Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 331 posts

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#251

Post by mozumder »

Robotbeat wrote: post #210
mozumder wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The developing world needs fiber instead of satellite. This isn't going to change much over their current LTE speeds. This type of satellite internet is far too expensive far far too limited bandwidth to be useful for them. The energy cost of RF broadband is so much higher than fiber. Really, the audience for this are ships and other remote regions, not anyplace that has a road going to it.

Nah, You’re thinking of different constellations like OneWeb. This constellation is being way overbuilt by SpaceX. They want gigabit speeds and way cheaper data than LTE. They want to compete with fiber (at least in non-super-dense areas). From Spacex’s perspective, they’re happy to build it so large that it only breaks even (even though I think it’ll do better than that) because it gives them something to launch on…

Nah, they can want infinite speeds, but they're only going to get a few megabits of speed.

It will be much slower than LTE, since the satellites are going to be about 100 miles away. LTE towers are only a few miles away. How do you expect it to have higher bandwidth than LTE with communications a hundred miles away? It doesn't matter that they're putting in 4000 satellites, since those satellites are still 100 miles away from the terminal.

Again, I want everyone to be clear: This is going to be MUCH slower and more expensive than LTE.

Like Iridium, this project is only useful for remote areas that can't be reached by roads. Very few people will benefit from this project. It won't change society.

This is another one of Elon Musk's garbage projects that doesn't really advance the state-of-the-art.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#252

Post by TimMeade »

walrus01 wrote: post #217
tbabb wrote: post #215

Here's one way I could see this killing Comcast, even in major cities: As a homeowner, you by a small box which lives under the eave of your roof. The box has high-bandwidth, low-latency satellite uplink to SpaceX which gives you your internet. The same box also has a terrestrial wireless repeater which serves the local neighborhood. Internet is available through your "tower" to neighbors and passers-by. You and Spac…

this model already exists (google "WISP micro pop"). One of the primary problems with doing this at a large scale is that the bandwidth via satellite will not be that great, compared to what's possible with current terrestrial technology. the second is that the micro POP needs some kind of serious battery backup and a way to meet five nines or better reliability. you can't start hanging downstream customers off of th…

I thought i read somewhere spacex is shooting for sub 30ms latency gig connections.... for < $100....

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#253

Post by estreeper »

walrus01 wrote: post #223
estreeper wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great points, but... > This is by no means going to hurt Comcast. Well, it could , couldn't it? Satellite internet does have the potential to make regional pseudo-monopolies go away, which means Comcast now has price competition. Even if speeds end up being much lower, it will still be plenty fast for lots of people, and the price will be the determining factor. At the very least, I think this will force Comcast to l…

Maybe in very far suburban areas verging on rural. I have seen a number of edge cases where a cable MSO (multi-system operator, basically triple play TV/Internet/Phone) such as Comcast, Shaw or Charter will demand a one time payment of $2,000 to $5,000 to extend service to a house that is on the edge of their current service area. Those sorts of customers at present usually end up going with a local WISP instead (ter…

> one time payment of $2,000 to $5,000

Wow, that is very expensive.

> But as for places that are solidly in the comcast network, no

There are a couple of things which, if they happened, I think could make SpaceX very competitive.

The first is if they could drastically cut the price to consumers. The cheapest Comcast plan in my area (New Mexico, USA) is $75/month. If they offered something like $15 for 15 Mbps I think a lot of people (including me!) would buy it. This would put pressure on Comcast to cut prices (and their margins).

The second would be making a much better product. Imagine being able to take your internet with you wherever you go. I could climb up a mountain, open my laptop, and start working. That sounds pretty appealing.

WISPs sound really interesting, and thanks for all this info!

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#254

Post by lorenzhs »

walrus01 wrote: post #217
tbabb wrote: post #215

Here's one way I could see this killing Comcast, even in major cities: As a homeowner, you by a small box which lives under the eave of your roof. The box has high-bandwidth, low-latency satellite uplink to SpaceX which gives you your internet. The same box also has a terrestrial wireless repeater which serves the local neighborhood. Internet is available through your "tower" to neighbors and passers-by. You and Spac…

this model already exists (google "WISP micro pop"). One of the primary problems with doing this at a large scale is that the bandwidth via satellite will not be that great, compared to what's possible with current terrestrial technology. the second is that the micro POP needs some kind of serious battery backup and a way to meet five nines or better reliability. you can't start hanging downstream customers off of th…

Maybe not so much for homeowners given the regulatory issues you describe, but combining this with solar panels and a backup battery could be a cool way to provide cell service to sparsely populated areas using satellite backhaul. I wonder how expensive that would be, it would be fantastic if it changed cost calculations sufficiently to make it financially viable.

