SpaceX launching 60 Starlink Sats Tomorrow!

[ben2go]

Originally Posted by svmariane

Where do I sign up to become your flunky?



{After of course discussing salary, stock options, and other benefits such as kick-backs, pillaging rights and plundering restriction zones. Etc.}

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Socialized medical system in a country where a large part of the year is spent inside. The government probably figures it is cheaper to have then distracted with bread and circuses over a subsidized internet service than drunk all winter with the excessive load that puts on the "free" health system??

Where did you get the koolaid you've been drinking? I'd lay off of it if I were you . . .


Actually the answer appears to be the opposite. Vigorous competition in Europe, and lots of consumer choice of provider, and lack of competition in the U.S.:

https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/1/83...pe-competition

3.5x more expensive in the U.S. than in France, according to the Pew Research Center!


As a result of which, a frightening 25% of American homes don't have broadband at all. In this age, that's like not having a telephone was, in our childhood, or worse -- like not having a telephone or a library or a bookstore. Those are people just falling out of modern society and economy.



Whereas in Finland, 97% of homes have broadband Internet, 94% of people have 4g mobile connections, 17% of homes have Internet of more than 100mbs, 91% of people deal with the government digitally: http://ec.europa.eu/information_soci...4981_52222.pdf


U.S. ISP's like to say that the high cost in the U.S. is due to low population density compared to Europe, but Finland has less population density than the U.S.


A comparison between the cost and prevalence of mobile connections would show similar results.



The Europeans are eating our lunch.

[RaymondR]

Since it was the government which dictated that almost all the population would have access to broadband internet about a decade ago it's reasonably safe to assume that somehow or other it is being subsidized by the taxpayer.

A similar dictat by a socialistic inclined government in Australia is becoming a disaster for the tax payers.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Since it was the government which dictated that almost all the population would have access to broadband internet about a decade ago it's reasonably safe to assume that somehow or other it is being subsidized by the taxpayer.

A similar dictat by a socialistic inclined government in Australia is becoming a disaster for the tax payers.

This kind of infrastructure gets subsidized to a lesser or greater degree in many countries, including the U.S., and there's nothing wrong with that if it's done with a light hand and enhances rather than inhibits competition.


The difference in cost between Europe and the U.S. has nothing to do with subsidies -- did you read the paper? It's lack of competition, probably collusion between ISP's, and just general rape of the population. In Europe on the contrary you have huge competition and great choice, and that is what keeps costs down.



Same thing with mobile telephone services, which are certainly not subsidized. In the U.S., I couldn't get an unlimited mobile data plan (without throttling) for less than $100 a month, and there are all kinds of restrictions on tethering, throttling after some pathetically small amount of data (22gb?), etc. In Sweden and Finland you get totally unlimited data with unlimited tethering for €29 or less per month, and you get a certain amount of roaming data within Europe (usually 10gb or 20gb) for free. That's true 4G (not the HSPA+, or 3.5G, sold as "4G" in the U.S.), actually LTE+, with real download speeds of 100 mbs, faster than what the typical American has in his home.


If you believe in the free market and the private sector, as I do, you've got to be concerned about how a giant market like the U.S. can have so little competition in this huge sector. That's not a free market.

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If you believe in the free market and the private sector, as I do, you've got to be concerned about how a giant market like the U.S. can have so little competition in this huge sector. That's not a free market.

Since when has the US been a free market. Governments, states, towns subsidise companies with money that would better be used for much needed infrastructure.

[N3VR L8]

Originally Posted by BigAl.NZ

If Iridium has *any* brains they will start to offer competitive plans now and stay in a good position with market share. Its obvious competition is on the horizon....

However I suspect they are too arrogant to make any prices changes - the writing could be on the wall like it was for Kodak when camera's went digital.

These nano Ku and Ka band satellites are not competition for Iridium. Entirely different markets with entirely different capabilities.

Never mind the fact that SpaceX is launching 60 satellites with no interlink whatsoever, they are nowhere near ready to have a functional constellation. Putting 60 birds into orbit, regardless of size, at this point in their development is irresponsible, IMO.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by N3VR L8

These nano Ku and Ka band satellites are not competition for Iridium. Entirely different markets with entirely different capabilities.

Never mind the fact that SpaceX is launching 60 satellites with no interlink whatsoever, they are nowhere near ready to have a functional constellation. Putting 60 birds into orbit, regardless of size, at this point in their development is irresponsible, IMO.

Don't they do the same thing ?

[N3VR L8]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Don't they do the same thing ?

Nope.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by N3VR L8

Nope.

This is going to be harder than I thought.....

What do they do that is different. I am specifically referring to the result from the person receiving the services, not the method of achieving the result.

[N3VR L8]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

This is going to be harder than I thought.....



What do they do that is different. I am specifically referring to the result from the person receiving the services, not the method of achieving the result.

You'd first have to understand Iridium's target market and network capabilities. As you're still trying to compare it to Ku and Ka band VSAT it's quite clear you do not possess such an understanding.

