Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/20/23 16:09, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:


Or the investment to upgrade doesn’t make financial sense.


It never makes sense if you are printing money with no competition.

Mark.

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[sronan]

Or the investment to upgrade doesn’t make financial sense.

> On Jun 20, 2023, at 9:54 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
>  
> 
>> On 6/20/23 15:20, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> 
>> Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
>> 
>> When you go down in density, your fixed cost per customer really escalates 
>> and you simply can't afford to provision as much as you'd like to. When you 
>> leave glass as a transport mechanism, scaling isn't easy. When you don't 
>> have a wireline to the customer prem, scaling isn't easy.
>> 
>> You might have a licensed backhaul going 10 - 20 miles to feed a remote 
>> cluster of customers (be it wireless, copper, coax, or glass as the last 
>> mile). Those are more or less limited to about 1.5 gb/s. Spectrum 
>> availability can reduce that. You can sometimes stack them, but again, 
>> spectrum availability would be king in that decision.
>> You might have fixed wireless as the last mile. We're starting to see 
>> platforms capable of multi-hundred megabit per customer with a sector 
>> capacity of low gigabits, but again, spectrum availability comes into play 
>> here. Those solutions require line of sight (or close to it) and only go a 
>> few miles. The systems that can penetrate foliage really cut your per-sector 
>> capacity to around 100 megabit, shared amongst all customers. Those are 
>> simply limitations of physics.
>> 
>> 
>> When you don't have the benefits of scale, the only viable path forward in a 
>> managed setting is usage-based billing, with some amount of included data.
> 
> We are saying the same thing re: mobile (when I say mobile I mean wireless) 
> providers. Because spectrum is a limitation, capped services make sense. 
> 
> When I say "fixed line", I mean end-to-end, i.e., from CPE to nearest ISP 
> PoP, all on wire. In such a case, if an operator is still offering a capped 
> service, it is because they have no incentive (competition) to do otherwise.
> 
> Mark.

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/20/23 15:20, Mike Hammett wrote:


Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

When you go down in density, your fixed cost per customer really 
escalates and you simply can't afford to provision as much as you'd 
like to. When you leave glass as a transport mechanism, scaling isn't 
easy. When you don't have a wireline to the customer prem, scaling 
isn't easy.


You might have a licensed backhaul going 10 - 20 miles to feed a 
remote cluster of customers (be it wireless, copper, coax, or glass as 
the last mile). Those are more or less limited to about 1.5 gb/s. 
Spectrum availability can reduce that. You can sometimes stack them, 
but again, spectrum availability would be king in that decision.
You might have fixed wireless as the last mile. We're starting to see 
platforms capable of multi-hundred megabit per customer with a sector 
capacity of low gigabits, but again, spectrum availability comes into 
play here. Those solutions require line of sight (or close to it) and 
only go a few miles. The systems that can penetrate foliage really cut 
your per-sector capacity to around 100 megabit, shared amongst all 
customers. Those are simply limitations of physics.



When you don't have the benefits of scale, the only viable path 
forward in a managed setting is usage-based billing, with some amount 
of included data.


We are saying the same thing re: mobile (when I say mobile I mean 
wireless) providers. Because spectrum is a limitation, capped services 
make sense.


When I say "fixed line", I mean end-to-end, i.e., from CPE to nearest 
ISP PoP, all on wire. In such a case, if an operator is still offering a 
capped service, it is because they have no incentive (competition) to do 
otherwise.


Mark.

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mike Hammett]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 


When you go down in density, your fixed cost per customer really escalates and 
you simply can't afford to provision as much as you'd like to. When you leave 
glass as a transport mechanism, scaling isn't easy. When you don't have a 
wireline to the customer prem, scaling isn't easy. 

You might have a licensed backhaul going 10 - 20 miles to feed a remote cluster 
of customers (be it wireless, copper, coax, or glass as the last mile). Those 
are more or less limited to about 1.5 gb/s. Spectrum availability can reduce 
that. You can sometimes stack them, but again, spectrum availability would be 
king in that decision. 
You might have fixed wireless as the last mile. We're starting to see platforms 
capable of multi-hundred megabit per customer with a sector capacity of low 
gigabits, but again, spectrum availability comes into play here. Those 
solutions require line of sight (or close to it) and only go a few miles. The 
systems that can penetrate foliage really cut your per-sector capacity to 
around 100 megabit, shared amongst all customers. Those are simply limitations 
of physics. 




When you don't have the benefits of scale, the only viable path forward in a 
managed setting is usage-based billing, with some amount of included data. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, "Josh Luthman"  
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 12:44:54 AM 
Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps 




On 6/19/23 14:56, Mike Hammett wrote: 




You're assuming that an uncapped service is viable to offer. In many areas, it 
is. In many areas, it is not. 



It is viable for mobile services, even though I think mobile operators have 
taken the model a little too far. 

But for fixed line services, it is mainly used to print free money, or limit 
investment in the network. I'm okay with either model an operator chooses to 
take, because until someone else comes along to break capped services on fixed 
line, there isn't much anyone can do about it. 

Mark. 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/19/23 14:56, Mike Hammett wrote:

You're assuming that an uncapped service is viable to offer. In many 
areas, it is. In many areas, it is not.


