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."'"

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

    Said Elon Musk, perking up.

  3. 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.

  4. 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).

  5. 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.

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

    Facebook Status Update: dying of dysentery

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

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

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

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

  9. 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.