FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

Post by Robotbeat » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 1:04 PM UTC

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…

Post by syshum » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 1:14 PM UTC

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.

Post by stephen_g » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 1:21 PM UTC

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…

Post by ctdonath » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 1:46 PM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #285

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…

I think you're perhaps over-estimating how much bandwidth the system will have. Satellites are limited by power, earth ground-station uplink/downlink, the amount of spectrum they have for customer access in each spot-beam, etc. Definitely for rural and less densely populated areas you could potentially get hundreds of Mbps per subscriber, but even for the crazy high number of satellites they're talking about in their…

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Mar 30, 2018, 2:00 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #165

lev99 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shooting down satellites is very expensive It's less expensive than launching satellites, and the Chinese goverment has enough money to do it if they want.

> It's less expensive than launching satellites Are you sure? If China knocks out one of ours, we’ll knock out at least one of theirs. We’ll also likely implement a suite of sanctions. Shooting down a satellite is an act of war.