It is viable for mobile services, even though I think mobile operators 
have taken the model a little too far.


But for fixed line services, it is mainly used to print free money, or 
limit investment in the network. I'm okay with either model an operator 
chooses to take, because until someone else comes along to break capped 
services on fixed line, there isn't much anyone can do about it.


Mark.

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
> They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag)
> if they are DOA based on a quick search.  That does mean that they are
> space junk for a while but not permanent space junk.
>

Sorta.

At 500km, an uncontrolled object can take around 10 years to deorbit
naturally. It's a function of cross sectional area, mass, and drag
coefficient. An uncontrolled object will also, over time, slowly orient
itself to a position of least drag, which thereby extends the curve. This
is also subject to natural atmospheric density fluctuations.

5 years for a spent bird at 550km is most likely the best possible case,
and won't be the norm.

On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:32 AM Mark Andrews  wrote:

> They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag)
> if they are DOA based on a quick search.  That does mean that they are
> space junk for a while but not permanent space junk.
>
> > On 19 Jun 2023, at 17:44, b...@uu3.net wrote:
> >
> > Heh, its kinda sad that noone mentions space environment impact at all.
> > How that 40k sats will pollute already decently pulluted orbit.
> >
> > I wonder if decommision process will be clean (burn in atmosphere).
> > If there will be failure rate, we will end up w/ dead sats at orbit.
> >
> > I really wonder if thats really necessary. I think that money could be
> > better spent building earth infra reaching those under-serviced places.
> > Cheaper, easy maintenance, less centralization.
> >
> > We also need orbit for more importand sats out there than internet.
> > GPS, earth monitoring infra, space telescopes, R
> >
> >
> > ------ Original message ------
> >
> > From: Tom Beecher 
> > To: Dave Taht 
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of
> Data Caps
> > Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:11:53 -0400
> >
> >>
> >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
> >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
> >> termination system.
> >>
> >
> > The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the
> first
> > time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold
> them
> > back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to
> problems
> > solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore.
> >
> > The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
> >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
> >> fondag,
> >> as thought.
> >>
> >
> > The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still
> > exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the
> > terms of their contract with the state of Texas.
> >
> > There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
> >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
> >> has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
> >> issued for the next 6 months last week.
> >>
> >
> > Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to
> > the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind
> > boggling.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04˙˙PM Dave Taht  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher 
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> >> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
> >> really drive down the launch cost.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test
> >> launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in
> the
> >> media.  Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades
> >> have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes.
> >>
> >> 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the
> >> improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive.
> >> A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch.
> >>
> >> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
> >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
> >> fondag,
> >> as thought.
> >>
> >> While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as
> >> fanbois, they are als

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mike Hammett]

" On land , why do wireline providers not build out into rural areas?" 


Some of it is indeed your answer. Some of it is also gross incompetence by the 
operators. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Tom Beecher"  
To: sro...@ronan-online.com 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 6:38:23 PM 
Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps 




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. 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. 


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. 


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, 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 4 satellites if their ambition is only niche? I mean, 
I get that Musk is sort of a 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mike Hammett]

Assuming that Starlink and other LEO are capable of doing so. They've made some 
lofty goals that have thus far, failed to materialize in many areas (while in 
many areas, they have). 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Michael Thomas"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 3:16:22 PM 
Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps 


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 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mike Hammett]

You're assuming that an uncapped service is viable to offer. In many areas, it 
is. In many areas, it is not. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: "Josh Luthman"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 3:09:08 PM 
Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps 



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. 

Mark. 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mark Andrews]

They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag)
if they are DOA based on a quick search.  That does mean that they are
space junk for a while but not permanent space junk.  

> On 19 Jun 2023, at 17:44, b...@uu3.net wrote:
> 
> Heh, its kinda sad that noone mentions space environment impact at all.
> How that 40k sats will pollute already decently pulluted orbit.
> 
> I wonder if decommision process will be clean (burn in atmosphere).
> If there will be failure rate, we will end up w/ dead sats at orbit.
> 
> I really wonder if thats really necessary. I think that money could be
> better spent building earth infra reaching those under-serviced places.
> Cheaper, easy maintenance, less centralization.
> 
> We also need orbit for more importand sats out there than internet.
> GPS, earth monitoring infra, space telescopes, R
> 
> 
> -- Original message --
> 
> From: Tom Beecher 
> To: Dave Taht 
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps
> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:11:53 -0400
> 
>> 
>> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
>> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
>> termination system.
>> 
> 
> The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the first
> time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold them
> back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to problems
> solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore.
> 
> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
>> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
>> fondag,
>> as thought.
>> 
> 
> The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still
> exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the
> terms of their contract with the state of Texas.
> 
> There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
>> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
>> has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
>> issued for the next 6 months last week.
>> 
> 
> Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to
> the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind
> boggling.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04˙˙PM Dave Taht  wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
>> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
>> really drive down the launch cost.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test
>> launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in the
>> media.  Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades
>> have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes.
>> 
>> 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the
>> improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive.
>> A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch.
>> 
>> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
>> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
>> fondag,
>> as thought.
>> 
>> While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as
>> fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and
>> analysis that exists:
>> 
>> https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut
>> https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase
>> 
>> They are good folk to track.
>> 
>> Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of space:
>> 
>> https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace
>> 
>> https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/
>> 
>> There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily
>> progress, with live video feeds.
>> 
>> There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
>> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
>> has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
>> issued for the next 6 months last week.
>> 
>> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
>> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
>> termination system. The next ship and booster will possibly be tested
>> next month, and these have replaced the hydrolic controls with
>> 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[borg]

Heh, its kinda sad that noone mentions space environment impact at all.
How that 40k sats will pollute already decently pulluted orbit.

