Wall Street Analysts Say Musk's Starlink Poses No Real Threat To Traditional Broadband

from the gonna-need-more-satellites dept

To be clear: Space X's Starlink broadband service won't be taking on traditional broadband providers in major metro areas. Instead, the company will be using thousands of low orbit satellites (with lower latency than traditional satellite broadband) to deliver marginally decent service to under-served rural Americans, assuming it winds up being profitable longer term. In a country where an estimated 42 million can't get any broadband at all (during a raging pandemic, no less), any improvement helps.

At the same time, many Musk fanboys and press outlets continue to overstate Starlink's (which provides speeds "up to" 100 Mbps for $100 per month plus a $500 first month equipment charge) overall impact. And many telecom analysts continue to try and temper this unbridled enthusiasm, warning that by Musk's admission, the service isn't going to have the kind of capacity necessary to truly disrupt the traditional fixed broadband market. That includes Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett, who has been trying to calm investors in traditional broadband companies worried about Starlink's disruptive potential:

"For investors worried about Starlink's threat to terrestrial broadband, we think the threat is minimal," Moffett surmised. "Based on our analysis of the data available today … Starlink is much better suited for bringing broadband to unserved or underserved markets than it is for bringing competition to already-wired markets."

Even in the largely rural (and maritime) markets Musk's company is targeting, the overall impact is notably smaller than you might think:

"According to his analysis of available capacity and anticipated usage, Moffett estimates that Starlink's US TAM, at a full deployment of about 12,000 low-earth orbit (LEO) satellites (about 1,400 are in orbit today), is in the range of just 300,000 to 800,000 households, or less than 1% of the US market, Moffett notes."

On the maximum end, Moffett's study guesstimates that Starlink could ultimately serve as many as 6 million US subscribers once the company upgrades the low orbit satellites and boosts overall satellite total to 42,000. But again for context: there are 42 million Americans with no access to broadband whatsoever (double official FCC estimates), and another 83 million US consumers stuck under a broadband monopoly (usually Comcast). Tens of millions more live under a broadband duopoly, usually consisting of Comcast and a local phone company that probably hasn't upgraded its DSL lines since 2004 or so.

So again, while Starlink will be a very good thing for rural users with no options who can afford the $100 monthly charge, it's simply not going to revolutionize the sector anytime soon.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, elon musk, satellite, starlink
Companies: space x

Dish, Space X Battle At The Broadband Subsidy Trough

from the good-arguments,-dodgy-motivation dept

To be clear: Space X's Starlink low-orbit satellite broadband service won't revolutionize the broadband industry. The service lacks the capacity to service dense urban or suburban areas, meaning it won't pose much of a threat to traditional cable and fiber providers. With a $100 monthly price tag and $500 hardware fee, it's not exactly a miracle cure for the millions of low-income Americans struggling to afford a broadband connection, either.

That said: if you're currently one of the 42 million Americans who lacks access to any broadband at all, the service, capping out at 100 Mbps, is going to be damn-near miraculous (if you can afford it). It's also going to be a major competitive challenge to the companies that not only compete for rural broadband attention (like WISPs, cellular providers, and last-gen satellite providers), but are busy elbowing out one another at the trough to grab a slice of taxpayer subsidies. Understandably, many of these companies are trying to slow Starlink by any means necessary.

Last month, ViaSat urged the FCC to investigate Space X's very real impact on scientific research via light pollution (a genuine problem regulators have done bupkis about so far). Since the 80s, satellite systems have had a baked in exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), excluding their businesses from environmental review. As Amazon and Space X fling tens of thousands of low orbit satellites into space, ViaSat is suggesting that exemption be reversed. ViaSat's motivations here are entirely selfish. But at the same time this is a real problem they're not wrong about.

Dish Network is also trying to slow down Starlink a bit more creatively by telling the FCC the company's broadband plans could cause interference in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band:

"Dish told the FCC that SpaceX's plan "would adversely affect reception at DBS consumer dishes and that the system as modified would exceed the applicable power limits under International Telecommunication Union and Commission rules. In other words, SpaceX would not be able [to] use the 12 GHz band to meet its RDOF obligations if such service interferes with DBS operations."

