[Starlink] FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

Mon Jun 19 18:03:30 EDT 2023

Is the language carefully chosen to imply it can provide data links for classified satellites?

Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang
IEEE Senior Life Member
eugene.chang at ieee.org
m 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu)

> On Jun 18, 2023, at 10:21 PM, David Fernández via Starlink <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> I followed the link below about Starshield
> (https://www.spacex.com/starshield) and it says:
> 
> - Interoperability: Starlink's inter-satellite laser communications
> terminal, which is the only communications laser operating at scale in
> orbit today, can be integrated onto partner satellites to enable
> incorporation into the Starshield network.
> 
> Besides that the EDRS is out there also, at a reduced scale, ok
> (https://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/Relay_system_speeds_vital_data_flow_with_75_000_links),
> I was wondering about how the integration of partner satellites into
> the Starshield network will work, besides hosting the ISL payload.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David
> 
>> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:08:59 -0600
>> From: Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>
>> To: Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>
>> Cc: Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com>, nanog at nanog.org,  Dave Taht via
>> 	Starlink <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate
>> 	Impact	of Data Caps
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<CAA93jw76nX9wzhBUVFdGOuZH=PMNpzNjzy0nMGyE1E1EYbsdbw at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>> 
>> I am happy to see the conversation about starlink escaping over here,
>> because it is increasingly a game-changing technology (I also run the
>> starlink mailing list, cc´d)...
>> 
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 3:56 PM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are the
>>>> real economics.
>> 
>> There is a whole other cluster on the drawing boards, called
>> Starshield, which you can read about here:
>> https://www.spacex.com/starshield/
>> 
>> The current "retail"economics are limited to US allies as a result of
>> the ukraine war showing how important information and bandwidth are to
>> modern warfare. There are also political implications to downlinks in
>> each country.
>> 
>> I imagine, for example, that India is holding off on licensing until
>> Musk gets them a tesla factory.
>> 
>> Multiple other countries are making a huge investment into retaining
>> control of the "spacewaves", so there´s that also.
>> 
>>> I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling demand because they
>>> still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to overcharge in the
>>> mean time.
>> 
>> Throttling demand is not how I would put it. Each cell has a limited
>> capacity, so starlink has been running promotions to get more
>> subscribers into more rural cells where the capacity exists.
>> 
>> I have kvetched elsewhere about how poorly starlink manages bandwidth
>> and bufferbloat currently, but they are largely better than modern day
>> 5G and DSL, so...
>> 
>>> Is there something inherent in their cpe that makes them much more
>>> expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes?
>> 
>> The original cost/dish was about 2k, so they were selling those at
>> well below the install price, with a ROI of about 12 months, given
>> that figure. I imagine with mass manufacturing the cost/dish has come
>> down substantially, and they also charge a realistic price on the
>> business quality dish of $2500. It would not surprise me if the basic
>> dishy essentially cost less than 500 to manufacture nowadays.
>> 
>> The default wifi router, which many replace, cannot be more than 50
>> dollars on the BOM.
>> 
>>> I can see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly
>>> just software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck
>>> roll.
>> 
>> There is no truck roll. They have gone to amazing extants in - put the
>> dish in a clear area, power it up, you are on.
>> 
>> Establishing infrastructure, like downlinks, connected near fiber in
>> civilization does have a large cost, takes time, and is also subject
>> to government regulation.
>> 
>>> 
>>> - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month,
>>> that's $165M in revenue,
>> 
>> Creating A 2B dollar/year business in 4 years is quite impressive. A
>> reasonable projection would be 10m subs in 4 more years, e.g.
>> 10B/year. That aint' chicken scratch. In fact, I think it funds
>> humanity´s expansion into the solar system quite handily.
>> 
>>> - A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up to 60
>>> Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k sats
>>> in the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you assume
>>> the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own stuff,
>>> they aren't launching an external paying customer.)
>> 
>>> - The reported price per sat is $250k.
>> 
>> There are multiple sat types, the mini v2 (which can only be flown on
>> the falcon 9, is rumored to cost about that much)
>> 
>> Starship had had a much larger, much more highly capable sat designed
>> for it, but it is running a few years behind schedule. The hope for
>> that was that launch costs would decline even further.
>> 
>> Also OPEX - running this network - is probably a substantial cost. I
>> have lost track of the number of downlink stations established (over
>> 200 now) but I would guess those are about 1m per.
>> 
>> There is a really amazing site that looks at this stuff called starlink.sx.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the orbital
>>> buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and $10B for
>>> sats.
>> 
>> The present day capacity, even if they were to do no more launches, is
>> still underused. Roughly half the USA has no starlink service yet,
>> multiple countries have been slow to license, and nearly all of Africa
>> remains uncovered. Maritime and air are big sources of new business. I
>> try to stress it is where  people are but infrastructure isn´t is
>> where starlink really shines,
>> 
>> and that very little bandwidth is required for things like email and chat.
>> 
>>> 
>>> - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K
>>> cluster, that's 1200 a year.
>> 
>> Where did you see that? So far as I can tell, the failure rate,
>> exclusive of one launch lost to solar expansion, is trending towards
>> zero. Also, maneuvering thrust (documented somewhere) has been quite
>> under expectations, in terms of operating fuel they could use the
>> existing sats for far, far longer than the intended 5 year operational
>> lifetime, in this regard.
>> 
>>> 
>>> That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats.
>>> Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there.
>>> 
>>> So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And that's
>>> just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing costs
>>> of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from staff ,
>>> R&D, etc .
>>> 
>>> Numbers kinda speak for themselves here.
>>> 
>>>> I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he
>>>> does have big ambitions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner
>>>>> rather than later?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for
>>>> those services to completely replace terrestrial only service.
>> 
>> I agree they will not replace terrestrial service, but maritime,
>> roaming, airplanes, and rural are big enough markets.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only niche? I
>>>> mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he
>>>> does have big ambitions.
>>>> 
>>>> From my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the incumbents.
>>>> I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest.
>>>> 
>>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are the
>>>> real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling
>>>> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense
>>>> to overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe
>>>> that makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can
>>>> see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just
>>>> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll.
>>>> 
>>>> Mike
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options.
>>>>>>> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage.
>>>>>>> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US
>>>>>>> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there is
>>>>>>> no service.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not a
>>>>>>> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a ~1/3
>>>>>>> take rate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many markets
>>>>>> is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers that,
>>>>>> since there is only so much money and resources to go around.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the
>>>>>> opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are
>>>>>> capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low
>>>>>> hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative
>>>>>> provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other thread.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner
>>>>> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even if
>>>>> they do they could compete with their caps.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Podcast:
>> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/
>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20230619/58e59010/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20230619/58e59010/attachment-0001.sig>