FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

Mon Jun 19 08:30:12 UTC 2023

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, borg at 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&D.
> 
> 
> ---------- Original message ----------
> 
> From: Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>
> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>
> Cc: nanog at 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 <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> 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 <mike at mtcc.com> 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&D, etc .
>>>> 
>>>> Numbers kinda speak for themselves here.
>>>> 
>>>>> I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will
>> he does have big ambitions.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38˙˙PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner
>>>>>> rather than later?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for
>> those services to completely replace terrestrial only service.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only
>> niche? I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you
>> will he does have big ambitions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the
>> incumbents. I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are
>> the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling
>> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to
>> overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe that
>> makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see
>> marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just
>> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17˙˙PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options.
>>>>>>>> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage.
>>>>>>>> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US
>>>>>>>> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there
>> is
>>>>>>>> no service.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not
>> a
>>>>>>>> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a
>> ~1/3
>>>>>>>> take rate.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many
>> markets
>>>>>>> is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers
>> that,
>>>>>>> since there is only so much money and resources to go around.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the
>>>>>>> opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are
>>>>>>> capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low
>>>>>>> hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative
>>>>>>> provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other
>> thread.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner
>>>>>> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even if
>>>>>> they do they could compete with their caps.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Podcast:
>> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/
>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>> 

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka at isc.org