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

291–300 of 331 posts

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#291

Post by jessaustin »

mrep wrote: post #204
ryanlol wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a sad state of affairs if this FCC approval is a major advance in communication technology.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States government created by statute (47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154) to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security, and modernizing itself. [0] Lots of that…

FCC was formed to discourage competition in telecom, and that is mostly what it has done for over 80 years.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#292

Post by swiley »

Fanmade wrote: post #244
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'm from a third world country(Germany) and we don't have cheap LTE access. I pay more than 40€/month (about 50 USD) for 4GB of LTE and I got my contract for half of what it would normally cost. The reception is very poor and I barely ever see the LTE popping up on my phone, most times it's just 3G. And that's in the ex-capitol of Germany. If I visit my parents, which live barely a 45 minute drive outside of the city…

>I'm from a third world country(Germany)

I was under the impression that "third world" was supposed to be defined as "a country that was not on the axis or allied side during all of World War 2." Your use of the term directly contradicts this definition.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#293

Post by mozumder »

lorenzhs wrote: post #258
mozumder wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a discussion about low bandwidth. Why are you talking about latency?

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#294

Post by gsich »

def_true_false wrote: post #261
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…

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 basi…

I would call it normal internet usage (have about 500GB-1000GB traffic per month, with LTE)

But then why not just sell 500 GB packages? So everyone knows what they will get.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#295

Post by schiffern »

swiley wrote: post #292
Fanmade wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from a third world country(Germany) and we don't have cheap LTE access. I pay more than 40€/month (about 50 USD) for 4GB of LTE and I got my contract for half of what it would normally cost. The reception is very poor and I barely ever see the LTE popping up on my phone, most times it's just 3G. And that's in the ex-capitol of Germany. If I visit my parents, which live barely a 45 minute drive outside of the city…

>I'm from a third world country(Germany) I was under the impression that "third world" was supposed to be defined as "a country that was not on the axis or allied side during all of World War 2." Your use of the term directly contradicts this definition.

I was under the impression that it was irony. ;)

Also it was the Cold War, not WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

>The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#296

Post by gsich »

taneq wrote: post #208
tigershark wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

17£/mo is sustainable when your users are just scrolling through Facebook and streaming Spotify. When they're all using it as their primary data connection and watching a few hours of HD Netflix a night, you need to charge more. Unlimited mobile data went away or got expensive in most places right around the time that smartphones gained the ability to act as wifi access points.

That doesn't make any sense. An AP is just an AP, it has no internet connection. How does the smartphone get internet connection? With UMTS/LTE or similar. So you still need a data plan (or a combination with it).

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#297

Post by shaklee3 »

greglindahl wrote: post #209
shaklee3 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically said high bandwidth since the latency is obviously better with leo. I don't know what you are implying by much cheaper launches. They need many, many more launches to hit the same capacity/coverage as a geo satellite. One launch may be cheaper, but SpaceX will need dozens.

You're correct about coverage -- 3 GEO sats can cover most of the planet -- but not about capacity, which kinda scales with satellite mass, and benefits from being closer (less power needed per bit.)

That is not correct. You have satellites of roughly the same mass over the last decade that are adding more and more capacity. You also do not benefit from being closer.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#298

Post by shaklee3 »

lev99 wrote: post #230
shaklee3 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically said high bandwidth since the latency is obviously better with leo. I don't know what you are implying by much cheaper launches. They need many, many more launches to hit the same capacity/coverage as a geo satellite. One launch may be cheaper, but SpaceX will need dozens.

I kind of assume bandwidth is a function of satellite count. So a network with 1000 satellites will be faster than a network with 3. User per satellite would also he important.

There's capacity and there's usable capacity. Geosynchronous, especially the newer ones, can put the capacity exactly where they need it. Leo can't. You end up with 70-90% of your capacity stranded unless you can sell it over water, even where planes don't go. So while spacex may have 3Tbps after 1000 satellites, the useable capacity will probably be less than a viasat-3 or any of the newer class satellites being built.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#299

Post by barkerja »

jessaustin wrote: post #288
mtanski wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix ISP CDN in space. Now that'd be something seriously cool.

It's funny; Netflix is one provider that doesn't need low latency so they would be fine with more traditional satellite orbits.

It wouldn't be a wise decision; what if they one day decide to enter into live programming (sports, news, etc.), where latency does matter?

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#300

Post by jessaustin »

barkerja wrote: post #299
jessaustin wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny; Netflix is one provider that doesn't need low latency so they would be fine with more traditional satellite orbits.

It wouldn't be a wise decision; what if they one day decide to enter into live programming (sports, news, etc.), where latency does matter?

Latency doesn't really matter for that either. Seeing a football play 5 seconds too late doesn't hurt anyone.
Post reply on HN