Amazon To Offer Broadband Access From Orbit With 3,236-Satellite 'Project Kuiper' Constellation (geekwire.com)

Amazon is joining the race to provide broadband internet access around the globe via thousands of satellites in low Earth orbit, newly uncovered filings show. From a report: The effort, code-named Project Kuiper, follows up on last September's mysterious reports that Amazon was planning a "big, audacious space project" involving satellites and space-based systems. The Seattle-based company is likely to spend billions of dollars on the project, and could conceivably reap billions of dollars in revenue once the satellites go into commercial service. It'll take years to bring the big, audacious project to fruition, however, and Amazon could face fierce competition from SpaceX, OneWeb and other high-profile players.

Project Kuiper's first public step took the form of three sets of filings made with the International Telecommunications Union last month by the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Washington, D.C.-based Kuiper Systems LLC. The ITU oversees global telecom satellite operations and eventually will have to sign off on Kuiper's constellation. The filings lay out a plan to put 3,236 satellites in low Earth orbit -- including 784 satellites at an altitude of 367 miles (590 kilometers); 1,296 satellites at a height of 379 miles (610 kilometers); and 1,156 satellites in 391-mile (630-kilometer) orbits. In response to GeekWire's inquiries, Amazon confirmed that Kuiper Systems is actually one of its projects.

Comments

WHat will the projust be like

[fluffernutter]

As long as this product competes fairly with all other products and said company doesn't use it to unfairly advertise to or unduly influence any segment of society to their own products, then I'm all for this. Otherwise this will just turn into the same situation of Spotify versus Apple, where Spotify is automatically at a competitive disadvantage, but now it's because they can't afford their own satellites.

Re:WHat will the projust be like

[Joce640k]

Are you sure it's not all those people living in rural areas who can't get broadband at any price? And the people who like to go out in the woods where there's no phone coverage?

Having said that:
a) How "broad" can it be from low-earth orbit? Iridium's best systems are still only at dial-up modem speeds.
b) I'm sure Amazon will lobby against net neutrality so they can prioritize traffic from their own services and slow down Netflix etc.
c) Launching 3236 new satellites into low-earth-orbits? What could possibly go wrong?

Re:WHat will the projust be like

[Joce640k]

Ships at sea, too. I imagine that's a very lucrative market if somebody can fill it.

Cruise ships will probably cough up a fortune for decent Internet.

Re:WHat will the projust be like

[ebh]

Bandwidth is easy. Latency is hard.

Re:WHat will the projust be like

[drinkypoo]

Are you sure it's not all those people living in rural areas who can't get broadband at any price?

They can already get satellite internet. AFAIK nobody meets the FCC definition of broadband, though. Exede (Viasat) gives 20MB/sec, I don't think any services are faster than that. They throttle video, but downloads are plenty fast. There's about a second of latency, though, which is a drag. LEO will help there. Right now LEO doesn't help much because the existing networks are low-bandwidth, but once we have high-bandwidth sats in LEO, we'll have more usable latencies on satellite networks.

Networks like these are what will finally get decent internet access to RVs. None of the GEO providers support RV users right now. You can get a self-aiming dish for watching TV, but not for internet access. I want the exact opposite :)

Re:WHat will the projust be like

[MooseTick]

I'd agree. Luckily, the average satellite latency is about half that. And if it isn't found to be usable in that capacity, it could cut tons of terrestrial bandwidth usage so most traffic moves via satellite and leave lots of room for the few applications that need to move fast. Image the speed we could get back if all that Youtube, Netflix, Pandora, Facebook, Roku traffic were moved via satellite.

Re:WHat will the projust be like

[omnichad]

Maybe theoretically/sometimes. In the real world, peak business hours especially, congestion increases that latency. This new constellation is LEO - so you will have latency that competes with traditional broadband.

Re:WHat will the projust be like

[lgw]

1) Not everyone can afford satellites, and

And what's your point? Seriously? You don't become a regional power company without billions to spend. You don't become a major telecom player without billions to spend. That's the nature of utilities.

The problem with current ISPs is the last mile monopoly. This approach bypasses that.

2) By the time a few companies build theirs, there will be no room for others.

Space is big. There's limited room in GEO because it's effectively 1-diminsional, and so it's heavily controlled by treaties. Anywhere else though there's lots of room. Lower orbits are more crowded, relatively speaking, but they also decay a lot faster (drag increases exponentially as you get close), and sats only have so much station-keeping fuel, so orbit height is a bit of a trade-off an there's no special prime real-estate (other than GEO).

Source article URL...

[daveschroeder]

...not included in post at time of posting this comment:

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/...

Censorship and content blocking

[sinij]

Are they going to comply with specific government requirements for content censorship? That is, if someone in China going to get satellite internet, are Amazon going to roll over and censor it?

