Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Hits Two Milestones In Plan For Low-Latency Satellite Broadband (arstechnica.com)
SpaceX is about to launch two demonstration satellites, and it is on track to get the Federal Communications Commission's permission to offer satellite internet service in the U.S. "Neither development is surprising, but they're both necessary steps for SpaceX to enter the satellite broadband market," reports Ars Technica. "SpaceX is one of several companies planning low-Earth orbit satellite broadband networks that could offer much higher speeds and much lower latency than existing satellite internet services." From the report: Today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai proposed approving SpaceX's application "to provide broadband services using satellite technologies in the United States and on a global basis," a commission announcement said. SpaceX would be the fourth company to receive such an approval from the FCC, after OneWeb, Space Norway, and Telesat. "These approvals are the first of their kind for a new generation of large, non-geostationary satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service systems, and the Commission continues to process other, similar requests," the FCC said today. SpaceX's application has undergone "careful review" by the FCC's satellite engineering experts, according to Pai. "If adopted, it would be the first approval given to an American-based company to provide broadband services using a new generation of low-Earth orbit satellite technologies," Pai said.
Separately, CNET reported yesterday that SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch on Saturday will include "[t]he first pair of demonstration satellites for the company's 'Starlink' service." The demonstration launch is confirmed in SpaceX's FCC filings. One SpaceX filing this month mentions that a secondary payload on Saturday's Falcon 9 launch will include "two experimental non-geostationary orbit satellites, Microsat-2a and -2b." Those are the two satellites that SpaceX previously said would be used in its first phase of broadband testing.
Separately, CNET reported yesterday that SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch on Saturday will include "[t]he first pair of demonstration satellites for the company's 'Starlink' service." The demonstration launch is confirmed in SpaceX's FCC filings. One SpaceX filing this month mentions that a secondary payload on Saturday's Falcon 9 launch will include "two experimental non-geostationary orbit satellites, Microsat-2a and -2b." Those are the two satellites that SpaceX previously said would be used in its first phase of broadband testing.
To short Comcast AT&T and Spectrum.
But, since he doesn't have a car any more, he went with satellite internet instead.
they plan to offer this on a competitive basis in all areas of the US (especially rural or suburban areas that currently have none or maybe just one existing broadband option, but even in areas that have both cable and phone options)
And that the pricing is within the reach of the average middle to low income person living in such areas.
Previously I've only seen experiments that focus on providing service to third world countries but ignore the bast under or unserved areas in the US (cough, project loon)
If this ever becomes fully available everywhere in the US, and is priced affordably, it may finally signal the start of the death of the monopolistic stranglehold the current broadband providers have on the market in the US.
That the current FCC seems to be approving of it, suggests to me that it WON'T. It will probably be priced similarly to other Musk offerings, so high as to only be affordable to people with 6 figure or higher salaries.
Because if there's one thing we know Pai protects, its the guaranteed mega profits of his corporate masters.
hasn't been a recent auction for 'satellite-ready' bands
Seems Boeing is also making a swarm of LEO broadband satellites. Given they also have launch capability, they're likely to be the only company theoretically capable of competing with SpaceX. However, between Boeing and SpaceX, only one of the two companies has 'affordability' in their vocabulary. At best, Boeing will stave off antitrust complaints about SpaceX being able to undercut anyone else. From what I could find, SpaceX's swarm of >4,000 satellites will be far greater than what the competitors are planning, leading to higher max throughput, and ability to serve consumers via economies of scale. That said, SpaceX isn't really a broadband/satellite-making company, so they could screw up somewhere.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Or rather from FCC only ? The satellites are going to orbit around the globe so in a similar fashion they should get permission from all the countries they fly by ?
And if they dont get the approval what are they going to do ? Shoot them down ? Jam the signal ?
Yeah probably if they want to sell their service out of the US they need that approval but still seem silly. Corrupt Muricans regulating space.
"SpaceX expects its own latencies to be between 25 and 35ms, similar to the latencies measured for wired Internet services. Current satellite ISPs have latencies of 600ms or more, " https://arstechnica.com/inform.... Possibly dated information. But one has to wonder, even if you've fixed a latency issue, how is packet collision handled when ground stations can't hear each other? There's only so much bandwidth allocated. Should be interesting.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
SpaceX is one of several companies planning low-Earth orbit satellite broadband networks that could offer much higher speeds and much lower latency than existing satellite internet services.
