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."'"

36 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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 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).

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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."
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

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

    Said Elon Musk, perking up.

  4. 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 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.

  5. 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 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. 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?
  7. 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 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Re: How will they recoup costs? by Trashcan+Romeo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Facebook Status Update: dying of dysentery

  10. 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.

  11. 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?
  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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

  16. Re:Yes, reach the poor people! by geekanarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  17. 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; }
  18. Satellites? by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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.