> > part of that is because the markets never materialized to justify funding > to improve it. >
Not like there's funding here either ; Musk has been playing the same financial shell games here that he did with SolarCity. Even before the FCC disqualified them for the $900M in broadband funds , they were saying Starlink needed $30B or they'd go bankrupt. On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:59 PM Crist Clark <cjc+na...@pumpky.net> wrote: > There are probably a few more than 100 000 ocean going ships in the world. > There are maybe 60 000 airliners. They may be able to charge more per unit, > maybe several times more, but it’s still orders of magnitude below the size > of the consumer market. > > It’s not like satellite Internet is a new thing. It’s not even like LEO > satellite is a new thing. Iridium and Globalstar been doing it for over two > decades. Yeah, the service sucked, but part of that is because the markets > never materialized to justify funding to improve it. > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16 PM Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:41 PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: >> >> >> >> You are also assuming their only product is Home Internet. Providing >> Internet to ships at sea, planes in the sky and other more unconventional >> uses will provide a lot more revenue than the home Internet will. >> > >> > >> > I am not assuming that at all. >> > >> > There is absolutely a market for sat internet. It's just not a $30B >> revenue a year business as Musk has said. >> > >> > On land , why do wireline providers not build out into rural areas? >> There is not enough subscriber density to recover buildout costs in an >> acceptable timeframe. Starlink has the same problem ; the number of >> possible subscribers is exceptionally low relative to the buildout cost. >> >> No it does not. Reduced density in any area makes for a compelling >> market for starlink. The buildout cost is fixed (cover the globe with >> sats), once the globe is covered, taking advantage of any area under >> that is straightforward. It is quite unlike wires in this case, or >> even FWA, there is no power to towers, no need for power or cable >> anything but a downlink site located somewhere within a few hundred >> miles. >> >> We are also seeing rural 5G FWA expand rapidly, in part because the >> gear costs the same no matter how many people are on it. >> >> > There won't ever be high demand for Starlink in urban areas because >> it's not needed, and performance is bad when users are clustered like that. >> >> Agreed. >> >> > Again, I agree there is a market for sat internet. It's just never >> going to be anywhere close to as large as what is claimed. >> >> I think we are arguing the difference between 10m people and 30m? 10m >> people is quite a substantial business, barely cracking the ranks of >> the larger ISPS, and yet ~$1B/month. Hard to complain... >> >> I would have liked it if starlink´s business service included BGP >> peering, and other classic aspects of the internet that it does not >> have as yet. >> >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 7:25 PM <sro...@ronan-online.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> You are also assuming their only product is Home Internet. Providing >> Internet to ships at sea, planes in the sky and other more unconventional >> uses will provide a lot more revenue than the home Internet will. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 17, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> You’re assuming the launches are costing them something, which in >> fact may not be true. Rumor has it, they are piggybacking on other payloads >> which pay for the launches, particularly government contracts. >> >> >> >> >> >> Assuming they are, they aren't doing enough of those launches to >> piggyback enough sats to reach the 40k claim. >> >> >> >> Zero out the launch costs, subscriber revenue still doesn't doesn't >> come close to touching the sat costs. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:27 PM <sro...@ronan-online.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> You’re assuming the launches are costing them something, which in >> fact may not be true. Rumor has it, they are piggybacking on other payloads >> which pay for the launches, particularly government contracts. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Jun 17, 2023, at 5:54 PM, Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics >> are the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully >> throttling demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would >> make sense to overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in >> their cpe that makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv >> dishes? I can see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that >> mainly just software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the >> truck roll. >> >>> >> >>> - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a >> month, that's $165M in revenue, >> >>> >> >>> - A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up to >> 60 Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k sats >> in the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you assume >> the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own stuff, >> they aren't launching an external paying customer.) >> >>> - The reported price per sat is $250k. >> >>> >> >>> Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the >> orbital buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and >> $10B for sats. >> >>> >> >>> - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K >> cluster, that's 1200 a year. >> >>> >> >>> That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats. >> Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there. >> >>> >> >>> So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And >> that's just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing >> costs of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from >> staff , R&D, etc . >> >>> >> >>> Numbers kinda speak for themselves here. >> >>> >> >>>> I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you >> will he does have big ambitions. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner >> >>>>> rather than later? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for >> those services to completely replace terrestrial only service. >> >>>> >> >>>> Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only >> niche? I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you >> will he does have big ambitions. >> >>>> >> >>>> From my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the >> incumbents. I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest. >> >>>> >> >>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics >> are the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully >> throttling demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would >> make sense to overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in >> their cpe that makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv >> dishes? I can see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that >> mainly just software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the >> truck roll. >> >>>> >> >>>> Mike >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote: >> >>>>> >> Mark, >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet >> options. >> >>>>> >> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. >> >>>>> >> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US >> >>>>> >> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) >> there is >> >>>>> >> no service. >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is >> not a >> >>>>> >> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a >> ~1/3 >> >>>>> >> take rate. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many >> markets >> >>>>> > is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers >> that, >> >>>>> > since there is only so much money and resources to go around. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the >> >>>>> > opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are >> >>>>> > capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low >> >>>>> > hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the >> alternative >> >>>>> > provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other >> thread. >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner >> >>>>> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even >> if >> >>>>> they do they could compete with their caps. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Mike >> >>>>> >> >> >> -- >> Podcast: >> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/ >> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos >> >>