I wonder if decommision process will be clean (burn in atmosphere).
If there will be failure rate, we will end up w/ dead sats at orbit.

I really wonder if thats really necessary. I think that money could be
better spent building earth infra reaching those under-serviced places.
Cheaper, easy maintenance, less centralization.

We also need orbit for more importand sats out there than internet.
GPS, earth monitoring infra, space telescopes, R


-- Original message --

From: Tom Beecher 
To: Dave Taht 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:11:53 -0400

>
> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
> termination system.
>

The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the first
time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold them
back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to problems
solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore.

The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
> fondag,
> as thought.
>

The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still
exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the
terms of their contract with the state of Texas.

There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
> has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
> issued for the next 6 months last week.
>

Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to
the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind
boggling.


On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04˙˙PM Dave Taht  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
> >>
> >> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
> really drive down the launch cost.
> >
> >
> > Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test
> launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in the
> media.  Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades
> have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes.
>
> 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the
> improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive.
> A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch.
>
> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
> fondag,
> as thought.
>
> While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as
> fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and
> analysis that exists:
>
> https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut
> https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase
>
> They are good folk to track.
>
> Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of space:
>
> https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace
>
> https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/
>
> There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily
> progress, with live video feeds.
>
> There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
> has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
> issued for the next 6 months last week.
>
> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
> termination system. The next ship and booster will possibly be tested
> next month, and these have replaced the hydrolic controls with
> electric and have better motor shielding in general.
>
> Yes, an utterly amazing amount of things need to go right to launch a
> spaceship, but ... my best bet for another launch of starship would be
> early september.
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:56˙˙PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
> >>
> >> Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking
> about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like it
> could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying tech
> reason.
> >>
> >> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> capacity. If it really is fully reusa

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
>  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  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  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:41 PM Tom Beecher  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  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  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  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  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 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
> termination system.
>

The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the first
time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold them
back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to problems
solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore.

The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
> fondag,
> as thought.
>

The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still
exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the
terms of their contract with the state of Texas.

There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
> has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
> issued for the next 6 months last week.
>

Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to
the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind
boggling.


On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04 PM Dave Taht  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16 PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
> >>
> >> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
> really drive down the launch cost.
> >
> >
> > Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test
> launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in the
> media.  Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades
> have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes.
>
> 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the
> improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive.
> A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch.
>
> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
> fondag,
> as thought.
>
> While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as
> fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and
> analysis that exists:
>
> https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut
> https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase
>
> They are good folk to track.
>
> Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of space:
>
> https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace
>
> https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/
>
> There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily
> progress, with live video feeds.
>
> There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
> has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
> issued for the next 6 months last week.
>
> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
> termination system. The next ship and booster will possibly be tested
> next month, and these have replaced the hydrolic controls with
> electric and have better motor shielding in general.
>
> Yes, an utterly amazing amount of things need to go right to launch a
> spaceship, but ... my best bet for another launch of starship would be
> early september.
>
>
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:56 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
> >>
> >> Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking
> about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like it
> could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying tech
> reason.
> >>
> >> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
> really drive down the launch cost.
> >>
> >> But your calculations don't take into account that they are not at
> anywhere close to a full constellation: they are only at 4k out of the 40k
> they need so they literally can't support higher numbers. Their new
> generation of satellite is also suppose to be doing some in-orbit routing
> or something like that which would I would assume will really help on the
> bandwidth front. How much that affects their maximum subscriber base when
> they are fully deployed I don't know but it's bound to be a lot more
> possible subs than they have now.
> >>
> >> I mean, this could be a spectacular flop like Iridium but a lot has
> changed in 20 some years not least of which is the cost of launch.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On 6/17/23 2:53 PM, Tom Beecher 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 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Crist Clark]

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  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:41 PM Tom Beecher  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  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  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  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  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 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Dave Taht]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:41 PM Tom Beecher  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  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  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  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  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, 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 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Dave Taht]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16 PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>
>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more 
>> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to 
>> really drive down the launch cost.
>
>
> Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test launch 
> from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in the media.  
> Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades have pointed 
> out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes.

1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the
improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive.
A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch.

The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of
the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised
fondag,
as thought.

While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as
fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and
analysis that exists:

https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut
https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase

They are good folk to track.

Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of space:

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace

https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/

There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily
progress, with live video feeds.

There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing
megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site
has been dug out and partially repaired,  and a new launch license was
issued for the next 6 months last week.

The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
termination system. The next ship and booster will possibly be tested
next month, and these have replaced the hydrolic controls with
electric and have better motor shielding in general.

