Techdirt. Stories filed under "satellite"

SF Wireless ISP MonkeyBrains Tries To Crowdfund $325 Million For A Satellite

Mike Masnick — Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:33:00 PST

Well, this is amusing. San Francisco wireless ISP MonkeyBrains (who some friends use and love) has posted an IndieGogo crowdfunding project in which they're seeking $325,000,000 (yes, that's $325 million) to build a satellite to deliver internet access. The "tiers" are interesting. The lowest is $5,000 (two people have claimed those already!) but then quickly escalate to $10 million for the second tier. Of course, if you pay that, you get a gigabit internet connection for 5 years (only 5? guys, c'mon!). The full description of the project is worth reading:

Abstract
MonkeyBrains is a local ISP in San Francsico. North Korea just launched a satellite; we want to as well.

The Cost Breakdown of Launching a Satellite

A quick internet search reveals that this is the cost for getting a satellite into orbit:

Satellite manufacture: $150M

Satellite launch: $120M

Launch insurance: $20M

In-orbit insurance: $20M

Satellite operations (15 years): $15M

Faster Internet!

Our initial research seems to indicate having a satellite in orbit may not speed up your internet at all. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Geostationary_unsuitable_for_low-latency_applications]. However, if more research doesn't bode well for a geostationary satellite, we will take all of the $325M to fund either:

Fiber to the home.

A balloon tethered to the Farallon islands.

a hovering drone over the Bay.

Trust Us

Some people just can't beleive we want to make the Internet Faster and Cheaper (and more Out of Control) than it already is. Your money will be spent well, and San Francisco (and possibly -- if funds allow) the entire Bay Area will benefit. We have set this fundraiser as Fixed Funding, so there is no risk of sending MonkeyBrains a little bit of money from your wallet without many other people feeling the same way.

Obviously, this is a joke by MonkeyBrains, but it's still interesting to see. It appears that they're trying to use this as a bit of a marketing effort -- not all that different from some of the products we've offered for sale in our store. The reason people like crowdfunding goes beyond just the money-raising part to the fact that it can also be an effective marketing platform. Here, it looks like MonkeyBrains is testing out the marketing aspect with little likelihood of actually using the fundraising part.

Oh, and don't miss the video, in which they explain their plan to use UFOs to deliver little pieces of internet from the satellite to your computer.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DailyDirt: Going For The Gold...

Michael Ho — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:00:00 PDT

Gold is a unique element that has been almost universally treasured. It's rare, but it isn't the hardest element to find. Gold has a remarkable property of not reacting with its environment, so it doesn't tarnish or burn. There aren't that many practical uses for it, compared to other metals, though, but here are a few links on some gold-related items.

Microbial alchemy doesn't transmute lead into gold, but it does metabolize gold chloride (aqueous) into solid 24-karat gold. Cupriavidus metallidurans can tolerate highly toxic concentrations of gold chloride and reduce the metal so that it precipitates. [url]
Gold medalists at the last Olympics didn't receive solid gold for their efforts but mostly silver with a gold coating. So in all those pictures of the athletes biting on their gold medals, that bite test for metal purity had a pretty good chance of failing. [url]
The Last Pictures project is planning to preserve a visual record of human civilization on a silicon disc encased in gold -- for billions of years. This archival disc will be launched with the EchoStar XVI satellite and should remain in orbit for longer than our planet, as we know it, will exist. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Is It Legal For A UK Pub To Access A Greek Satellite System To Get Cheaper Football Games On TV?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:24:44 PDT

cc alerts us to a very interesting legal case in Europe that's now going before the European Court of Justice. It involves a UK pub, which thought the rates that satellite TV provider Sky Sports was offering for Premier League football were ridiculously high -- and instead went and got a satellite card from a Greek satellite TV provider who offered Premier League matches for about 1/10th the cost. The Premier League, who is notorious for over-aggressively trying to limit people from watching the games except through (expensive) approved methods sued. The pub is arguing that this is a restraint on basic free trade principles:

"If I wanted to go and buy a car, I could go to any garage I like. Me, as a publican, if I want to show football, I can only go to the Sky garage, and have to pay ten times the price of anybody else [in Europe]. I don't believe that's fair."

Murphy's case rests on her freedom to trade, as she argues that restricting her choice of satellite TV provider to just Sky contravenes the principles of free movement of goods and services between countries in the EU.

