Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX and OneWeb -- Same Goal, Different Technology and Strategy
lpress writes: OneWeb has announced that Airbus will manufacture their Internet-connectivity satellites and told us more about their plans and progress. Both OneWeb and their competitor SpaceX have the same goal — global Internet connectivity and backhaul using satellite constellations, but their technologies and organizational strategies are different. SpaceX will use many more satellites than OneWeb, but they will be smaller, shorter-lived, cheaper and orbit at a lower altitude. They are also keeping more of the effort in-house. This is competitive capitalism at its best — let's hope both succeed.
This is indeed competitive capitalism at its finest. Two teams working to achieve the same goal independently, without the benefit of each other's wisdom. Obviously sub-optimal.
but they don't provide unfiltered access to the country with more internet consumers than anyone else in the world - China.
These plans are an end-run around the Great Firewall, make no mistake.
I have my popcorn waiting for when the Chinese government decides to start shooting the satellites down.
is that just an idea or does such a scheme already exist in place somewhere?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
SpaceX will succeed and OneWeb will fail.
I could be more explicit, but we all know Elon’s track record.
Letter To Iran
Boy, will their faces be red when they read this.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
is that just an idea or does such a scheme already exist in place somewhere?
Welcome to the internets: a quick google search shows that both google and facebook are dabbling in the idea.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
MSS did not failed, it just did not succeed in the way advertised to the public back then - it is still operational, having enough "special" customers, and not just from one nation (e.g., from USA Special Forces -but i, a Greek, as ex-S.F. guy, can use it also in the NATO alliance if needed-, to the world's bigest maritime fleet -the Greek!- for communicating with families... and no need even to be "of the right team": Russians can use it also!). Keep in mind that nowdays internet is everywhere, and the original idea is more relevant for the "general public" (just people traveling with airplanes are enough to provide an sustainable income). You can't have towers everywhere, plus: they may even cost more! In Africa they have more towers than cable for the same reason... we may soon find ouselves in a situation where satelites cost less than towers, even if towers will have better technical properties, as cable has from towers.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
This is competitive capitalism at its best — let's hope both succeed.
so... apparently you dont know how capitalism works.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Sure! Who wouldn't stick with an internet provider whose service is disrupted every time a storm with high winds blows through the area? This idea can't possibly go wrong!
is a good way to accelerate the amount of space junk in orbit.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Have you actually studied the cost to grade-out a site, pour the necessary footings and build the shack, assemble the tower, cable the tower and the building, and supply electricity to it, compared to the cost to build a satellite and launch the satellite?
I bet that for a given number of rural subscribers over a the same area, the cell towers will always be cheaper, especially when long-term maintenance of the tower sites versus the continued construction and launch of not-physically-maintainable sateliites is factored in.
Consider another analogy... 802.11 wireless technology is constantly being revised. Wired technology is mature. One 48-port switch can cover an area of about 200,000 square feet, about 18,500 square meters, assuming that the area is cabled, and can give 1Gb connectivity to all devices, and if the devices follow the usual utilization patterns, a 10Gb trunk would be more than adequate. That switch with fiber transceiver probably costs $10,000, and if there's a high-end router needed, add another $10,000. Drops and infrastructure costs about $150 per drop assuming that one uses higher-cost plenum-rated cable and quality jacks and faceplates. Let's be pessimistic and add some supplies cost and we end up at $7500. So, a generously-high-end setup, probably far more than needed, is $27500 for equipment and installation, and it will run for more than a decade.
To do wireless in that same area you'll probably need more than twelve access points, and at two drops per AP to use 802.11ac you still need the 48-port switch. Now you need to buy APs. You might not need 24 (ie, use every copper port) but you'll spend $300 per AP to cable them, plus $250 per AP itself. You'll spend $2500 for the controller too. The router doesn't change. So, take the original $27,500 and add the $2500, then add the money for the APs.