Allow me to repeat myself.. These Ku and Ka band nano satellites are not and will never be competition for Iridium. There are already a multitude of providers offering Ku and Ka band VSAT connections in the market.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by N3VR L8

You'd first have to understand Iridium's target market and network capabilities. As you're still trying to compare it to Ku and Ka band VSAT it's quite clear you do not possess such an understanding.

Allow me to repeat myself.. These Ku and Ka band nano satellites are not and will never be competition for Iridium. There are already a multitude of providers offering Ku and Ka band VSAT connections in the market.

Your right, I don't understand the difference, I thought I made that clear by asking "Don't they do the same thing".

I'm a consumer, I'm not trying to compare technologies, I am trying to compare phone and broadband service. If they both provide that service they are then both competitors of each other.

[Tillsbury]

In my opinion the first company to get usable internet (at least 1mbps, preferably up to 10) to work reliably worldwide at a sensible price is going to change sailing substantially. I’ll be out there when it comes...

[N3VR L8]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Your right, I don't understand the difference, I thought I made that clear by asking "Don't they do the same thing".



I'm a consumer, I'm not trying to compare technologies, I am trying to compare phone and broadband service. If they both provide that service they are then both competitors of each other.

They are not competition for Iridium, period.

They may end up being competition for VSAT providers though.

[GordMay]

A little history on LEO space comms:
In 1987 Motorola engineers came up with the idea of a space-based communications network, at a time when cellular coverage was sketchy, analogue and distinctly regional.
In 1993 Motorola announced its $3.7bn Iridium concept – an ambitious constellation of 77 low earth orbit (LEO) satellites providing global mobile voice communications to $3,000 handsets. Why Iridium? Because the element Iridium has 77 protons.
The design then changed to 66 satellites, but the name stuck.
Iridium launched its fleet in 1997 and began operation in 1998.
Unfortunately by then, GSM was already the de facto global system for mobile.
Iridium filed for bankruptcy protection in 1999.
In 1991 Globalstar was created as a joint venture between Qualcomm and spacecraft manufacturer Loral (later Alcatel and Vodafone would invest). They envisaged a constellation of 48 LEO satellites and planned to sell access to local terrestrial service providers; the business was costed at $1.8bn but soon rocketed to $2.2bn.
A launch failure in 1998 meant the loss of 12 satellites and commercial service was delayed to 2000.
Globalstar filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002.
In 1995 Teledesic proposed a $9bn constellation of 840 LEO satellites, providing 720Mbit/s downlink speeds and 100Mbit/s uplink speeds. The original “Internet in the Sky” was led by telecoms veteran Craig McCaw and backed by Microsoft’s Paul Allen.
Teledesic never achieved its 2001 launch date, and went out of business in 2002.
ICO was created by Inmarsat as a $2.6bn medium earth orbit (MEO) system of 10 satellites, focused on expanding cellular coverage to under-served areas of the world.
It never entered commercial service, despite later investment from McCaw and a proposed merger with Teledesic.
ICO filed for bankruptcy protection in 1999.
Odyssey was a $3.2bn MEO business created by Teleglobe and TRW in 1991 with 12 active satellites planned, with service scheduled to commence in 2000.
Odyssey gave up and merged with ICO in 1997.
SkyBridge was developed by Alcatel in 1997 and planned a constellation of 80 LEO satellites at a cost of $3.5bn (soon rising to $6bn).
SkyBridge gave up in 2002.
In 2008 Google invested in O3b Networks, but the company was acquired by Luxembourg satellite company SES a year later. Founder Greg Wyler left to join Google, but soon quit to form WordVu Satellites (also known as L5).
WordVu acquired the spectrum licence previously held by SkyBridge and planned two constellations, each of 180 LEO satellites, for commercial launch in 2019 at cost of $3bn.
In 2014 it emerged that WorldVu had established relations with Elon Musk, although there was no formal deal with SpaceX, and WorldVu changed its name to OneWeb.
In November 2014, Musk confirmed via a tweet that “SpaceX is still in the early stages of developing advanced micro-satellites operating in large formations.”
In 2015 OneWeb secured funding from Virgin Group and Qualcomm to build and launch a planned constellation of 650 LEO satellites.
Days later, SpaceX announced its LEO plan, focused on ISP and backhaul with a constellation of 4,000 satellite and a commercial launch date of 2020. Apparently Musk and Wyler agreed to disagree and go their separate ways.
In 2016 OneWeb revised its plan to add a further 2,000 V-band satellites in non-geosynchronous orbits, having secured $1bn from SoftBank a few months earlier.
In 2017 OneWeb merged with Intelsat with a $1.7bn investment from SoftBank. Wyler testified at a US Senate Committee Hearing that manufacturing will commence this year, as will the first launch of 10 satellites with Arianespace in May (and later Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic). He said the service will offer up to 2.5Gbit/s direct to homes, and plans to fully bridge the digital divide by 2027”.

Which brings us to StarLink in 2018/2019

[botanybay]

Originally Posted by Seasic

So your saying when the thing talks to the whatcha macallit over the widget it will be better!!

And you thought I wasn't listening...

But you will require two fiddlebusters to manage the twiddlebits