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

261–270 of 331 posts

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#261

Post by def_true_false »

olympus wrote: post #169
briffle wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read some RV forums for the hoops they need to jump through to get coverage, and deal with data caps

I'm doing it (mobile internet, not van life). The conversations on RV forums deal with stuff like unlimited data in the middle of Wyoming for less money, or how to get a SIM card and plan from a connected car device that AT&T discontinued because RVers were using for other than it's intended purpose. What the RVers are too cheap to do is pay for the product they want. Go to unlimitedville.com, pay $200 a month, and y…

From their site:

> Data abusers are those who purposefully push limits or conduct known illegal activity like torrenting etc. If you consistently burn through a half terabyte or more a month (that’s over 500 GBs!), that is not normal internet usage and you could be asked to split your usage between two accounts or the service could be terminated by certain carriers.

Why would you pay this much just to get what's basically a high FUP plan?

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#262

Post by gsich »

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…

Why 5-9s? I doubt any home connection has this, let alone the satellite.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#263

Post by mkingston »

tigershark wrote: post #202
olympus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm doing it (mobile internet, not van life). The conversations on RV forums deal with stuff like unlimited data in the middle of Wyoming for less money, or how to get a SIM card and plan from a connected car device that AT&T discontinued because RVers were using for other than it's intended purpose. What the RVers are too cheap to do is pay for the product they want. Go to unlimitedville.com, pay $200 a month, and y…

Seriously? 200$/month and you have unlimited data only in US? It seems like a really crap offer to me. I pay 17£/month and I have unlimited data in a lot of countries in the world, including US. Sadly my awesome plan got discontinued and now it’s not possible to buy it anymore.

"Incidentally", I suspect your plan was discontinued right about the time the number of competitors in the UK mobile market dropped from four to three. When 3 bought O2. And right about the peak of the 4g rollout. The same happened to my £13 plan. I'm not sure which of the above was the larger factor, or whether it was because usage patterns (tethering, Netflix) did in fact make these plans unsustainable. Interestingly, 3 also had their "one" plan (IIRC) which specifically allowed tethering, with unlimited data, for ~£20/mo.

Also, for completeness, it's probably worth mentioning the conditions of your unlimited data roaming were bandwidth limits, and a maximum trip duration of thirty days. Though I know people who considerably exceeded that duration in Europe and weren't noticeably restricted or penalised. Of course it's moot now (yay!- I write this message from Madrid airport..).

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#264

Post by celticninja »

avtar wrote: post #43
celticninja wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you need to get authorisation to launch a payload based on where your company is headquartered.

I'm assuming the parent was asking if licenses are required to provide service to people in other countries.

The linked site is for the FCC giving them permission to launch and operate the service. They may need individual licenses to operate in each country but I answered in the context of the submitted post. This article

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/03/california-startup-accuse...

Also provides more context, this company launched from outside the US but as a US company they needed authorization from the FCC for the payload and operating.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#265

Post by sschueller »

hyperpallium wrote: post #141

Will break first world broadband monopolies, force prices down, and perhaps destroy the terrestrial industry - from a profit POV. Balloon net in conjunction, to act as towers?

By creating a new super monopoly called Tesla? One entity in control of the entire internet?

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#266

Post by Jabbles »

Could a SpaceX constellation provide lower latency than undersea fiber? If the satellites can communicate to each other would the speed of signalling through a vacuum/air (~30% greater than fiber) outweigh any other steps?

If so, maybe SpaceX should get into HFT/arbitrage between global markets?

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#267

Post by agildehaus »

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.

Once the constellation is built, you can do worldwide routing in orbit, which is actually more efficient latency-wise (at least for international hops) as you're not dealing with political and physical boundaries and light is passing through vacuum not fiber.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#269

Post by Retric »

walrus01 wrote: post #212
Retric wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) 1% signal attenuation is not going to kill this and that's plenty to work with. B) Depends on how many satellites are in the constellation. Ideally you want a lot of them as there is vastly more atmosphere the lower your angle to the horizon. C) detectable at say 50 feet sure, but a signal you can detect from 10+ miles in a van doing 60mph without a lot of false positives is another story.

the threat model for hiding from spectrum analyzers is not 10+ miles in a van doing 60 mph. With the resources of a nation-state at the disposal of the spectrum analyzer operators (Iran, China, Ethiopia) it will look more like a person walking around a neighborhood with a portable spectrum analyzer and horn antenna. Multiply by however many people are needed to canvass a metro area in a reasonable amount of time. Wit…

I was more thinking a FSO link ~2km into the middle of nowhere vs having one of those sitting in someone's house. But directional wifi is probably safer as it's also not going to look strange to a spectrum analyzer.

However, if you want to catch individual usage in urban areas, with guys on for that's going to easily be into the 10's of of billions as users don't need to keep them on 24/7. AKA within the capability of nation states, but not without significant effort.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#270

Post by walrus01 »

gsich wrote: post #262
walrus01 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why 5-9s? I doubt any home connection has this, let alone the satellite.

An ISP serving from 5 to 30 downstream customers needs the micro pop to be up and online at least five nines, if not, something has gone terribly wrong.
Post reply on HN