Now scale-up to most size organizations, which have many more than 48 users in 200,000 square feet. Your switch needs probably will decrease on a wireless solution, but your AP and controller demands will go up if you want to keep the average user count per AP low enough to make the experience good, and as wireless technology keeps changing you're going to regularly re-buy those APs and somewhat regularly re-buy the controller(s).
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
To ensure no mistakes are made.
I'd like to see it happen, but call me skeptical.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
The phrase tickles me to the core. I believe it was George W Bush that popularized it when he was talking about potential terrorist threats. President Obama carried the 'no mistake' torch. I'm hoping the next president will continue the epic phrase. We can play phrase bingo on inauguration day.
Are the numbers you're using specific to the developed world? Adding a new tower on existing infrastructure is considerably cheaper than starting from scratch or redeveloping existing infrastructure.
Bush wants to make no mistake, Obama wants you to let him be clear
In what way is wired technology evolving less than wireless? Copper has gone from 10 Mbps to 100Mbps to GigE to 10GigE to 40GigE. Fibre has done the same, but the density of WDM has gone up a lot, the channel bandwidth has increased dramatically. Residential broadband has undergone huge changes, with the move from DOCSIS 1 to 2 to 3 (and soon 3.1) on the cable side, the move from ADSL to ADSL2 to VDSL2 on the telephone side, and the evolution of passive optical networks for fibre, currently transitioning from GPON to 10GPON.
MSS failed in that all the companies that built MSS networks went bankrupt and were purchased for pennies on the dollar. They're only profitable today because the current MSS providers essentially got their networks for close to free.
It will also show you that neither has managed to actually pull it off, and have suffered some setbacks.
It will also show you that neither has managed to actually pull it off, and have suffered some setbacks.
There's no big rush because the FCC and FAA both have to be massaged properly before they'd even be allowed to implement such a scheme. I imagine they're going to have to prove that their drones can dodge all manner of aircraft and bird life even if they are trying to hit them before they'll be allowed to play. Also, many bribes must be paid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
MSS failed in that all the companies that built MSS networks went bankrupt and were purchased for pennies on the dollar.
While i don't know details i believe that this is true.
They're only profitable today because the current MSS providers essentially got their networks for close to free.
I must disagree in some degree. I mentioned that i am Greek (some Slashdoters are tired of me mentioning that all the time, but there is a reason!), and the largest commersial maritime fleet in the world -i.e., the Greek (o.k., this is some Greek pride, but a *relevant* fact also!)- is using this network for our people in sea to talk to their families: they pay good money for this - even if the network was not used as planed originaly (i.e., from the "general population"), they have a good income capable to sustain the operation (and even make a profit capable to cover even the original investment in time?) by charging more some "special customers". I understand that what you describe is a fact, but i think that the original investors could make a profit now IF they had enough available money to avoid bankruptcy (but i don't insist in that statement because i don't know details Sir).
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
But that's not how it works... The current networks make money because they don't have to cover the R&D or construction. When Iridium went bankrupt, the billions of dollars of debt from building the network evaporated. The modern companies don't have to service that debt. They can charge lower prices because they don't have those costs to recover.
All of the MSS companies went bankrupt. Iridium and ICO in 1999, Orbcomm in 2000, Globalstar and Teledesic (which never got off the ground) in 2002.
Let me put things in perspective: it cost $6 billion to build the Iridium network. The current company bought that network for $35 million. In the grand scheme of things, that's basically free. This has allowed the current Iridium to build up a respectable revenue stream, and now they've got the financial resources to build out their next-gen network. But they could never have done it without getting the "free" network.
After that "perspective" i retract my statement in shame as totally invalid - sorry, i was not trying to misinform, it was just my huge ignorance for the details Sir.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
Sooner or later most satellites will chain fragment in the big garbage belt. Drones can make this later.
I am thinking of deploying a swarm of drones myself here locally; but they only support RFC1149.