bad.

    7. Re:Iridium flares by afidel · · Score: 1

      Funny enough my boss was testing an Iridium satphone just today. One of our senior execs is going rafting in the grand canyon and wants to be able to get SMS and possibly make a call while out there and our CEO is thinking about going on a safari and would want the same capabilities.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Iridium flares by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Iridum turned out to be a huge success, but not for the expected reason. The U.S. Government bought into it, buying half the capacity, just in time for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. DoD and the State Department have lots of people in the middle of nowhere who need to communicate, and Iridium does the job for them. Most ships of any size have an Iridium phone or two on board.

      Iridium airtime is now around $1/minute. U.S. Government usage is now under 25% of use, and the number of users is slowly increasing. There's an SMS message capability, and lots of devices in remote areas report in using it. Messages cost about $1/KB, which, considering some US carriers were charging $0.20 per SMS message, isn't bad.

      If you let me discard the costs of building _anything_ in bankruptcy, I could call it a huge success.

    9. Re:Iridium flares by jandrese · · Score: 1

      $1/minute for realistically at best 4800 baud isn't a data win. A $1/kb SMS capability makes it cheaper than SMS on a traditional cell phone ($2.24 for the same data) hilariously enough, but that's only because my local carriers are completely unashamed about blatantly ripping people off on SMS.

      I don't think this is ever going to happen. That's a crapton of satellites to launch, and the market just isn't there to support it. People who are going to be able to afford this are generally going to already have internet service, and it will never be cheaper per bit than a landline. The physics are just against it. I think this announcement is just Google putting out feelers and doing some thought exercises.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    10. Re:Iridium flares by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Also apparently their marketing was terrible, so they didn't reach out to the people who could benefit from their service and afford the price.

      I would note that while the original irridium company did fail the new irridium company is managing to find enough money from it's subscribers to fund satellite renewal.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    11. Re:Iridium flares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I interned with Iridium a couple summers back I would definitely say that Iridium is pretty far from those days of bankruptcy. They are moving forward full steam ahead and there most definitely is market for reliable global communications. Loaded CEOs that never want to be out of communication, nearly every single cargo ship, yacht or other large boat meant to be at see for more than a day, as well as the DOD of course. Their largest growing market while I was there was the oil companies exploring places that had no infrastructure. They also recently launched a "mobile hot spot" of sorts that allows you to use your smart phone anywhere on the globe as you normally would, phone calls, texts and data included. This company won't be going away anytime soon. They have been working miracles with antique hardware for a long time now, and once the Iridium NEXT satellite constellation is completed there will suddenly be a lot more available than has been before, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Iridium solving Google and Facebook's problems for them come 2018-2020.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbCakX3QdUw&feature=youtu.be -- video of their mobile hot spot "Iridium GO"

    12. Re:Iridium flares by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      That's like golf courses. I've heard it said that a golf course needs to go bankrupt twice in order to become profitable. Satellite dev and launch is a very expensive business, as is golf course creation. I hope this works, but sat comm is still a tough service to bring to the masses.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  15. ICO Global Communications by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 2

    A few companies have proposed this type of system, most notably ICO Global Communications. It hasn't ended well.

    Granted, Google is a much more established company than some collection of venture capitalists, but manufacturing, launching and managing constellations of satellites is extremely complex. You can't do it alone and at least one company along the way will over-promise and under-deliver. That stalls the overall program and problems just snowball from there.

    Google obviously has experience managing some mapping satellites, but scaling up to dozens and hundreds is not straightforward.

    1. Re:ICO Global Communications by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      FYI, they don't manage mapping satellites. They buy the imaging (primarily from DigitalGlobe).

    2. Re:ICO Global Communications by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually Google owns exclusive online rights to the images produced by GeoEye-1 which is managed by DigitalGlobe so it's kindof both.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:ICO Global Communications by jandrese · · Score: 1

      They put money into it, but I don't think Google engineers were spending much time buiding/launching the bird.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:ICO Global Communications by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      That's kind of like saying that, if Tiffany has an agreement to buy 100% of the gold coming out of a given mine, that Tiffany has expertise in gold mining.

