Why do they need approval for this? It's not like Space is owned by anyone?
Political power comes from the barrel of a gun, and SpaceX is well within many country's sights. e.g. that's the law.
You mean "i.e."
SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
251–260 of 290 posts
Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you but on second thoughts, maybe that's okay if it pays for itself over time? I pay my ISP ₹3K a month. I wouldn't mind buying SpaceX's router for say ₹30K if my bill drops to ₹1K a month.
I don't think they'll be able to sell in India. ISRO and the government are typically not friendly to other countries providing services like this.
I'm sure something can be worked out with an Indian partner company letting the government block sites it doesn't want and spying on us, like existing ISPs do.
Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cellular and WiFi AP roaming are solved problems. While you may be right regarding the context in which you said this — satellites — as a blanket statement, that's not true: my smartphone loses Internet connectivity when I leave my house, and takes a few seconds before it connects to the cellular data network. I'm surprised that phones don't establish a backup 4G connection when Wifi signal strength decreases sudde…
Sorry that wasn't clear. I meant cellular roaming between towers, and WiFi roaming between access points -- not roaming between the two technologies. It's currently possible to maintain a single connection (including IP address, open sockets, ip tables, etc.) while roaming between cell towers and WiFi APs. That's not true when switching carriers/providers/technologies, although I agree that would be a great next step…
Makes sense, thanks for clarifying.
Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was also wondering about this — will it be significantly costlier than a commodity fiber / cable/ VDSL router? If it's going to cost say $500, far fewer people around the world will be able to afford one.
The lowest estimate I've seen for the cpe cost is around $1000. I think it will be closer to $2-3K.
Ouch.
That's viable for consumers only if it's shared, like by providing an open Wifi access point to everyone around it, or via Ethernet in an apartment or a small village.
Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they'll be able to sell in India. ISRO and the government are typically not friendly to other countries providing services like this.
I'm sure something can be worked out with an Indian partner company letting the government block sites it doesn't want and spying on us, like existing ISPs do.
It didn't work out for Facebook, so I'm not sure it will. SpaceX isn't trying to connect people below they poverty line, so unless they convince India that the rich need it, I can't see it happening.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-...
Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
#256This video [0] really puts into perspective what SpaceX is trying to accomplish. Incredible stuff if they pull it off! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=AdKNCBrkZQ4...
If Starlink didn't route data in space and instead used space only as a last mile, would it be significantly cheaper, or have higher bandwidth, or be feasible to provide without data caps? What are the economic and technical tradeoffs here? I don't mind the latency of today's fiber or cable Internet, and if it's problem, it can be solved by moving servers closer to users. That is, what if, instead of bypassing the fi…
The problem it certainly going to be uplink/downlink - even with this massive constellation, you're fairly limited by the available RF spectrum. If you had a decently high subscription rate in a reasonably densely populated area, you'd probably be down to dozens of megabits per second per user at most.
This could deliver absolutely massively better internet in less populated areas like rural, shipping, etc. but I feel like people are perhaps getting the wrong idea and thinking this could supersede terrestrial networks in urban/surburban areas - in which case there will be a lot of disappointed people.
Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure something can be worked out with an Indian partner company letting the government block sites it doesn't want and spying on us, like existing ISPs do.
It didn't work out for Facebook, so I'm not sure it will. SpaceX isn't trying to connect people below they poverty line, so unless they convince India that the rich need it, I can't see it happening. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-...
Starlink wouldn't be in violation of net neutrality, so the comparison with Free Basics isn't the right one.
It will take off if it's better bang for the buck at any market segment. That can be Rs. 100 a month or Rs.2000 a month. If it's better than the alternatives people can get at that price, they'll use it.
Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Starlink didn't route data in space and instead used space only as a last mile, would it be significantly cheaper, or have higher bandwidth, or be feasible to provide without data caps? What are the economic and technical tradeoffs here? I don't mind the latency of today's fiber or cable Internet, and if it's problem, it can be solved by moving servers closer to users. That is, what if, instead of bypassing the fi…
The problem it certainly going to be uplink/downlink - even with this massive constellation, you're fairly limited by the available RF spectrum. If you had a decently high subscription rate in a reasonably densely populated area, you'd probably be down to dozens of megabits per second per user at most. This could deliver absolutely massively better internet in less populated areas like rural, shipping, etc. but I fee…
I didn't ask about users in densely populated areas. Imagine two villagers on opposite sides of the world communicating via Starlink. Would it be cheaper per bit for Starlink to offload the data to the nearest metro area, from where it can travel around the world by fiber, till the closest metro area for the receiver, at which point it gets sent via satellite? In other words, use satellite only as the last mile on each end, not for the backbone.
Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
#259This video [0] really puts into perspective what SpaceX is trying to accomplish. Incredible stuff if they pull it off! [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=AdKNCBrkZQ4...
80msec is not a good outcome considering the cost and complexity of the investment. Aren't there alternative technologies to achieve this connectivity?
It's still a somewhat good value, compared to GEO satellites. It's no fun to use those.
Re: SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple and reliable pgp encryption will outlast tls 1.3, and rural users (quite reasonably) expect more life from their devices than city folks. No one is going to download and update with a 200MB image at 2400bps afterall.
pgp email is basically deprecated by the security community. Security people do not use and do not recommend pgp email. TLS is used by everything, and a version of it will be used for a long time, for example everything that will use IETF QUIC or HTTP3+ on top of IETF QUIC.
TLS is transport layer encryption. PGP is mail content encryption. TLS can't replace PGP, as it deals with encryption on another layer.
While you might feel that it's deprecated (says who?) it's certainly in use, even by those "security people".