Yes, an utterly amazing amount of things need to go right to launch a
spaceship, but ... my best bet for another launch of starship would be
early september.


>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:56 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>
>> Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking 
>> about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like it 
>> could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying tech 
>> reason.
>>
>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more 
>> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to 
>> really drive down the launch cost.
>>
>> But your calculations don't take into account that they are not at anywhere 
>> close to a full constellation: they are only at 4k out of the 40k they need 
>> so they literally can't support higher numbers. Their new generation of 
>> satellite is also suppose to be doing some in-orbit routing or something 
>> like that which would I would assume will really help on the bandwidth 
>> front. How much that affects their maximum subscriber base when they are 
>> fully deployed I don't know but it's bound to be a lot more possible subs 
>> than they have now.
>>
>> I mean, this could be a spectacular flop like Iridium but a lot has changed 
>> in 20 some years not least of which is the cost of launch.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On 6/17/23 2:53 PM, Tom Beecher 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 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/17/23 4:14 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:


Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x
more capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that
is going to really drive down the launch cost.


Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test 
launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed 
in the media.  Reputable people who have been working in this field 
for decades have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not 
quick fixes.


Betting that Starship won't be a factor is not a bet I'd make. And I'm 
definitely not a Musk fan boy. A lot of the same NASA types didn't 
believe they'd get where they are now either. Because... you know, 
vested interests. I'd bet that Starship will be a factor way before the 
Senate Launch System.


Mike

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
> 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. 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.

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.

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 7:25 PM  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  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  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  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, 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  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 4 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, 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
> Where did you see that? So far as I can tell, the failure rate,
> exclusive of one launch lost to solar expansion, is trending towards
> zero. Also, maneuvering thrust (documented somewhere) has been quite
> under expectations, in terms of operating fuel they could use the
> existing sats for far, far longer than the intended 5 year operational
> lifetime, in this regard.
>

https://phys.org/news/2020-10-starlink-satellites.html

I would highly dispute any analysis that the failure rate was trending
towards zero. That doesn't happen on the ground, let alone in orbit.



On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 7:09 PM Dave Taht  wrote:

> I am happy to see the conversation about starlink escaping over here,
> because it is increasingly a game-changing technology (I also run the
> starlink mailing list, cc´d)...
>
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 3:56 PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
> >>
> >> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are
> the real economics.
>
> There is a whole other cluster on the drawing boards, called
> Starshield, which you can read about here:
> https://www.spacex.com/starshield/
>
> The current "retail"economics are limited to US allies as a result of
> the ukraine war showing how important information and bandwidth are to
> modern warfare. There are also political implications to downlinks in
> each country.
>
> I imagine, for example, that India is holding off on licensing until
> Musk gets them a tesla factory.
>
> Multiple other countries are making a huge investment into retaining
> control of the "spacewaves", so there´s that also.
>
> >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.
>
> Throttling demand is not how I would put it. Each cell has a limited
> capacity, so starlink has been running promotions to get more
> subscribers into more rural cells where the capacity exists.
>
> I have kvetched elsewhere about how poorly starlink manages bandwidth
> and bufferbloat currently, but they are largely better than modern day
> 5G and DSL, so...
>
> >  Is there something inherent in their cpe that makes them much more
> expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes?
>
> The original cost/dish was about 2k, so they were selling those at
> well below the install price, with a ROI of about 12 months, given
> that figure. I imagine with mass manufacturing the cost/dish has come
> down substantially, and they also charge a realistic price on the
> business quality dish of $2500. It would not surprise me if the basic
> dishy essentially cost less than 500 to manufacture nowadays.
>
> The default wifi router, which many replace, cannot be more than 50
> dollars on the BOM.
>
> > 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.
>
> There is no truck roll. They have gone to amazing extants in - put the
> dish in a clear area, power it up, you are on.
>
> Establishing infrastructure, like downlinks, connected near fiber in
> civilization does have a large cost, takes time, and is also subject
> to government regulation.
>
> >
> > - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month,
> that's $165M in revenue,
>
> Creating A 2B dollar/year business in 4 years is quite impressive. A
> reasonable projection would be 10m subs in 4 more years, e.g.
> 10B/year. That aint' chicken scratch. In fact, I think it funds
> humanity´s expansion into the solar system quite handily.
>
> > - 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.
>
> There are multiple sat types, the mini v2 (which can only be flown on
> the falcon 9, is rumored to cost about that much)
>
> Starship had had a much larger, much more highly capable sat designed
> for it, but it is running a few years behind schedule. The hope for
> that was that launch costs would decline even further.
>
> Also OPEX - running this network - is probably a substantial cost. I
> have lost track of the number of downlink stations established (over
> 200 now) but I would guess those are about 1m per.
>
> There is a really amazing site that looks at this stuff called starlink.sx
> .
>
> >
> > 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 present day capacity, even if they were to do no more launches, is
> still underused. Roughly half the USA has no starlink service yet,
> multiple countries have been slow to license, and nearly all of Africa
> remains uncovered. Maritime 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[sronan]

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  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  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  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, 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  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 4 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 
  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 
  

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
> really drive down the launch cost.
>

Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test launch
from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in the
media.  Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades
have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes.