Earlier this year we noted how Space X was awarded $885.51 million over 10 years from the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction. The problem: like many companies, critics say Space X gamed the system by being misleading about where the company plans to offer service. As such, it's not really clear that we need to be throwing nearly a billion dollars at one of the planet's richest human beings to deploy service to an extra 642,925 locations they probably would have serviced anyway without taxpayer/ratepayer aid.

As the FCC begins digging more deeply into who actually deserves subsidization under its heavily criticized RDOF auction, Dish is trying to have Starlink's designation as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) under the Communications Act pulled, threatening its subsidies. Starlink's response to Dish's claims is to correctly note that Dish is largely motivated by its own best interests:

"Clearly, this challenge is part of DISH’s larger campaign to cash in on its spectrum speculation in the 12 GHz band by antagonizing non-geostationary orbit satellite operators already licensed to operate in that spectrum. The Commission should decisively reject across all of those proceedings these blatant efforts to misuse Commission resources."

You might recall that Dish is supposed to be building a new 5G network as part of a dodgy plan by the Trump administration affixed to the Sprint T-Mobile merger. The plan: to build a new network over 7 years to help counter the lost competition from losing Sprint. The reality: many still tend to think Dish will spend several years stringing regulators along, only to then cash out of their massive spectrum holdings sometime down the road, with no real network to show for it. So far, the latter path seems like the most likely outcome, in part because T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon really don't want the added competition.

So on one hand, you have a company in Starlink offering a promising technology, but gaming the broken FCC subsidy system to obtain ratepayer money they don't really deserve. On the other, you have a company in Dish that may or may not ever develop a major working commercial wireless network, eager to derail Starlink just in case it someday has to compete with it. Layer on top the fact that countless billions in subsidies never seem to fix US broadband woes because we generally do a terrible job mapping broadband coverage or tracking how those subsidies are spent, and you can start to see why US broadband (and policy) is a bit of a dysfunctional mess.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, subsidies, subsidy
Companies: dish, space x

Annoyance Builds At Elon Musk Getting A Billion In Subsidies For Starlink Broadband

from the not-really-helping dept

So we've noted a few times how Elon Musk's Starlink is going to be a great thing for folks stuck out of reach of traditional broadband options. Though with a $600 first month price tag ($100 monthly bill and $500 hardware charge) it's not some magic bullet for curing the "digital divide." And without the capacity to service more densely populated areas, the service is only going to reach several million rural Americans. That's a good start, but it's only going to make a tiny dent for the 42 million Americans that lack access to any broadband, or the 83 million currently stuck under a broadband monopoly (usually Comcast). Starlink is going to be a good thing, but not transformative or truly disruptive to US telecom monopolies.

There are a few other issues with the tech as well. One is the creation of light pollution that's harming scientific research (which US regulators have absolutely no plan to mitigate). Then there's the fact that Musk's Starlink recently gamed the broken FCC auction process to nab nearly a billion dollars it doesn't really deserve. Consumer group Free press did a good job breaking down how we're throwing a billion dollars at the second richest man on the planet via an FCC RDOF auction that's very broken, and by proxy easily exploitable by clever companies:

"But lest I be accused of West-Coast bias, here’s a parking lot outside the Pentagon, where Elon Musk’s Starlink is getting scarce ratepayer funds to offer his “coming soon” satellite service, one that he’s previously said was intended to bring broadband to the hardest-to-reach rural areas. Apparently Uncle Sam wants you to pay for completely unnecessary satellite-internet service to an urban parking lot a few feet from one of the most connected properties on the planet.

Again there's really no reason to be subsidizing Musk here. Especially for somebody that has lots of deep thoughts on stuff like "socialism." Needless to say, there's a growing roster of companies and broadband co-ops that also aren't particularly keen on Elon Musk getting money that could be going to truly struggling local broadband providers, many of which operate on highly restrictive budgets, and are deploying actual fiber connections:

"SpaceX’s broadband-from-orbit “is a completely unproven technology,” said Jim Matheson, chief executive officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which has members that vied for the funding. “Why use that money for a science experiment?"

