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

Starlink Maritime

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 530 posts

Re: Starlink Maritime

#231

Post by lotsofpulp »

Mo3 wrote: post #197
walrus01 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would ask two things: a) if you've ever personally lived for months or years at a time 100% dependent upon geostationary based services costing anywhere from $165/mo to $15,000 a month or more, for internet access and links to the outside world b) if you've personally used a starlink terminal the actual coverage isn't there yet for things like mid ocean, because starlink satellites in the present architecture need…

You are absolutely spot on. The market isn’t competitive, it’s artificial highway robbery to even be in business. The entry requirements and expenses are insanely high, preventing a lot of competition to begin with, and the few players are free to drive up their prices to disgusting altitudes while providing services of disgusting quality. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they have agreements going on between themselv…

Iridium’s profit margins do not seem like those of a company engaging in artificial highway robbery:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/IRDM/iridium-commu...

Neither do Viasat’s:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/VSAT/viasat/profit...

For some reason, Inmarsat has very nice profit margins though:

https://craft.co/inmarsat/metrics

Interesting that Viasat was able to purchase Inmarsat given the figures.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#232

Post by roflyear »

Someone1234 wrote: post #45
yardie wrote: post #27

"$5,000/mo with a one-time hardware cost of $10,000 for two high performance terminals." Definitely aimed at the champagne caviar, St Barts crowd rather than the hard scrabble, cruiser on a fixed income. In other terms, Iridium Go is still the best value around and truly global for the time being.

Iridium Go is 2.4 Kbits/s compared with 350 Mbps here, and data is charged in minutes (i.e. the slower/worse the connection the more it costs). Apples and oranges. Iridium GO is cheap, but that's all you can really say positively about it. It is arguably not even offering "internet" in the normal sense, since loading a website would be incredibly expensive/bad and is therefore restricted to low data rate messaging an…

Doesn't matter. No person outside the mega wealthy are paying for this.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#233

Post by lbrindze »

obloid wrote: post #108

I've been looking forward to marine starlink with the thought of being able to work remotely while sailing. Then I saw the pricing! I guess they're aiming for the megayacht crowd not average shmoes on small boats. Interestingly it does look like people are putting starlink on sailboats with ok results: https://www.reddit.com/r/SailboatCruising/comments/vovaxs/st...

I worked remote while sailing. my personal advice.... cruising is relatively cheap once you leave the dock. turn off your computer and go sail a while and plan on taking contracts during extended periods in port.

Also having packed a few offshore miles at this point... I have never had much luck being productive doing "work" while actually on passage. The ocean has a funny way of sticking to its own agenda anyway, despite our best plans.

Most of your time cruising is hanging on the anchor anyway. Depending on where you are there is pretty decent cell coverage a lot of places, or hotel wifis you can get from your anchorage.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#234

Post by roflyear »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #109
Someone1234 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iridium Go is 2.4 Kbits/s compared with 350 Mbps here, and data is charged in minutes (i.e. the slower/worse the connection the more it costs). Apples and oranges. Iridium GO is cheap, but that's all you can really say positively about it. It is arguably not even offering "internet" in the normal sense, since loading a website would be incredibly expensive/bad and is therefore restricted to low data rate messaging an…

Can I get 10 Mb/s for $142/mo?

No but are you going to pay $5k? Lol

Re: Starlink Maritime

#235

Post by Mo3 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #231
Mo3 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are absolutely spot on. The market isn’t competitive, it’s artificial highway robbery to even be in business. The entry requirements and expenses are insanely high, preventing a lot of competition to begin with, and the few players are free to drive up their prices to disgusting altitudes while providing services of disgusting quality. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they have agreements going on between themselv…

Iridium’s profit margins do not seem like those of a company engaging in artificial highway robbery: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/IRDM/iridium-commu... Neither do Viasat’s: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/VSAT/viasat/profit... For some reason, Inmarsat has very nice profit margins though: https://craft.co/inmarsat/metrics Interesting that Viasat was able to purchase Inmarsat given the figures.

I would argue that 25% or so net margin for a decade is a pretty significant sign considering how small their customer base must be and how much expenses they must have.

But yes, I did in fact assume it to be higher.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#236

Post by smoldesu »

dingosity wrote: post #216

Just curious. Does anyone know anyone who has received their terminal who is not a SpaceX employee or opted for Mobile/RV? I keep hearing about how they're being deployed, but the only people I know who have received their terminals are SpaceX employees or people who agreed to the more expensive Mobile/RV service.

I received mine in the first batch, have been using it for ~a year now. Have used it for everything from 4K Netflix to gaming to work, ama I guess. My experience has been overall good relative to the rest of the options in this space (most other companies are still offering limited 500kbps/high-latency plans for twice as much), but you can definitely still push it hard enough to reveal that it's still satellite internet underneath. It's worth it if your other options are HughesNet or a data-capped WISP.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#237

Post by pclmulqdq »

rtkwe wrote: post #219
pclmulqdq wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The traders are already using HF radios with lower latency.

Yeah SpaceX will have a very hard time beating the current routes; they're further from the surface and the intersatellite links won't be travelling in a straight line all the time. The best bet is if they can provide those links across oceans that can't be rigged with microwave towers.

The HF radios are transatlantic and transpacific using 10-30 MHz radios. The terrestrial microwave links (several GHz) have been around for a decade, and HF radio is fairly recent. Starlink will have higher bandwidth, but also higher latency.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#238

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

aml183 wrote: post #164

I work in the space industry and follow SATCOM closely. This is a very competitive space. Companies like Viasat, Iridium and Inmarsat already work in this vertical. SpaceX beats all these companies from a marketing perspective, but the big question is will a LEO operator provide better coverage than a GEO operator?

I’ve done work video calls using my friend’s starlink wifi on a remote mountain, and it’s unlimited bandwidth so this didn’t cost anything beyond the flat $110 monthly fee. Are geosynchronous services even capable of doing the bandwidth and latency needed for a two-way video call? And if so, how much would it cost?

Re: Starlink Maritime

#239

Post by simonebrunozzi »

aml183 wrote: post #164

I work in the space industry and follow SATCOM closely. This is a very competitive space. Companies like Viasat, Iridium and Inmarsat already work in this vertical. SpaceX beats all these companies from a marketing perspective, but the big question is will a LEO operator provide better coverage than a GEO operator?

One word: ping.

Re: Starlink Maritime

#240

Post by lotsofpulp »

Mo3 wrote: post #235
lotsofpulp wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iridium’s profit margins do not seem like those of a company engaging in artificial highway robbery: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/IRDM/iridium-commu... Neither do Viasat’s: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/VSAT/viasat/profit... For some reason, Inmarsat has very nice profit margins though: https://craft.co/inmarsat/metrics Interesting that Viasat was able to purchase Inmarsat given the figures.

I would argue that 25% or so net margin for a decade is a pretty significant sign considering how small their customer base must be and how much expenses they must have. But yes, I did in fact assume it to be higher.

I see a lot of volatility for Iridium with quite a few years with big losses and zero profit.

Viasat simply has near zero profit margins, and quite a few years with losses.

Inmarsat looks like it has 20% or so profit margin for the last few years, but I could not quickly find more years of data.

Also, I would expect decent (10%+) profit margins for a business with few customers and extremely costly barriers to entry. Both of those factors add to volatility, and investors would require a commensurate return to make it worth investing in.

Post reply on HN