Oh, and it’s a SpaceX/Tesla synergy, so Musk fans will be delighted ;)

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#255

Post by hordeallergy »

bpd1069 wrote: post #4

This is monumental - I claim every major advance in communication technology immediately precedes a major progress for society. This will make the 'Internet' truly global and ubiquitous. So excited for the developing world.

Doubt it. I was downloading Linux distros among various other things in a developing country in the 90s. This might be useful for the most isolated areas.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#256

Post by pharke »

slr555 wrote: post #161
madushan1000 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from a third world country(Sri Lanka) and we already have really cheap LTE access, the connection I'm using right now(on my phone) gives me something like 1GB/1.5USD at average 4MBPS. What sucks is the speed and reliability, speed always fluctuate and even though most of the island is now covered by 3G, LTE is not a given. It has been improving a lot though because we have relatively good competition between mobi…

I was visiting a friend in Sri Lanka in 2004 and he was checking cricket scores on his phone in the middle of the jungle. I still can’t get a signal the whole way between KC and Omaha. We Americans sometimes ave a distorted view of the world.

It's funny you mention that route, it's about 185 miles which is about how wide Sri Lanka is. Living in the US also gives us a distorted view of how large the typical nation is.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#257

Post by sjwright »

t3rmi wrote: post #241
sonium wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX satellites will have a very low orbit. That’s also why they need so many.

Thanks. It looks like their orbit is around 800 miles compared to the usual 22,000. Expected latency seems to be around 25ms. Would satellites be used for first hop only? I image latency would quickly increase if used for multiple hops.

I imagine SpaceX could eventually perform the majority of routing in orbit, with packets returning to earth for the "last mile".

If they're successful, you could potentially see a high bandwidth SpaceX link on the roof of every major data center on the planet. They could be self-reliant for connections to every major online service.

If they're very successful, you could potentially see data providers like Netflix and CloudFlare joining SpaceX in orbit, most likely embedded into a future SpaceX satellite...

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#258

Post by lorenzhs »

mozumder wrote: post #251
Robotbeat wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, You’re thinking of different constellations like OneWeb. This constellation is being way overbuilt by SpaceX. They want gigabit speeds and way cheaper data than LTE. They want to compete with fiber (at least in non-super-dense areas). From Spacex’s perspective, they’re happy to build it so large that it only breaks even (even though I think it’ll do better than that) because it gives them something to launch on…

Nah, they can want infinite speeds, but they're only going to get a few megabits of speed. It will be much slower than LTE, since the satellites are going to be about 100 miles away. LTE towers are only a few miles away. How do you expect it to have higher bandwidth than LTE with communications a hundred miles away? It doesn't matter that they're putting in 4000 satellites, since those satellites are still 100 miles…

Latency and bandwidth are two separate things, and the distance to an LTE tower has approximately nothing to do with latency to the server you’re connecting to, which btw is likely much further away than 100 miles. Now factor in that light moves 50% faster in air or vacuum than it does in fibre optic cables. The satellites are also going to be at a height of around 1000km (600 miles). But I t takes light only about 3.3ms to travel that distance. 30ms latency end-to-end should be realistically achievable this way. That’s more than a good residential connection but good enough for just about any application other than latency-sensitive multiplayer games.

There’s valid skepticism of SpaceX’s plan, but none of your points are among it.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#259

Post by walrus01 »

GordonS wrote: post #236
aphextron wrote: post #125

I’m curious to what layer SpaceX will allow application developers access to. If there is to be any hope of having cryptographically secure communications using this network, it will be essential that the whole stack is open source. Putting blind faith in SpaceX seems foolish.

What benefits would a lower-level encryption protocol provide over TLS (or anything else on top of layer 3/4)?

None, really, this can be treated like any other ISP connection. Build things with solid RSA+SHA384 TLS1.2 and 1.3, battle tested VPN tech, etc. There is no need for anything special unique to it being a satellite link.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#260

Post by lorenzhs »

walrus01 wrote: post #111
ArlenBales wrote: post #88

As a hiker who likes to spend many nights camping out in the remote wilderness, this will be a blessing but also a curse. I'll be able to stay connected to family and friends, and have emergency services and information available if necessary, but at the same time I'll have Hacker News and Reddit distractions - but inevitably this is the way the future will be, so it's time to get used to it. At least when going on a…

What you want is an Iridium 9575 handheld phone, or the model that they release when the Iridium NEXT constellation comes fully online and they start turning off the old satellites. This is not going to be for handheld satellite phones or things that weigh less than maybe 7-10 kilograms.

Yup, but apply the same thought to sailing boats and the GP’s point stands. Could be great for search & rescue (EPIRB is incredibly slow, this could maybe be used to build an alternative system?), but could also compromise the feeling of remoteness.
Post reply on HN