I think it's less about the tech not working (early beta reports are pretty great), and more about not throwing a billion dollars at a billionaire for a low orbit satellite technology that's both inferior to fiber, and easily funded by Musk without the government's help. To get money from the government, Musk's Starlink promised it could deliver 100 Mbps to each consumer. And while users on the largely empty network are seeing those speeds, another report this week suggested they'd probably never hit that benchmark for most users:

"Boiled down further, the study estimates that 56% of SpaceX's RDOF locations in a "low capacity" use case (average data usage of 15.3 Mbit/s per location) and 57% of locations in a "high capacity" use case (average data usage of 20.8 Mbit/s per customer) "will experience service degradation during peak times and not meet the RDOF public interest requirements." The Cartesian study also estimates that 25% to 29% of locations will receive an average of less than 10 Mbit/s of capacity during peak times."

To be clear, some of these critics are companies that are simply worried about having to compete with Starlink. I imagine that smaller WISP CEOs aren't sleeping particularly well right now. Traditional satellite providers, whose costly, capped, and high latency services have been mocked for decades, aren't going to enjoy competition from Starlink either. Rural cellular companies are also probably going to lose some subscribers. Especially if Starlink winds up being easy to use and delivers consistent speeds (which we won't see until they launch a fully loaded commercial network).

But that still doesn't really address that the planet's second wealthiest man shouldn't be subsidized for a project he would have paid to deploy anyway, and is only likely to put a small dent in the overall problem. One more time for scale: Starlink will probably help serve somewhere between 485,000 to 1.5 million subscribers. There are 42 million in the US without broadband, 83 million stuck under a monopoly, tens of millions more stuck under duopoly, and then countless millions more who can't afford service due to monopolization. Starlink will be helpful, but it's a drop in the bucket.

There's a lot of middle and last-mile fiber-based broadband solutions that will have a lot more capacity, being pushed by companies for which a few million bucks is a life or death equation. Instead we're throwing a billion at a billionaire for a service that's not really all that affordable, and, once fully loaded to capacity is very likely to come with all manner of throttling, deprioritization, and other restrictions in the post net neutrality era. Add in an FCC whose broadband maps suck and auction processes are completely broken, and you can probably see how this isn't a recipe for success.

Filed Under: elon musk, starlink, subsidies
Companies: space x, starlink

ViaSat Asks FCC To Investigate Space X For Space Pollution

from the competitive-elbowing dept

So we've already noted how Space X's Starlink low-orbit satellite broadband service isn't going to revolutionize the broadband industry. The service lacks the capacity to service dense urban or suburban areas, meaning it won't pose much of a threat to traditional cable and fiber providers. With a $100 monthly price tag and $500 hardware fee, it's not exactly a miracle cure for the millions of low-income Americans struggling to afford a broadband connection, either.

That said: if you're currently one of the 42 million Americans who lacks access to any broadband at all, the service, capping out at 100 Mbps, is going to be damn-near miraculous. It's also going to be a significant upgrade for those currently stuck on last-generation expensive, capped, and sluggish traditional satellite lines.

Enter ViaSat, which clearly isn't keen on having its captive business market disrupted. The company this week urged the FCC to conduct an environmental review of SpaceX’s low-orbit Starlink constellation, arguing that the fledgling system poses environmental hazards in space and on Earth. Since the 80s, satellite systems have had a baked in exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), excluding their businesses from environmental review. But the 12,000 lower orbit satellites Space X intends to launch should change that equation, ViaSat argues:

"given the sheer quantity of satellites at issue here, as well as the unprecedented nature of SpaceX’s treatment of them as effectively expendable, the potential environmental harms associated with SpaceX’s proposed modification are significant,” the company stated.

“Relying on the Commission’s decades-old categorical exemption to avoid even inquiring into the environmental consequences of SpaceX’s modification proposal would not only violate NEPA, but also would needlessly jeopardize the environmental, aesthetic, health, safety, and economic interests that it seeks to protect, and harm the public interest,” Viasat continued.