  16. Would there be one launch per satellite? by Jordan1519 · · Score: 1

    Would there be one launch per satellite? I don't have the first clue about the price to do something like that but 1-3 bill sounds pretty low.

    1. Re:Would there be one launch per satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, if the satellite is small you can put in orbit a lot of them with a single launch. Google 'cubesat' for an extreme version of this idea.

    2. Re:Would there be one launch per satellite? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      No, if the satellite is small you can put in orbit a lot of them with a single launch. Google 'cubesat' for an extreme version of this idea.

      Well, yes, but the problem you will have is the limited orbital variations you can get from a single launch of multiple satellites. There is a trade off here between launch weight and fuel and the initial orbits of everything. The last thing you really want is 10 small satellites that are all in the same orbit.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Would there be one launch per satellite? by Thagg · · Score: 2

      Certainly not. These are very small satellites, probably will be launched something like 20 at a time. Maybe 9 orbital planes with 20 satellites each?

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    4. Re:Would there be one launch per satellite? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Ion thruster. Might take a year to get them into place, but a lot cheaper than chemical rockets from ground each time.

    5. Re:Would there be one launch per satellite? by Megane · · Score: 2

      Most of Iridium NEXT will go up starting next year with ten per launch on a Falcon 9. The deal will be half a billion dollars for seven launches. There will also be a Dnepr launch of two more, probably the first two to go up. So half that billion for launch costs leaves you with another half billion at the low end for hardware. Plus, Iridium has been up 16 years, so the basic patents are going to expire soon.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re:Would there be one launch per satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stick hall effect thrusters on them, and as long as the orbital plane is right. you can adjust their orbits so they have full satellite coverage. would have to do a launch for each plane though. It is amazing how many satellites you can jam in a Falcon 9's fairing.

  17. So the motorola purchase still has impact. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Looks like when Google bought Motorola it also inherited the madcap team that conceived the irridium project.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:So the motorola purchase still has impact. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Well they did keep all the patents after they discarded Motorola - it was likely the plan all along.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:So the motorola purchase still has impact. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that part of the company was sold to General Dynamics a long time ago.

  18. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Google has finally started construction of skynet.

  19. Doesn't seem like a wise investment.. by Junta · · Score: 1, Insightful

    counting on new Internet users in underserved regions to boost revenue, and ultimately, earnings.

    If they were doing this out of a sense of humanitarianism thinking the internet is so important that they want to do some altruistic investment, that's one thing.

    If they are thinking they have a significant revenue opportunity in regions without infrastructure to otherwise participate in the internet, that seems a dubious investment. It seems that such areas are underserrved because they can't afford it. Spending a large amount of money to work around one fairly small facet of their reality seems like it would be challenging to recoup. I suppose as a reach they could believe that internet access would accelerate some elevation in socioeconomic conditions for such areas, though that would be a bit of overconfidence in what access to the internet could help a society overcome...

    I personally am surprised at just how much of the population is enthusiastic about the increasing breadth and depth of control over our lives being assumed by a very small number of companies (e.g. amazon, google, apple). In internet technology in particular it is sort of sad to see since that has had so much of its functionality well federated and we are generally seeing it degrade into proprietary walled gardens with 'trusted' companies owning their little piece of ecosystem wholly.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Doesn't seem like a wise investment.. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It seems that such areas are underserrved because they can't afford it.

      That's never the reason... Or rather, it can be a self-reinforcing problem.

      Sometimes it's a problem of geography... Land-locked countries don't have access to those submarine cables that coastal countries can connect to.

      But scale seems to ALWAYS be a problem. Without enough early-adopters... people willing to commit a big chunk of their income to non-essential internet access... you never get the economies of scale, and it stays astronomically expensive.

      they could believe that internet access would accelerate some elevation in socioeconomic conditions for such areas, though that would be a bit of overconfidence in what access to the internet could help a society overcome...

      Cell phones have been a HUGE boon for people in impoverished countries. You would be amazed at how much a couple lines of information can be worth. From learning which seeds may perform better in a given climate, to finding up-to-date current rates for the grains you want to sell in different areas, to gaining access to loans from financial institutions.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Doesn't seem like a wise investment.. by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      It seems that such areas are underserrved because they can't afford it.