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:56 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

> Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking
> about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like it
> could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying tech
> reason.
>
> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
> really drive down the launch cost.
>
> But your calculations don't take into account that they are not at
> anywhere close to a full constellation: they are only at 4k out of the 40k
> they need so they literally can't support higher numbers. Their new
> generation of satellite is also suppose to be doing some in-orbit routing
> or something like that which would I would assume will really help on the
> bandwidth front. How much that affects their maximum subscriber base when
> they are fully deployed I don't know but it's bound to be a lot more
> possible subs than they have now.
>
> I mean, this could be a spectacular flop like Iridium but a lot has
> changed in 20 some years not least of which is the cost of launch.
>
> Mike
> On 6/17/23 2:53 PM, Tom Beecher 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, 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  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 4 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  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>> >> Mark,
>>> >>
>>> >> 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Dave Taht]

I am happy to see the conversation about starlink escaping over here,
because it is increasingly a game-changing technology (I also run the
starlink mailing list, cc´d)...

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 3:56 PM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>
>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are the 
>> real economics.

There is a whole other cluster on the drawing boards, called
Starshield, which you can read about here:
https://www.spacex.com/starshield/

The current "retail"economics are limited to US allies as a result of
the ukraine war showing how important information and bandwidth are to
modern warfare. There are also political implications to downlinks in
each country.

I imagine, for example, that India is holding off on licensing until
Musk gets them a tesla factory.

Multiple other countries are making a huge investment into retaining
control of the "spacewaves", so there´s that also.

>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.

Throttling demand is not how I would put it. Each cell has a limited
capacity, so starlink has been running promotions to get more
subscribers into more rural cells where the capacity exists.

I have kvetched elsewhere about how poorly starlink manages bandwidth
and bufferbloat currently, but they are largely better than modern day
5G and DSL, so...

>  Is there something inherent in their cpe that makes them much more expensive 
> than, say, satellite tv dishes?

The original cost/dish was about 2k, so they were selling those at
well below the install price, with a ROI of about 12 months, given
that figure. I imagine with mass manufacturing the cost/dish has come
down substantially, and they also charge a realistic price on the
business quality dish of $2500. It would not surprise me if the basic
dishy essentially cost less than 500 to manufacture nowadays.

The default wifi router, which many replace, cannot be more than 50
dollars on the BOM.

> 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.

There is no truck roll. They have gone to amazing extants in - put the
dish in a clear area, power it up, you are on.

Establishing infrastructure, like downlinks, connected near fiber in
civilization does have a large cost, takes time, and is also subject
to government regulation.

>
> - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month, that's 
> $165M in revenue,

Creating A 2B dollar/year business in 4 years is quite impressive. A
reasonable projection would be 10m subs in 4 more years, e.g.
10B/year. That aint' chicken scratch. In fact, I think it funds
humanity´s expansion into the solar system quite handily.

> - 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.

There are multiple sat types, the mini v2 (which can only be flown on
the falcon 9, is rumored to cost about that much)

Starship had had a much larger, much more highly capable sat designed
for it, but it is running a few years behind schedule. The hope for
that was that launch costs would decline even further.

Also OPEX - running this network - is probably a substantial cost. I
have lost track of the number of downlink stations established (over
200 now) but I would guess those are about 1m per.

There is a really amazing site that looks at this stuff called starlink.sx.

>
> 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 present day capacity, even if they were to do no more launches, is
still underused. Roughly half the USA has no starlink service yet,
multiple countries have been slow to license, and nearly all of Africa
remains uncovered. Maritime and air are big sources of new business. I
try to stress it is where  people are but infrastructure isn´t is
where starlink really shines,

and that very little bandwidth is required for things like email and chat.

>
> - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K cluster, 
> that's 1200 a year.

Where did you see that? So far as I can tell, the failure rate,
exclusive of one launch lost to solar expansion, is trending towards
zero. Also, maneuvering thrust (documented somewhere) has been quite
under expectations, in terms of operating fuel they could use the
existing sats for far, far longer than the intended 5 year operational
lifetime, in this regard.

>
> That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats. Let's 
> round off 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
> 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  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  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, 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  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 4 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  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 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Michael Thomas]

Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking 
about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like 
it could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying 
tech reason.


Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more 
capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to 
really drive down the launch cost.


But your calculations don't take into account that they are not at 
anywhere close to a full constellation: they are only at 4k out of the 
40k they need so they literally can't support higher numbers. Their new 
generation of satellite is also suppose to be doing some in-orbit 
routing or something like that which would I would assume will really 
help on the bandwidth front. How much that affects their maximum 
subscriber base when they are fully deployed I don't know but it's bound 
to be a lot more possible subs than they have now.


I mean, this could be a spectacular flop like Iridium but a lot has 
changed in 20 some years not least of which is the cost of launch.