This could be a huge deal if she wins. Currently, in Europe, each country has entirely different licensing schemes and systems for all sorts of content, creating something of a mess at times. There's long been an effort underway to create pan-European licensing, and a ruling in favor of the pub owner here might take at least some aspects of the content market to a point where there's now a de facto open market across borders. Copyright holders will scream bloody murder if this happens, but they also screamed bloody murder when the VCR was introduced, so sometimes it's a bit difficult to take them seriously on such things.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Copyright Damages Out Of Control: $51 Million For Satellite Cracking App?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:53:00 PST

It continues to amaze me that there's anyone out there who thinks that the damages awarded in many copyright suits are anywhere close to reasonable or proportional to the "crime" at hand. Copycense points us to an article about a guy who was found guilty of putting software on the internet that allowed people to unlock Dish Network programming on unauthorized receivers. Because of this, Dish and another satellite TV provider, NagraStar, were awarded $51 million. $51 million -- for putting the software on the internet. That's all. The amount was determined based on the number of people who downloaded the software, even though, in all likelihood, a much, much smaller percentage would have ever actually paid for an authorized satellite TV account. Furthermore, this guy did not do the actual act of accessing the unauthorized signal, or breaking any encryption. He merely provided the tools to do so. Charging him with the bogus "cost" of each user of his software makes no sense at all. Even if you accept what he did was wrong and clearly illegal, it's difficult to see how that justifies the ridiculousness of the award.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Next Big Battle: Cable TV vs. The Internet

Mike Masnick — Tue, 5 Jan 2010 13:00:09 PST

Leading up to the New Year, I was inundated with submissions about the supposed "battle" between Time Warner Cable and Fox over fees. The quick background is that Fox wanted to get a cut ($1/subscriber) from Time Warner Cable and TWC claimed it wanted to fight it. Neither side was being particularly honest about what was going on, with TWC launching a hilarious website asking consumers to "vote" on whether it should "roll over" or "get tough" and if you voted for it to roll over, it told you that you were wrong, and asked you if you wanted to change your vote. I didn't write about the whole thing because it was an exact replica of what happened a year ago in a similar dispute -- and, just like in that dispute, the parties settled up just in time to keep Fox from being deleted from TWC's lineup. Of course, at the same moment, TWC also raised its rates. Of course, this was exactly what everyone expected all along, and TWC knew exactly what it was doing. Now it can blame the rate increase on News Corp., even though it had planned to do that all along. Other similar disputes will likely be settled in short order as well.

Of course, I find it amusing that the at the same time that content providers are arguing for service providers to pay them to carry their content on TV, those same service providers are suggesting that content providers should pay in the other direction on the internet. All the "net neutrality" battles are about the very same TV providers using their broadband divisions to claim that content providers should pay the broadband providers more to "carry" their services to users. It's just two sides of the same coin.

Still, the more interesting battle may be shaping up elsewhere. Some consumer groups are asking the Justice Department to investigate cable companies for their "TV Everywhere" effort, which they claim is almost certainly an antitrust violation of collusion to keep certain content from going on the internet. Not surprisingly, the cable industry and their lobbyists have hit back hard, claiming that the whole thing is ridiculous.

To be honest, I think it's a bit early to worry about collusion here. From everything we've seen so far, the cable industry is doing a pretty good job screwing up TV Everywhere on their own, so it's not like it's a huge problem yet. They're trying to turn the internet into cable TV with extra ads. Like the recording industry's many attempts to create their own online efforts, it looks like they're hamstrung by their own legacy view of the world. That isn't to say that there may not be an issue eventually, but it does seem a bit early to be ringing the alarm bells.

There's no doubt at all that the cable companies view "TV Everywhere" as an attempt to keep people from ditching their cable TV accounts and going internet-only. But if those efforts are stymied by terrible execution and implementation it won't do much good. People are already learning how they can watch TV over the internet (without a cable or satellite subscription) and if the cable companies really succeed in blocking TV content from going online in other ways, people will simply route around those blocks and get the content in an unauthorized manner. We've seen this game before, and it doesn't end well for the companies pretending to be gatekeepers. But that doesn't mean the Justice Department should be wasting money investigating them just yet.