How much lower latency? Any satellite service necessarily is going to have significant latency just because of the physics involved. Always nice to have options but what sort of speeds and how much latency are we talking about compared with existing wire line and wireless terrestrial options?
Did you read? These will be (extremely) LEO satellites as opposed to geo-sync ones. That means not 32000 KM up, but much closer. The biggest contributer to latency is the distance, so instead of 250-300ms up and another 250-300ms back to ground, you get 5-15ms one way. Total bandwidth is of more interest/concern to me.
Silence is a state of mime.
Did you read? These will be (extremely) LEO satellites as opposed to geo-sync ones.
Did you? Do you see ANY numbers in the summary? "Lower" doesn't tell me shit. Being lower latency than a geo-sync satellite is the very definition of damning with faint praise. My question was HOW MUCH faster which means give me quantities.
The biggest contributer to latency is the distance
No shit Sherlock. The question (again) is how much better will these newer LEO systems be? If they are not faster and/or cheaper than the alternatives then they are dead on arrival. So give me a published number for what the latency and real world bandwidth is supposed to be.
The most interesting part of the article was towards the bottom:
SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second, with latencies between 25ms and 35ms. Those latencies would make SpaceX's service comparable to cable and fiber. Today's satellite broadband services use satellites in much higher orbits and thus have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements.
The demonstration satellites will orbit at 511km, although the operational satellites are planned to orbit at altitudes ranging from 1,110km to 1,325km. By contrast, the existing HughesNet satellite network has an altitude of about 35,400km, making for a much longer round-trip time than ground-based networks.
This could mean good internet service at any point on the earth's surface. From the middle of the ocean to the most rustic remote unabomber cabin.
On the highest mountain. In Antarctica. Even the most inhospitable places like New Jersey.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
so high as to only be affordable to people with 6 figure or higher salaries
To start, maybe. Musk realized that an electric car wasn't going to be cost competitive right off the bat. He had launch a luxury brand so that consumers would be willing to pay the premium until prices could be brought down. The base price of the Model 3 ($35,000) is 60% lower than the base price of the 2008 Roadster (~$90,000), and you get a much more practical car for your money.
when 2 re-usable boosters come down off course and exactly a mile apart.
You realize that Boeing has been competing in the commercial (unsubsidized) space industry for decades, and is successfully competing against Airbus and EADS, both of which are significantly subsidized?
The FCC? Seems like they only have authority over ground-based nodes in the US, not "globally."
Physics says speed of light in fiber = 2/3 speed in space.
So, if the orbit is low enough, then sat link quicker than direct fiber link.
Those countries would be jamming the signal just like communist countries use to do with Voice of America.
Starlink?! There will never be a more opportune time to name a service "Skynet"!
Beyond a few hundred miles, the signal travel distance via LEO satellites should be shorter than it is through wires on the ground. It will be just a couple of direct line-of-sight hops instead of multiple hops that take complex paths between points on the ground. Wires don't go along straight paths because there's people living on the ground and all that, and the organization of the system is more complex with the signal passed between multiple entities that all add more latency than the couple of milliseconds you spend between the ground and LEO.
What speeds can we expect from this sat network?
Is that the satellites will keep falling out of a sky and need to be replenished. That sounds like not a problem until you let your terrestrial networks degrade, migrate things like emergency services or similar and for some reason new launches aren't possible. Your network basically degrades and disappears over the next few years.
Not saying it's a bad idea, it'll certainly solve that expensive last mile problem for a lot of people but it really does need to remain an adjunct to the existing network, not displace it.
Did anyone else flash back to the whole Iridium thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation
That's a bit of a cautionary tale I would think. Sure, low cost and high bandwidth internet sounds like a fine business case. On the other hand Iridium proposed to provide global, no-excuses cellular phone service and that too sounded like a no-brainer business case.
Just some of the challenges:
1). Your fleet of LEO satellites is going to need some special sauce. Atmospheric drag wants to de-orbit those satellites. You either need thrusters and fuel to boost their orbits, or a high replenishment rate on launching new ones, or maybe the LEO isn't so "low" and more like a MEO;
2). There is a need for a lot of satellites on these kinds of proposals. Is the operator prepared to manage a large fleet for the long haul?
3). What is the actual market? This was the biggest problem Iridium ran into. Populations tend to cluster together and any population grouping usually already has this service, better and cheaper than any satellite solution is going to offer. Can Starlink interest enough rural and unserviced (or poorly serviced) customers to finance the system properly?
Yes, Iridium eventually did offer a viable service. After going bankrupt and having to scale back their ambitions quite a lot.