Mike

On 6/17/23 2:53 PM, Tom Beecher 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, 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  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 4 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  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
>> 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[sronan]

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  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, 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  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 4 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 
  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 
   

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
> 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, 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  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 4 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  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
>>
>>

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Michael Thomas]

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 4 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  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

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
> 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.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17 PM Michael Thomas  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
>
>

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Tom Beecher]

>
> I have not heard of any mention of Starlink having caps as part of their
> service. Having said that, for services like this, things change as the
> number of customers using them rises.
>

They were proposing data caps to roll out this year, but they abandoned
that in lieu of a 'priority tier. Pay extra and get throttled less
essentially.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:24 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 6/16/23 22:16, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Maybe. I really haven't paid any attention to Starlink, although there
> are credible reports of folk testing it here in South Africa's urban
> centres.
>
> I have not heard of any mention of Starlink having caps as part of their
> service. Having said that, for services like this, things change as the
> number of customers using them rises.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jun 16, 2023, at 13:16, Michael Thomas  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

Maybe, but ta the rate their prices have been going up and their reviews have 
been going down, it’s not at all promising. I’m in a wait and see mode with 
Starling. Every time I get just about frustrated enough with Comcast to shell 
out, I discover that Starling’s pricing has again moved above my threshold of 
frustration.

Owen

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jun 16, 2023, at 11:27, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/16/23 18:41, Michael Thomas wrote:
> 
>> Is 1.2 TB enough for a typical cord cutter? I just looked at mine and it 
>> looks to be about 300GB/month, but we may not be typical for your average 
>> family with kids, say.
> 
> For residential services, the competition should easily outscore any provider 
> that still delivers capped Internet.
> 
> It's 2023...
> 
> Mark.

Competition… You’re hilarious…

Here’s my current choices:

Local WISP: Excellent service, great guy, tops out at 60MBPS.

AT: Awful service, but no worse than Comcast. Tops out at 768Kbps down (Yes, 
Kbps) and 384Kbps up. Ugh.

5G (various providers): Lousy service, no inbound connections allowed (they 
stateful firewall everything), many no longer give a public IPv4.
Not an option for my needs since GRE is an essential capability.

There is no REAL competition to Comcast in my area. I’m not in the sticks, I’m 
in the so called “capitol of Silicon Valley”, aka San Jose, CA.

If you get further out of the urban areas, the lack of competitors gets even 
worse.

Competition, indeed… Very few places in the US have actual competition.

Owen

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/16/23 3:18 PM, Keith Stokes wrote:

Cox also has a 1.2 TB cap.

If I can believe my graphs, the metered Cox connection (video 
streaming primarily for wife) is about 90 GB the month of April and 
the unmetered ATT fiber WFH for me is about 370 GB. Total LAN is about 
450 GB. Napkin math but it's pretty close.


Modulo P2P nodes, what drives high usage? I guess game downloads are 
getting gigantic these days, but that's not an every day event. Back in 
the bad old days it wasn't inconceivable to go over the lower caps but 
once it's big enough to support video what is left? I mean, how much 4k 
pr0n can randy teenagers watch in one month?



Mike

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Keith Stokes]

Cox also has a 1.2 TB cap.

If I can believe my graphs, the metered Cox connection (video streaming 
primarily for wife) is about 90 GB the month of April and the unmetered ATT 
fiber WFH for me is about 370 GB. Total LAN is about 450 GB. Napkin math but 
it's pretty close.


From: NANOG  on behalf of Steve 
Meuse 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 3:59 PM
To: cjc+na...@pumpky.net 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps


I always looked at Comcast's caps as pre-emptive fodder for future FCC 
bargaining. The next time they want to do something with the FCC's approval and 
the commission wanted a concession, they would offer it up for the block.

-Steve



On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 1:41 AM Crist Clark 
mailto:cjc%2bna...@pumpky.net>> wrote:
Comcast still has data caps. My service is 1.2 TB per month. If we get close, 
we get a warning email. If we were to go over (hasn’t happened yet), we get 
billed per additional 500 MB.

However, I just looked at my account usage for the first time for a few months, 
and somehow have had zero usage since March of this year.


On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:48 PM Michael Thomas 
mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:

On 6/15/23 3:19 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> While a lot of ISPs gave up on data caps, the language is still
> lurking in many Terms Of Service.
>
>
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/chair-rosenworcel-proposes-investigate-impact-data-caps
>
>
> proposed Notice of Inquiry to learn more about how broadband providers
> use data caps on consumer plans. Data caps, or usage limits, are a
> common practice where an internet service provider (ISP) restricts how
> much bandwidth or data a consumer uses, though many broadband ISPs
> temporarily or permanently refrained from enforcing or imposing data
> caps in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the agency
> would like to better understand the current state of data caps, their
> impact on consumers, and whether the Commission should consider taking
> action to ensure that data caps do not cause harm to competition or
> consumers’ ability to access
> broadband Internet services.

So why did they back off? Cost too much in support calls with pissed
people? Bad publicity? People can't meaningfully use the offered
bandwidth these days? Something else?

Mike

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Steve Meuse]

I always looked at Comcast's caps as pre-emptive fodder for future FCC
bargaining. The next time they want to do something with the FCC's approval
and the commission wanted a concession, they would offer it up for the
block.