ViaSat's motivations here are in part anti-competitive to be sure, but that doesn't mean there's not a problem. A massive rise in lower orbit, cheaper satellites means a lot more junk and orbital debris floating around, putting other space craft at risk. ViaSat also argues this unprecedented rise in spacecraft also means more satellites burning up in orbit, which in turn can create environmental hazards like the production of ozone-destroying chemicals from launch vehicles to chemicals released when satellites burn up in re-entry:

"The petition cites research by The Aerospace Corporation on atmospheric impacts of launches and reentries. At the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union earlier this month, the organization presented research that concluded that the rise of satellite megaconstellations could increase the mass of satellites reentering the atmosphere from about 100 metric tons a year to as much as 3,200 metric tons."

Again, ViaSat's likely playing some competitive games here while also citing serious issues. Issues the FCC hasn't really paid much attention to as it greenlights not only the launch of Starlink, but Amazon's massive low-orbit satellite ambitions. This is all before you get to issues of massive light pollution caused by these systems, a problem Musk claimed wouldn't happen (right before it did), and something scientists recently argued can't be easily fixed, if it can be fixed at all.

The inquiry was enough to get Elon Musk to comment on Twitter, calling ViaSat's inquiry "sneaky":

It should be noted that Charlie Ergen is CEO of Dish Network, not ViaSat. And while Musk is probably right that ViaSat is largely interested in preventing disruption of its largely-captive market, at the same time we've noted how regulators aren't really taking many of these problems particularly seriously as they stand around in slack-jawed awe at the somewhat innovative potential of emerging low-orbit satellite tech.

Filed Under: competition, elon musk, fcc, low earth orbit, satellite broadband, space pollution, starlink
Companies: space x, viasat

Space X Tempers Expectations As Starlink 'Better Than Nothing' Broadband Beta Starts

from the better-than-nothing dept

Space X has begun sending invites out to folks interested in participating in the company's Starlink low-orbit satellite broadband service. Users took to Reddit to note that Starlink is promising users speeds of 50-100 Mbps downstream for about $100 per month, plus $500 down for a connection terminal and antenna. The company is also promising significantly lower latency (20 to 40ms) than what you'll typically see with satellite broadband (often 200ms or higher). The best part, no monthly usage caps and overage fees (so far):

"Expect to see data speeds vary from 50Mbps to 150Mbps and latency from 20ms to 40ms over the next several months as we enhance the Starlink system. There will also be brief periods of no connectivity at all.

As we launch more satellites, install more ground stations, and improve our networking software, data speed, latency, and uptime will improve dramatically. For latency, we expect to achieve 16ms to 19ms by summer 2021.

The Starlink phased-array user terminal, which is more advanced than what's in fighter jets, plus mounting tripod and Wi-Fi router, costs $499 and the monthly subscription costs $99.

Space X is clearly attempting to get ahead of expectations that the offering poses a serious challenge to entrenched U.S. broadband monopolies. So much so that the company is calling this the "Better Than Nothing" beta. And for good reason. As we've noted previously, Musk himself has repeatedly acknowledged the system will lack the capacity to provide service to anything outside of rural markets. From a conference earlier this year:

"The challenge for anything that is space-based is that the size of the cell is gigantic... it's not good for high-density situations," Musk said. "We'll have some small number of customers in LA. But we can't do a lot of customers in LA because the bandwidth per cell is simply not high enough."

How Space X decides to manage capacity constraints should prove interesting. With the FCC and net neutrality rules effectively lobotomized, it wouldn't be particularly surprising to see throttling implemented to help manage the load, a reminder that it's hard to beat traditional fiber. Still, Starlink could do some good things in a country where 42 million Americans are currently unable to access any broadband whatsoever. Even though for many Americans cost is the biggest obstacle, and it's not particularly clear a $600 first month bill is something a lot of these struggling users can actually afford.

In other words, Starlink will be great if your only option is currently traditional satellite broadband, a technology long despised for being slow, expensive, capped, and having high latency. It's also probably great for users who've been forced to rely exclusively on a capped and throttled wireless connection. And it's particularly great for folks who've been just out of reach of any broadband entirely. But how well Starlink differentiates itself will probably come down to how annoying its network management practices wind up being on a crowded, fully loaded network.