      Define can't afford it. Let me give you a couple of examples here in the US.

      The company where I work has a horribly incompetent local telco. When they first bought their wires from Verizon, they came out and talked to me about high speed internet. Five years later, they can still only figure out T1 lines. There is no cable available the industrial park where we're at. I once looked into it and Charter and Comcast couldn't figure out who would actually service my area (each saying it would be the other). I think they finally settled on Charter, but with a huge build-out cost (somewhere around 30k if I remember right). A few years later, a Charter sales guy popped in to find out if we were interested in buying their service. I told him I absolutely was, but there's no way I could afford their build out cost. Supposedly they're trying to find enough potential customers to justify their build out cost, but here we are almost two years later and no service. We can easily afford the service. Even at $1,000/mo I can probably get it approved. But we can't (won't) pay that build out cost.

      I also like to go camping in a semi-remote area. It's not real camping. We do it with a travel trailer on a seasonal site. Full plumbing, full electric, etc. But it's still enjoyable. They've talked about putting in Wifi, but there's no broadband of any kind available. Again, build out costs are going to be the issue. I doubt they'd pay $1,000/mo for service, but I'm sure they can afford something like 100/mo.

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
  20. of course they are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    can't spy on people's internet use if they don't have internet.

  21. I prefer the balloon with trajectory control by maitas · · Score: 1

    Since they invested in balloon, it seems it is far cheaper. And they can control the trajectory using this method https://smartech.gatech.edu/bi...

  22. g00gle spies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    g00gle spies

  23. And the oligopoly continues ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Another couple of years or so, and all of our infrastructure will be owned by corporations, who will allow us to use it at their sufferance, and only by giving them everything they want.

    These same companies continue to bribe governments to give them favorable laws and outcomes (not to mention lower taxes).

    Corporate America, and their global lackeys, are pretty much ruining the global economy.

  24. A fleet of satellites sounds pretty cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ballmer is spending 2 Billion on a sketchy basketball team, Apple is spending 3 Billion on sketchy, mid-quality headphones, and Google is spending less than that and getting a fleet of friggin satellites? I think that Google wins this round.

  25. Only a Billion? by bobbied · · Score: 2

    I don't think a Billion is enough to do much more than a proof of concept. Google is going to have to pony up a few more bills or this will be a huge boondoggle. But if anybody has the money it's Google.

    Next up will be the purchase of the spectrum space needed for this. I'm thinking LightSquared has some licenses they could get by talking to the bankruptcy judge..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  26. Nothing new under the Sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is the new Microsoft.

    Remember when Microsoft (well, Teledesic) tried to do the same in the mid 1990s. According Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teledesic ):

    "Teledesic was a company founded in the 1990s to build a commercial broadband satellite constellation for Internet services. Using low-earth orbiting satellites small antennas could be used to provide uplinks of as much as 100 Mbit/second and downlinks of up to 720 Mbit/second. The original 1995 proposal was extremely ambitious, costing over US$9 billion and originally planning 840 active satellites with in-orbit spares at an altitude of 700 km.[1] In 1997 the scheme was scaled back to 288 active satellites at 1400 km[2] and was later scaled back further in complexity and number of satellites as the projected market demand continued to decrease."

  27. Why didn't they just buy ViaSat? by kriston · · Score: 2

    Why didn't they just buy ViaSat, their space and ground segments, and their Exede brand? Charlie Ergen isn't going to sell HughesNet anytime soon.

    It must be nice for your stock to be so excessively overvalued to have so much money to throw around on all these ancillary projects.

    --

    Kriston

    1. Re:Why didn't they just buy ViaSat? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      It must be nice for your stock to be so excessively overvalued to have so much money to throw around on all these ancillary projects.

      Google has money to throw around because they're excessively profitable.
      They aren't issuing shares to fund this stuff.
      As for ancillary... well, here's two quotes from their IPO prospectus

      And now, we are in the process of establishing the Google Foundation. We intend to contribute significant resources to the foundation, including employee time and approximately 1% of Googleâ(TM)s equity and profits in some form. We hope someday this institution may eclipse Google itself in terms of overall world impact by ambitiously applying innovation and significant resources to the largest of the worldâ(TM)s problems.