Either way, both of these stories suggest a prime battleground for the next year: as the old TV businesses come to grips with the internet (finally). Just like other parts of the entertainment industry, it will be messy and annoying -- and incumbent players are going to make a lot of really stupid mistakes. But, in the end, we should start to get some pretty cool stuff out of it -- though, most likely not directly from the incumbent players, but from the upstarts and innovators on the margins.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sports Fan Lobbying Group... Or Anti-Cable Lobbying Group?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:57:47 PDT

We've talked in the past about the sneaky nature of Washington DC lobbying, whereby the real lobbyists' goals are hidden as some sort of bogus grass roots campaign involving some random group of people. It looks like that's about to happen again, as a bunch of satellite TV and telcos have put together what is officially a "sports fan" lobbyist organization. However, it appears to really just be an anti-cable effort. The initial campaign is likely to be an attempt to stop the cable firms from their current effort to block competing television service providers from being able to carry cable-owned sports networks. The real fight is about who gets to control what TV sports content, but it sounds much nicer to pretend that it's "concerned sports fans" as a lobbying group, rather than "cable company competitors."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Hidden Message Behind EchoStar's Potential Marriage To AT&T: U-Verse Sucks And Satellite TV Is Dying

Mike Masnick — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:14:00 PDT

We were a little confused last month when EchoStar announced plans to buy SlingMedia. Such a deal made some sense for the investors and founders of Sling, looking to cash out -- but at a strategic level it didn't seem to make much sense. Locking Sling into EchoStar seemed unnecessarily limiting, and the benefits to EchoStar of being the sole owner seemed... not all that compelling. However reports quickly came out about the details behind the plan. Basically, EchoStar CEO Charlie Ergen seems to be realizing that the satellite TV business has gone about as far as it can go, and its opportunities for growth aren't all that interesting. However, some of the technology behind what the company is doing is quite interesting, and when you combine that technology component with Sling, you potentially get something very interesting. The problem, though, is that you need to shed the whole satellite TV ~~albatross~~ legacy business. And who better to dump a dying business on than a massive telco who has trouble understanding business trends. Hello... AT&T... step right up. Indeed, the talk is now getting much louder that AT&T plans to buy EchoStar shortly in order to get approval from a friendly DOJ before a change in Presidential administrations could perhaps make it less business friendly. If true, then this sounds like a great deal for Ergen and EchoStar, who ditch the loser part of their business to focus on the growth part.

As for AT&T, initially, I would say that it's a bad deal, but that might not necessarily be the case due to its own problems elsewhere. AT&T flirted with buying DirecTV in 2003 and EchoStar in 2005. The company did invest in EchoStar, and already offers a bundled package. However, as we pointed out during the original EchoStar rumors, the combination doesn't seem to make much sense. If AT&T is really pushing for a triple play offering, they should focus on doing that all through a single pipe (as with its U-Verse offering), rather than getting tied up with the limitations of satellite. So why would it make sense? If AT&T's U-verse plans aren't going particularly well. In such a case, AT&T could buy EchoStar to get its hands on all of the pay-TV customers and hope that those customers can easily be transferred over to IPTV when AT&T finally figures out how to offer it more broadly. It would be about buying customers, not technology (the good technology would stay with Ergen anyway), squeezing some life out of the legacy satellite business and then casting it off and transferring everyone over to fiber. At least, that's the only way the plan makes any sense -- and it would still require AT&T be able to successfully convert DISH customers to U-Verse, which may not be particularly easy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Wal-Mart Broadband Looks A Lot Less Impressive Than First Envisioned

Mike Masnick — Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:15:00 PDT

Three years ago, we discussed the possibility that Wal-Mart could eventually enter the broadband business. At the time, the discussion was around Wal-Mart using its massive network of stores to act as WiMax access points, coating much of the nation with wireless internet access. The idea didn't seem likely for a variety of reasons, and with the news that Wal-Mart actually is entering the broadband space, we can easily see why the WiMax plan never made sense for Wal-Mart. Rather than taking the route suggested three years ago, Wal-Mart is simply partnering with Hughes to resell satellite broadband access. As many people know, satellite broadband access is the last refuge for the broadband addict who simply has no other choice. The speeds aren't great, the latency is a huge pain, and the reliability is often a problem. So, there are already some hurdles to overcome. Second, unlike the original suggestion, Wal-Mart appears to have nothing to do with the offering, other than slapping its brand on it (and even then it's not entirely clear from the article how the service will be branded). That means that Wal-Mart won't be able to have much say in how the service is run. Even if the stories of Wal-Mart losing its technology edge are overrated, this deal is going to involve existing infrastructure and existing service models -- meaning that it won't shake up the industry very much at all. Basically, what was envisioned three years back was Wal-Mart routing around other providers and offering up something entirely new, which it could control. Three years later, the best the company can do is piggyback its brand on a weak legacy offering. That's hardly going to shake up the industry.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story