For most everybody else it will be a non starter. And you can probably expect a disconnect between Starlink's attempt to set realistic expectations (which should be applauded for a company not unfamiliar with hype), and regulators eager to portray Starlink as something more than the sum of its parts.

Captured regulators from both parties historically enjoy portraying emerging broadband technologies as near-miraculous examples of why regulatory oversight isn't needed. As in, "we don't need competitive policies because amazing competition is already happening." Or, as Michael Powell did with doomed powerline broadband technology in the early aughts, trying to claim that pandering mindlessly to AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast is a good idea because the free market and innovation will swoop in and save the public from monopolistic harms.

That may be true in more functional, healthier markets, but it's simply not true in the monopoly-dominated U.S. telecom sector. As such, the several million users Starlink is expected to help is a drop in the bucket in a country where 42 million Americans lack access to any broadband, 83 million more are trapped under a broadband monopoly, and tens of millions more are stuck with an apathetic duopoly. Starlink will be more akin to a band aid than a cure. Raise a skeptical, arched eyebrow at anybody claiming otherwise in the months to come.

Filed Under: competition, digital divide, elon musk, expectations, latency, satellite broadband, starlink
Companies: space x

Report Notes Musk's Starlink Won't Have The Capacity To Truly Disrupt U.S. Telecom

from the not-good-enough dept

We've noted a few times that while Space X's Starlink will be a very good thing for a limited number of rural customers out of the range of traditional broadband options, it's not going to truly disrupt the busted U.S. telecom market in any revolutionary way. The service should be a step up from traditionally expensive, capped, and sluggish old-school satellite broadband, since new low-orbit satellites can provide lower latency service at a price point Elon Musk insists will be competitive.

That said, the financial analysts at Cowen came out last week to note that even at its current maximum of 12,000 such satellites, Starlink will never have enough capacity to truly service more than 485,000 subscribers at full capacity:

"While Starlink has the ability to provide a practical satellite-based broadband solution for the underserved, the capacity has limitations in most of the US especially considering the growing demand for bandwidth driven by in-home data-rich applications and devices," the firm wrote in a research note first spotted by Light Reading.

Starlink currently has 650 satellites in orbit, with 12,000 planned by 2026. But even at full capacity the researchers estimate the service won’t be able to service any more than 485,000 simultaneous data streams at speeds of 100 Mbps.

Granted most ISPs operate under the "oversubscription" model, which correctly assumes that not all customers will be using the full throughput of their connection all day, every day. So Starlink can certainly offer slower speeds to notably more people. Especially if (with no net neutrality and a Trump FCC that couldn't care less about it) Starlink utilizes strange throttling technology that limits what users can do with those connections. But even that would barely dent the estimated 42 million Americans that lack access to any broadband, or the 83 million currently stuck under a broadband monopoly (usually Comcast).

Musk himself has acknowledged this limited capacity means Starlink won't be a major player in any major urban or suburban U.S. markets. That brings us to the other problem Cowen raises, namely that low orbit satellite will never really be able to scale with consumer demand the way traditional fiber optic broadband can. Especially not in the cloud computing, 4K game streaming era:

"US broadband consumption, and the speeds that users demand, is continuously growing," Cowen wrote. "Thus, as satellite throughput and technology continues to progress, so too will demand for faster speeds. As such, our analysis shows that LEO satellites will continuously be a step behind wireline telco/cable operators in meeting US consumer demand for broadband."

So yes, Starlink will be a good thing for a limited number of folks out of range of decent broadband or somewhere on a boat. But anybody framing this as a massive disruption to the status quo (something the press tends to enjoy doing when Musk is involved) is misrepresenting what the service will actually accomplish. As Starlink lobbies the FCC for up to $16 billion in subsidies, it's also worth remembering that U.S. taxpayers have thrown countless billions at existing monopolies for fiber optic networks that routinely wind up only half deployed.

Which is to say we could focus on state and federal corruption, and the decades of fraud and cronyism that have gifted entrenched telecom giants like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon massive geographical monopolies. Then finally just deploy the coast to coast fiber networks American taxpayers have likely already paid for several times over with the help of pissed off communities. Or we could do nothing about that problem, over-hype half-measure efforts to re-invent the wheel, then grumble in a few years about the fact we never seem to quite fix America's stubborn "digital divide."