      We will optimize for the long term rather than trying to produce smooth earnings for each quarter. We will support selected high-risk, high-reward projects and manage our portfolio of projects.

      They have always aimed to do things outside search/advertising.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Why didn't they just buy ViaSat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you care? Do you own Viasat stock?

  28. Why? by koan · · Score: 1

    "Google and Facebook are trying to figure out ways of reaching populations that thus far have been unreachable,"

    Why? Keep in mind I see no altruism here, so what's the motivation? Is this some sort of gold rush to capture the uncovered areas? What would a large corporation expect to monetize in an area that has little to no infrastructure?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  29. China 1.3 billion not covered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how about 'negoitiating for access' to the Chinese market, ON THE GROUND they are missing out on 1,300,000,000 people, ohh yeaH!

  30. Yeehah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Podunk, USA will finally get something better than dialup.

  31. Satellites? by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The cheap bastards. If they'd added a couple of billions, they could have gotten a headphone company.

    1. Re:Satellites? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Thank for that nospam007 - you just brightened my day!

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    2. Re:Satellites? by netsavior · · Score: 1

      Apple bought an urban market. They don't need Dr Dre to teach them how to build headphones, they need millions of customers who are willing to pay a 200 dollar premium for a brand image (because that has almost ALWAYS been Apple's strategy)... As the black turtleneck fades they desperately need some other angle.

      Pay 200 more because it's Beats
      Pay 200 more because it's Apple

      The two companies could not be a better match.

  32. Tapioca business planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, the myth in America is that entrepreneurs have this ability to know what markets want and that they are really smart. Because in our society, money equals brains.

    Now, what most people don't realize and most business folks refuse to admit is that there is quite a bit of luck.

    So, what do reasonably intelligent business people do when they wake up and realize this? They start "throwing tapioca at the wall" and see what sticks.

    Or better yet, copy some company that is successful and (hopefully) do it better - Microsoft was the champion of that strategy.

    That is why no matter how "great" an entrepreneur is, they will always rack up a bunch of failures before hitting it big.

    Richard Branson is a genius in getting other people to pay for his ventures while he reaps the bulk of the benefits.

    Ah, Google - that is where Google is sort of right now. They need to keep growing to keep that obscene value of their stock and they need more markets for their advertising. After all, that is what Google is - an advertising company. The tech they develop is just ways to get more eyeballs to their advertising - whether directly or getting more people to the net or getting the net in front of folks for longer hours per day.

  33. The product manager from software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Product will be in beta and repair problems will be posted on /.

  34. Only for internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not at all for use in controlling a Google robot army in their takeover of the planet

  35. cool satellite, so: by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Just imagine a Beowulf cluster.... oh, never mind.

    On the subject of Beowulf clusters: now that Tolkien's translation is available, do we need a new stupid /. meme?

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  36. Taxes by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    It is more likely Apple bought that company for tax purposes.

  37. But will they also have GPS? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Will these puppies also have some form of GPS in them? Not only will they know what filth you are posting but they'll know where you posted it from.

    1. Re:But will they also have GPS? by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1

      Will these puppies also have some form of GPS in them? Not only will they know what filth you are posting but they'll know where you posted it from.

      With triangulation, and Doppler shift calculations it doesn't matter. Though it's much harder to do those things with everyone vs just have them send their position data. Not that ISPs don't already know everything about you.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
  38. Make that search a quick one by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Once they're deployed, you can look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome anywhere in the world

    ...but be quick about it.

    1. Re:Make that search a quick one by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Luckily they're LEOs so their garbage will come down in a reasonable amount of time, even if Google goes tits up and shuts the whole thing down without ceremony.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  39. Could be a great equalizer... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    ...if they also gave everybody access to the feeds from the cameras that will likely be pointed at Earth. But I bet various governments won't let that happen. Might be possible for citizens to break the encryption on the camera video data though.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  40. Big market by volmtech · · Score: 2

    These satellites will orbit over the same areas served by the geosynchronous satellites used by Hughes Net and Wild Blue. If Google can beat their prices that's millions more potential customers. I know I'm sick of a 475 Mb daily cap for $80 a month.