-Steve



On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 1:41 AM Crist Clark  wrote:

> Comcast still has data caps. My service is 1.2 TB per month. If we get
> close, we get a warning email. If we were to go over (hasn’t happened yet),
> we get billed per additional 500 MB.
>
> However, I just looked at my account usage for the first time for a few
> months, and somehow have had zero usage since March of this year.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:48 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6/15/23 3:19 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>> >
>> > While a lot of ISPs gave up on data caps, the language is still
>> > lurking in many Terms Of Service.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://www.fcc.gov/document/chair-rosenworcel-proposes-investigate-impact-data-caps
>> >
>> >
>> > proposed Notice of Inquiry to learn more about how broadband providers
>> > use data caps on consumer plans. Data caps, or usage limits, are a
>> > common practice where an internet service provider (ISP) restricts how
>> > much bandwidth or data a consumer uses, though many broadband ISPs
>> > temporarily or permanently refrained from enforcing or imposing data
>> > caps in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the agency
>> > would like to better understand the current state of data caps, their
>> > impact on consumers, and whether the Commission should consider taking
>> > action to ensure that data caps do not cause harm to competition or
>> > consumers’ ability to access
>> > broadband Internet services.
>>
>> So why did they back off? Cost too much in support calls with pissed
>> people? Bad publicity? People can't meaningfully use the offered
>> bandwidth these days? Something else?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/16/23 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Not everyone can afford $1000 to start up Starlink and then pay $130+ 
per month.  That may be an option for some, but certainly not the 
majority.


If 100% of a town was covered by a single company with data caps, 
those that are crying from hitting 1.2 TB/month will not be enough for 
a competitor to come in and build on top.  A TB/mo now is extremely 
high - In May 2023 we had 4 customers that exceeded that (all 4 of 
these customers mentioned are subscribed to <25 mbps plans; we offer 
gig ftth).


I get the impression that they are still in a beta/early adopter 
situation so unaffordability might be feature not a bug to them to keep 
the system from a success disaster. At least for now. I get the 
impression that some/a lot of this is to bring the internet to the rest 
of the world as one of their goals.


I do wonder how they are numbering them though. Are the they using the 
same scheme that the mobile providers are using with ipv6? hmm.


Mike



On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:22 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:



On 6/16/23 22:16, Michael Thomas wrote:

> 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.

Maybe. I really haven't paid any attention to Starlink, although
there
are credible reports of folk testing it here in South Africa's urban
centres.

I have not heard of any mention of Starlink having caps as part of
their
service. Having said that, for services like this, things change
as the
number of customers using them rises.

Mark.

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/16/23 22:36, Josh Luthman wrote:

Not everyone can afford $1000 to start up Starlink and then pay $130+ 
per month.  That may be an option for some, but certainly not the 
majority.


Partly why I don't pay any attention to Starlink. It's a niche product 
for folk who either have the ability to live off-grid, or be in a 
position to have someone else wealthier cover the cost for them. That 
won't be the majority.


In Africa, most people will connect to the Internet via mobile. Even 
with mobile coverage being relatively poor in the deepest part of the 
village, penetration via mobile is far more likely than Starlink, et al.



If 100% of a town was covered by a single company with data caps, 
those that are crying from hitting 1.2 TB/month will not be enough for 
a competitor to come in and build on top.  A TB/mo now is extremely 
high - In May 2023 we had 4 customers that exceeded that (all 4 of 
these customers mentioned are subscribed to <25 mbps plans; we offer 
gig ftth).


The traditional business case is volume-based, i.e., as many customers 
as possible. If that is not the model for the competitor, they can be 
enough of a disruptor if something else drives them. Think what Jared 
has done in the bundus of Michigan.


Mark.

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Josh Luthman]

Not everyone can afford $1000 to start up Starlink and then pay $130+ per
month.  That may be an option for some, but certainly not the majority.

If 100% of a town was covered by a single company with data caps, those
that are crying from hitting 1.2 TB/month will not be enough for a
competitor to come in and build on top.  A TB/mo now is extremely high - In
May 2023 we had 4 customers that exceeded that (all 4 of these customers
mentioned are subscribed to <25 mbps plans; we offer gig ftth).

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:22 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 6/16/23 22:16, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Maybe. I really haven't paid any attention to Starlink, although there
> are credible reports of folk testing it here in South Africa's urban
> centres.
>
> I have not heard of any mention of Starlink having caps as part of their
> service. Having said that, for services like this, things change as the
> number of customers using them rises.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/16/23 1:22 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:



On 6/16/23 22:16, Michael Thomas wrote:

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.


Maybe. I really haven't paid any attention to Starlink, although there 
are credible reports of folk testing it here in South Africa's urban 
centres.


I have not heard of any mention of Starlink having caps as part of 
their service. Having said that, for services like this, things change 
as the number of customers using them rises.


I've toyed with getting it which I think I can do here in rural 
California especially given that my ISP installed fiber and inexplicably 
didn't change the rate plans from DSL (given that it's an older 
population here, I doubt that any new over subscription would be much 
problem). But the fact of the matter is that we don't seem to ever be in 
the situation that our 25Mbs service is an actual problem.


Mike

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/16/23 22:16, Michael Thomas wrote:

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.


Maybe. I really haven't paid any attention to Starlink, although there 
are credible reports of folk testing it here in South Africa's urban 
centres.


I have not heard of any mention of Starlink having caps as part of their 
service. Having said that, for services like this, things change as the 
number of customers using them rises.


Mark.

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Michael Thomas]

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

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mark Tinka]

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.


Mark.