Filed Under: broadband, capacity, competition, elon musk, satellite, starlink
Companies: space x, starlink

FCC Skeptical About Space X Satellite Broadband Claims

from the disrupt-the-undisruptable dept

Ajit Pai's FCC majority is almost never skeptical about the claims made by giant broadband providers. Yet the FCC is expressing doubt that Elon Musk's looming, well-hyped satellite broadband service Starlink will deliver on its promises.

One of the downsides of traditional satellite service isn't just high prices, slow speeds, and usage caps -- it's latency. Traditional broadband delivers somewhere in the range of 20-30ms, whereas the physics of traditional satellite broadband means service usually delivers a 200ms response time; lag that's usually very noticeable. Space X's Starlink satellite service operates using far more satellites in far lower orbits, meaning latency should be dramatically improved. But Ajit Pai's FCC has been expressing doubts that the service will be able to deliver the low latency it's promising the public.

Despite the fact that Starlink could be very helpful in rural markets (its primary target), the FCC originally blocked the company from getting any rural broadband subsidies whatsoever. But last week in an order, the FCC reversed course (pdf), stating that Starlink could receive these funds. But the FCC was quick to express skepticism that Starlink can deliver broad commercial service with latency under 100ms, as it has been claiming:

"Service providers that intend to use low-Earth orbit satellites claim that the latency of their technology is "dictated by the laws of physics" due to the altitude of the satellite's orbit. We remain skeptical that the altitude of a satellite's orbit is the sole determinant of a satellite applicant's ability to meet the Commission's low-latency performance requirements. As commenters have explained, the latency experienced by customers of a specific technology is not merely a matter of the physics of one link in the transmission. Propagation delay in a satellite network does not alone account for latency in other parts of the network such as processing, routing, and transporting traffic to its destination. Short-form applicants seeking to bid as a low-latency provider using low-Earth orbit satellite networks will face a substantial challenge demonstrating to Commission staff that their networks can deliver real-world performance to consumers below the Commission's 100ms low-latency threshold."

One the one hand, I think Pai's skepticism is likely warranted. The satellite broadband sector, including low-Earth orbit satellite, has seen no limit of hype and failure over the last decade. Maybe Musk is the one who finally gets this play right, and maybe he isn't. But the broadband industry has been filled with so much empty hype over the years you really shouldn't buy into the hype of satellite broadband as a serious, major competitor until you see a broad, commercial launch. And even then, much like 5G, we need to see what speeds, pricing, and usage caps look like before declaring it some kind of competitive panacea.

On the other hand, this FCC's history is chock full of examples where it expresses absolutely no skepticism whatsoever at the absurd claims made by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter (Spectrum), which all have a vested interest in broadband competitors never seeing the light of day. This is also an FCC boss who has never once expressed the slightest concern about the billions in taxpayer dollars we've thrown at Frontier, AT&T, and Verizon for fiber networks that were never delivered. Seriously, check out the fraudulent nonsense by ISPs like Frontier is West Virginia, then realize the FCC has never made a peep.

Which is to say I think the FCC is making these claims in good faith, but the agency engaged in enough bad faith shenanigans the last three years, it's hard to say for sure. When you pander ideologically to industry like this FCC has done (repealing net neutrality, fighting privacy rules, fighting states' rights to enforce consumer protection), you start to lose the benefit of the doubt. Having watched this industry for 20 years, I certainly wouldn't be shocked to see regulatory barriers suddenly spring up in Starlink's path that have been lobbied for by the likes of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.