    1. Re:Big market by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      if you think you are going to get "broadband" access speeds to download your 475 MB in even a month via these proposed sattelites I've got some engineering reality with which to slap you upside the head

  41. last meal by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Then they could also message NSA and military drones to beam guide something else down.

    1. Re:last meal by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      What do you think the X-37B is doing up in orbit right now? NOT housing an orbital laser targeting system for ICBMs?

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  42. Bypass all terrestrial carriers. Checkmate by gelfling · · Score: 1

    I like it that Google will eventually skip over cable, DSL and all other terrestrial modes. Because fuck those guys. Seriously.

  43. What if it's a high-altitude airship? by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

    Park a drone airship (hydrogen, not helium) ~22km up with solar panels on its topside for power and you'd have a really nice comms platform. Mesh network the fleet. Maybe higher up. Maybe you'd call it a satellite but it's not what you'd think of at first glance. The rigid hull of an airship would be a nice evolution from the balloons they've been experimenting with.

  44. Where's the Doctor? by cyberzephyr · · Score: 1

    Where's the Doctor when you need him?

    That is a lot of satellites going up.

    Thoroughly with tongue in cheek :-)

    --
    I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
  45. What's old is new again: Teledesic by storkus · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

    It's about friggin' time.

    Oh, yeah, and there are plenty of people even "in the middle of nowhere", as city-slickers like to say from their Starbucks. How many people "in the middle of nowhere" up in the Arctic can't get anything but unreliable and VERY expensive satellite. And what about down in Antarctic where the options are slow-but-reliable bonded Iridium or fast-but-unreliable NOAA wobblesat (don't remember which one exactly).

    We *NEED* a polar-LEO data satellite system that can be accessed from individual users (like Hughesnet, etc) versus just from telcos and ISPs (O3b, etc). Neither fiber nor terrestrial microwave can reach everywhere, and in some places is forbidden by environmental law: satellite can work in this case.

  46. Would Google takes over the Iridium satellites ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are already a bunch of Iridium satellites up there, partly sponsored by Bill Gates

    I have no idea if those teledesic birds are outfitted for what Google has in mind, but then

  47. FEED ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We require more souls... MOAR! Mwuahahaha

    Google – Don't be evil

  48. Re:Would Google takes over the Iridium satellites by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 2

    The Iridium satellites do not offer high speed internet access. They were designed for very low data rate phone calls (they use AMBE encoding at 2.4Kbps) and SMS. They also offer data services but they operate at the same 2.4Kbps speed as voice. Globalstar does slightly better at 9.6Kbps.

    Currently in the US, the best satellite internet service available is through the current generation of EchoStar geostationary satellites. Those offer speeds up to 15Mbps but suffer from the long latency that is inherent to geostationary orbit; packets have to travel at least 45,000 miles to go from Earth to satellite and back. HughesNet, WildBlue, and dishNET are all selling service on those satellites.

    O3b Networks is currently in the process of deploying eight middle-Earth-orbit (8,000km, about 5,000 miles) satellites for Internet service; four are already in orbit and four more are scheduled to launch in July. Their main focus is on serving parts of the world with little or no internet access (the name is derived from "other 3 billion), and they offer their services primarily to local ISPs, not directly to consumers. I believe the cost of the earth equipment is too high for individuals though it might be acceptable for corporations. They claim to be planning to offer speeds up to 1.6Gbps. No price information is publicly listed.

    Teledesic was a planned competitor to Iridium that never got off the ground (grin).

    The Google satellite system will be useful if it happens and if the pricing is acceptable. Unlike O3B, I believe they plan to offer service directly to individuals; the low-earth-orbit satellites they plan to use should require less costly ground equipment.

  49. diesel in your geny by vandamme · · Score: 1

    I was in both Africa and Germany last summer, and in sunny Germany there were roofs full of PV arrays, while in darkest Africa they were burning kerosene for lights and diesel for their generators.