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Josh Luthman]

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.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 2:28 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 6/16/23 18:41, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> > Is 1.2 TB enough for a typical cord cutter? I just looked at mine and
> > it looks to be about 300GB/month, but we may not be typical for your
> > average family with kids, say.
>
> For residential services, the competition should easily outscore any
> provider that still delivers capped Internet.
>
> It's 2023...
>
> Mark.
>

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/16/23 18:41, Michael Thomas wrote:

Is 1.2 TB enough for a typical cord cutter? I just looked at mine and 
it looks to be about 300GB/month, but we may not be typical for your 
average family with kids, say.


For residential services, the competition should easily outscore any 
provider that still delivers capped Internet.


It's 2023...

Mark.

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/15/23 10:41 PM, Crist Clark wrote:
Comcast still has data caps. My service is 1.2 TB per month. If we get 
close, we get a warning email. If we were to go over (hasn’t happened 
yet), we get billed per additional 500 MB.


However, I just looked at my account usage for the first time for a 
few months, and somehow have had zero usage since March of this year.


Is 1.2 TB enough for a typical cord cutter? I just looked at mine and it 
looks to be about 300GB/month, but we may not be typical for your 
average family with kids, say.


Mike

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Delong.com via NANOG]

I went over often enough that it was easier (and cheaper) to just give them an 
extra $30/month for unlimited.

I also cancelled other Comcast services at the same time that were costing me 
more than $30/month, so for me,
It was a net gain and for Comcast, a net loss. I did this immediately when they 
started charging for overages
in the hopes it would send the correct message.

Owen


> On Jun 15, 2023, at 22:41, Crist Clark  wrote:
> 
> Comcast still has data caps. My service is 1.2 TB per month. If we get close, 
> we get a warning email. If we were to go over (hasn’t happened yet), we get 
> billed per additional 500 MB.
> 
> However, I just looked at my account usage for the first time for a few 
> months, and somehow have had zero usage since March of this year.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:48 PM Michael Thomas  > wrote:
>> 
>> On 6/15/23 3:19 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>> >
>> > While a lot of ISPs gave up on data caps, the language is still 
>> > lurking in many Terms Of Service.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > https://www.fcc.gov/document/chair-rosenworcel-proposes-investigate-impact-data-caps
>> >  
>> >
>> >
>> > proposed Notice of Inquiry to learn more about how broadband providers 
>> > use data caps on consumer plans. Data caps, or usage limits, are a 
>> > common practice where an internet service provider (ISP) restricts how 
>> > much bandwidth or data a consumer uses, though many broadband ISPs 
>> > temporarily or permanently refrained from enforcing or imposing data 
>> > caps in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the agency 
>> > would like to better understand the current state of data caps, their 
>> > impact on consumers, and whether the Commission should consider taking 
>> > action to ensure that data caps do not cause harm to competition or 
>> > consumers’ ability to access
>> > broadband Internet services.
>> 
>> So why did they back off? Cost too much in support calls with pissed 
>> people? Bad publicity? People can't meaningfully use the offered 
>> bandwidth these days? Something else?
>> 
>> Mike
>> 

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Crist Clark]

Comcast still has data caps. My service is 1.2 TB per month. If we get
close, we get a warning email. If we were to go over (hasn’t happened yet),
we get billed per additional 500 MB.

However, I just looked at my account usage for the first time for a few
months, and somehow have had zero usage since March of this year.


On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:48 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

>
> On 6/15/23 3:19 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> >
> > While a lot of ISPs gave up on data caps, the language is still
> > lurking in many Terms Of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/chair-rosenworcel-proposes-investigate-impact-data-caps
> >
> >
> > proposed Notice of Inquiry to learn more about how broadband providers
> > use data caps on consumer plans. Data caps, or usage limits, are a
> > common practice where an internet service provider (ISP) restricts how
> > much bandwidth or data a consumer uses, though many broadband ISPs
> > temporarily or permanently refrained from enforcing or imposing data
> > caps in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the agency
> > would like to better understand the current state of data caps, their
> > impact on consumers, and whether the Commission should consider taking
> > action to ensure that data caps do not cause harm to competition or
> > consumers’ ability to access
> > broadband Internet services.
>
> So why did they back off? Cost too much in support calls with pissed
> people? Bad publicity? People can't meaningfully use the offered
> bandwidth these days? Something else?
>
> Mike
>
>

Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/15/23 3:19 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:


While a lot of ISPs gave up on data caps, the language is still 
lurking in many Terms Of Service.




https://www.fcc.gov/document/chair-rosenworcel-proposes-investigate-impact-data-caps 



proposed Notice of Inquiry to learn more about how broadband providers 
use data caps on consumer plans. Data caps, or usage limits, are a 
common practice where an internet service provider (ISP) restricts how 
much bandwidth or data a consumer uses, though many broadband ISPs 
temporarily or permanently refrained from enforcing or imposing data 
caps in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, the agency 
would like to better understand the current state of data caps, their 
impact on consumers, and whether the Commission should consider taking 
action to ensure that data caps do not cause harm to competition or 
consumers’ ability to access

broadband Internet services.


So why did they back off? Cost too much in support calls with pissed 
people? Bad publicity? People can't meaningfully use the offered 
bandwidth these days? Something else?


Mike