Either way, the potential exists for Starlink (and other companies, like Amazon), to finally disrupt one of the least liked industries in America. Assuming the technology works well. And assuming regulators don't foul it up. And assuming the company doesn't get bored with the high costs and hard work required to do battle with legacy broadband providers... you know, like Google did.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, fcc, low earth orbit, satellite, starlink
Companies: space x

Space X Starlink Beta Starts In 6 Months, Bringing A Glimmer Of Hope To Crappy US Broadband Market

from the disrupt-the-undisruptable dept

The US broadband market is a competitive mess. US telcos have routinely refused to upgrade their aging DSL lines, as the return on investment has never been fast enough for Wall Street. That has left cable giants like Comcast and Charter (Spectrum) with bigger broadband monopolies than ever before. While many see 5G wireless as some sort of competitive panacea waiting in the wings, there's a litany of problems (cost, reach, competition eroding M&As) that suggests folks should temper their enthusiasm.

Then there's satellite broadband. Long despised by consumers for slow speeds, inconsistent performance, high prices, and usage caps, the sector is poised for disruption by a number of low-orbit satellite ventures. These new offerings offer significantly lower latency using a litany of smaller low-orbit satellites. One of the major players is of course Space X, whose Starlink satellite broadband service is slated for a public beta six months or so from now according to Elon Musk:

The beta is poised to include both Europe and the United States, which the company previously stated should see a full commercial launch sometime later this year. After launching another 60 Starlink satellites yesterday, Musk indicated there were now "420 operational Starlink satellites" preparing to offer service. The service offers the promise of some significant disruption to a sector that very much could use a competitive kick in the ass.

That said, Starlink may never truly challenge the domination of telecom monopolies like AT&T and Comcast. For one, it's still far too early to know what kind of speeds or prices users will be looking at, and it's quite possible that the price point, throttling restrictions, or usage caps could result in the service being a flimsy alternative to fixed-line broadband. Musk has also previously noted how while the service latency should be a LOT better than traditional satellite broadband (20ms versus 200ms or higher), the service isn't going to have the kind of bandwidth needed to seriously compete in denser urban or suburban markets:

"The challenge for anything that is space-based is that the size of the cell is gigantic... it's not good for high-density situations," Musk said. "We'll have some small number of customers in LA. But we can't do a lot of customers in LA because the bandwidth per cell is simply not high enough."

Keep in mind that the US broadband industry is routinely peppered by well hyped potential disruptors that consistently fail to deliver.

Broadband over Powerline, for example, was widely hyped as a competitive panacea by folks looking to deregulate the telecom sector, only to fall flat on its face due to interference issues. The current FCC has similarly justified its pandering to existing monopolies with the promise that competition (be it 5G or satellite) is just around the corner. But there's no shortage of low-orbit satellite ventures thatn have fallen flat on their face, and there's no shortage of politically powerful companies (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Comcast) busily lobbying to ensure another major competitor never upsets the apple cart.

That said, there's still hope that Starlink offers a genuine, helpful option to users left out of reach of traditional options. With more than 42 million Americans still unable to get any broadband at all, and millions more unable to afford it due to limited competition and high prices, the US broadband sector can certainly use all the help it can get.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, elon musk, satellite broadband, starlink
Companies: space x, starlink

DailyDirt: Step Right Up And Try Your Luck...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Over the last few years, there have been plenty of crowdsourcing platforms to find solutions to difficult problems. And we've seen some brilliant examples of challenges solved via this method. But it doesn't work every time (nor should anyone expect it to). Here are just a few more open contests to find some innovative answers.

• The DOE awarded Philips Lighting North America with the L Prize and $10 million for developing a replacement for the 60-watt incandescent bulb that only uses 10 Watts to achieve the same light output. Apparently, approximately 425 million 60-watt incandescent light bulbs are sold in the United States every year, so if incandescent bulbs could be replaced without a public outcry.... [url]
• Out of about 400 applicants, a solution for the Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup X Challenge to clean up massive oil spills like the BP-Deepwater Horizon disaster has been found that is three times better than previous techniques. Team Elastec/American Marine recovered oil at 4,670 gallons per minute and won a $1 million prize. [url]
• The US Air Force, NASA and the National Reconnaissance Office have opened up a competition for rocket launch contracts. The United Launch Alliance might not be the only way for the US military to fly to space -- if companies like Space X can really create suitable rocket systems. [url]
• To discover more interesting business-related content, check out what the deal is on StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, l prize, light bulb, oil spills, rockets, solutions, space, x challenge
Companies: bp, doe, nasa usaf, philips, space x, ula