So far track record for big tech on this is abysmal, even "Do no evil" Google working on censored search engine for China. I don't see Amazon behaving any differently.

Re:Censorship and content blocking

[olsmeister]

If they don't have any physical presence there, why would they?

Re:Censorship and content blocking

[Dunbal]

Because they might find some of their satellites falling out of the sky until they do?

Re:Censorship and content blocking

[arbiter1]

If they want to sell service legally then yes they will have follow the law's of said country.

Re:Censorship and content blocking

[EndlessNameless]

how is said govt going to block access to a sat network?

Internet access requires two-way comms. They should be capable of locating any terrestrial transmitter that can reach orbital receivers.

Even focused directional antennae are detectable when you can put planes or satellites overhead.

There is no need for electronic disruption. They can simply find and arrest the users.

Re:Censorship and content blocking

[omnichad]

China is a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty, but deciding whether taking down a satellite is a violation of that treaty would be a long-fought battle.

Light pollution

[magarity]

Time to move all serious astronomy to the far side of the moon.

630 km?

[PPH]

They already drop their packages from too high on my porch.

More space garbage

[racermd]

Look, I'm in favor of LEO satellite internet as much as anyone else but I have VERY serious reservations about Amazon operating it in any capacity. They've shown, time and again, that they're not willing to do the Right Thing (tm) if it means any kind of hit to their bottom line. Going further, they seem quite intent on weaseling their way into our lives and using data about us all as a competitive advantage, both to their direct competition as well as to ourselves.

And, last I checked, this is at least the second proposal that's offering to launch a constellation of LEO satellites to provide internet services. Didn't SpaceX propose exactly the same service no more than a few months ago? If Amazon manages to do this alongside SpaceX, that's TWO separate and distinct constellations of satellites in low-Earth orbit to contend with. The complications of getting ONE constellation in place without interference are quite high, let alone two. Plus, as more and more nations flex their satellite-hitting technology for military purposes, it can only lead to trouble with regards to dangerous space debris.

Let's nationalize - no, GLOBALIZE this project so that a single constellation of satellites can serve multiple providers. That way, if China wants to censor content, that provider can do that for their territory. Heck, it wouldn't be that difficult to geo-lock signals to prevent, say, a North American provider out of Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. But - one of the advantages of a global constellation of internet-providing satellites is that you could, in theory, get your internet subscription from your home territory and travel literally anywhere int he world and still get access.

Regardless - this seems very much like a "Me too!" move from Bezos to counter Musk. They seem to be fighting over how much control one hyper-wealthy billionaire can have over the rest of us plebes. And I'm already tired of it.

Laws [Re:Global Agreement]

[XXongo]

On the other hand - unlike municipal and other laws that prevent you from stringing your own cable on telephone poles or under roads: absolutely nothing is stopping you from putting up your own satellites.

Actually, no, there are laws saying that you can't put up your own satellites without permission from your government. Even if you don't launch them from your own country. https://www.technologyreview.c...

In the US, you need FCC permission to operate, and FAA permission to launch.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/

Re:Not about internet.

[Guspaz]

How, exactly? If you put 3,236 satellites into a 300km orbit and spread them evenly over the surface of the planet, you'll still only have one satellite per 172,816 square kilometers. The chances of collision for something passing through to a higher orbit would be very small, particularly if you timed the launch to reduce the chances further.

Re:Not about internet.

[Joce640k]

Getting them all up there with no mistakes/debris might be a challenge though.

Failure rate for that many satellites will be high, too. They'll need constant replacement/de-orbiting.

Where Will They Get The Rockets?

[Zorro]

Blue Origin?

Has yet to reach orbit even one time.

Re:Lag?

[RoccamOccam]

These are much lower orbits (not geostationary).

Re:Lag?

[sh00z]

Yeah, easy calculation. c=3E08m/sec. If alttitude is 300km, that's 3E05m. t(one-way)= 1E-03, 1 millisecond.

Kessler Syndrome?

[pr0t0]

I think there are at least four distinct large constellations planned. I have mixed feelings. Competition = good, right? I don't think a Kessler Syndrome is likely, but it's likelihood increases with every single thing we put in orbit.

SpaceX Starlink is roughly 12000 satellites.
Amazon Kuiper is 3200 satellites
Boeing 3000 satellites
OneWeb 2000 satellites

So roughly 20,000 new satellites. That's seems like pretty crowded sky. However, I just did some napkin math. With Earth's radius at 3950 miles and the satellites operating at a maximum altitude of 850 miles, 20k is roughly 1 satellite for every 145k square miles if distributed perfectly evenly at that altitude. So maybe not so bad?

Re:Not about internet.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Failure rate for that many satellites will be high, too. They'll need constant replacement/de-orbiting.

Fortunately they get free Prime shipping.