The FCC Ponders The Creation Of A Space Division

Policy

from the strange-new-worlds dept

For years we’ve been firing no shortage of low-Earth orbit satellites into space without the federal government showing much concern about the the impact of these new technologies at scale. Like, the navigational hazards of unchecked space junk, or the way scientists warned that Starlink causes significant light pollution that seriously harms scientific research and can’t be fully mitigated.

Much of the last decade has involved the FCC being so bedazzled by the potential innovation in the space, they didn’t do their, well, job. Overseas policymakers have complained the US has spent too much time kissing Elon Musk’s and Jeff Bezos’ asses, and not enough time getting ahead of potential issues that could impact navigation, safety, competitiveness, and efficiency.

While FCC boss Jessica Rosenworcel may not have a fully functioning agency (thanks to a telecom and media smear campaign against nominee Gigi Sohn), she, at least, has indicated that the agency’s space policies are going to change.

Until recently, a legally non-binding NASA advisory recommended that satellite operators either remove their satellites from orbit immediately post-mission, or leave them in an orbit that will slowly decay and have the satellite entering Earth’s atmosphere sometime in a 25 year period. Only last September did Rosenworcel push new rules imposing a 5 year limit on leaving defunct satellites in space.

Rosenworcel this week also announced that the agency would be creating a new space bureau to help coordinate and organize the mad dash rush toward low orbit satellite deployment. The agency will be tasked with better coordinating with other agencies, expediting license applications, and generally just attempting to reduce the probability of space mayhem:

“The satellite industry is growing at a record pace, but here on the ground our regulatory frameworks for licensing them have not kept up. Over the past two years the agency has received applications for 64,000 new satellites. In addition, we are seeing new commercial models, new players, and new technologies coming together to pioneer a wide-range of new satellite services and space-based activities that need access to wireless airwaves.”

Granted the Rosenworcel FCC still lacks a voting majority, so the creation of this bureau rests on whether details of it offend the sensibilities of industry, and/or the agency’s right wing commissioners, Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington, whose attention the last few years has been largely fixated on worrying about a social media company they don’t actually regulate.

Either way it’s promising to see the agency get its act together in space, even though it still lacks the ambition, authority, interest, or political motivation to seriously tackle more direct problems here on Earth: like widespread telecom monopolization and all the problems that result.

Filed Under: fcc, leo, low earth orbit satellite, nasa, regulatory oversight, satellite broadband, space

FCC Officially Rejects Ajit Pai’s Boondoggle To Supply Elon Musk With Nearly A Billion Dollars In Subsidies

Broadband

from the to-bad-so-sad dept

Elon Musk hates government subsidies. That’s what he says, right? He claims that we should “just delete them all,” and that “the federal budget deficit is insane.” Of course, the world’s richest man (for now) has received many billions in government subsidies for his companies. Indeed, you could argue that his success was very much predicated on getting so much in subsidies to pump up his companies when they were in trouble otherwise.

Given his professed (but not observed) hatred of subsidies, it seemed weird that one of Ajit Pai’s final moves as FCC chair was to dole out billions in subsidies under the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) to places that didn’t actually need it — including nearly $900 million to Musk’s Starlink operation, a part of his SpaceX company.

Last summer, the now Pai-less FCC decided to revisit some of those announced grants, telling SpaceX it needed to reapply for the funds, because it wasn’t clear that the company’s plans for the funds actually met the qualifications. Mr. “Delete All The Subsidies” could have simply dropped the request. But he didn’t.

And last week the FCC officially rejected the the renewed application, with current FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel noting that Starlink “failed to demonstrate” that it could live up to the promises it made, and given the limited resources here, the money was better spent elsewhere.

“After careful legal, technical, and policy review, we are rejecting these applications. Consumers
deserve reliable and affordable high-speed broadband,” said Chairwoman Rosenworcel. “We
must put scarce universal service dollars to their best possible use as we move into a digital future
that demands ever more powerful and faster networks. We cannot afford to subsidize ventures
that are not delivering the promised speeds or are not likely to meet program requirements.”

“Starlink’s technology has real promise,” continued Chairwoman Rosenworcel. “But the
question before us was whether to publicly subsidize its still developing technology for consumer
broadband—which requires that users purchase a $600 dish—with nearly $900 million in
universal service funds until 2032.”

In the official notice, the FCC noted:

Starlink, relying upon a nascent LEO satellite technology and the ability to timely deploy future satellites to manage recognized capacity constraints while maintaining broadband speeds to both RDOF and non-RDOF customers, seeks funding to provide 100/20 Mbps low latency service to 642,925 estimated locations in 35 states. The Bureau has determined that, based on the totality of the long-form applications, the expansive service areas reflected in their winning bids, and their inadequate responses to the Bureau’s follow-up questions, LTD and Starlink are not reasonably capable of complying with the Commission’s requirements. The Commission has an obligation to protect our limited Universal Service Funds and to avoid extensive delays in providing needed service to rural areas, including by avoiding subsidizing risky proposals that promise faster speeds than they can deliver, and/or propose deployment plans that are not realistic or that are predicated on aggressive assumptions and predictions. We observe that Ookla data reported as of July 31, 2022 indicate that Starlink’s speeds have been declining from the last quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2022, including upload speeds that are falling well below 20 Mbps. Accordingly, we deny LTD’s and Starlink’s long-form applications, and both are in default on all winning bids not already announced as defaulted.

So, congrats to Elon Musk on not getting the subsidy that your company didn’t deserve and couldn’t qualify that you surely didn’t actually want, even though you applied (and re-applied) for it.

Filed Under: elon musk, fcc, jessica rosenworcel, rdof, satellite broadband, starlink, subsidies
Companies: spacex

Starlink Users Miffed They Have To Pay Extra To Skip The Long Wait

Broadband

from the pay-more-to-get-less dept

While Space X’s Starlink is a promising broadband option if you’re out of range of traditional options (and can afford it), many users who’ve pre-ordered aren’t having a great time. Some say they’ve been waiting for service more than a year, during which time Starlink has often refused to answer basic emails or issue refunds, while imposing price hikes on waiting customers.

Waiting customers are also annoyed because Starlink keeps introducing new plans that allow users to skip the wait… if they pay more than those who’ve spent the last year patiently waiting.

For example, back in February Starlink offered a new “premium” tier. While basic Starlink customers already pay $600 for hardware and $110 a month for variable-speed service, premium users can pay $2500 up front for hardware. That not only netted those users faster speed, but the hardware shipped sooner than those who had already been waiting patiently for months.

This week, Starlink unveiled another option specifically aimed at RV enthusiasts. The new service allows you to affix a satellite to your mobile home if you’re willing to pay $25 more each month ($135 a month). While your speeds will be deprioritized on the network while traveling (read: slower), users who sign up for this option are also being allowed to skip long waits if they’re willing to pay more for service.

Unsurprisingly, some Reddit users who’ve been waiting in some cases more than a year aren’t particularly happy:

Just another way to ask for more $$ and being able to order immediately, when instead people like me are waiting since Feb/8/2021 , paid $99 deposit , and getting nothing even with the already increased price for the hardware and monthly service .

The fact that Starlink has introduced what are basically business-class tiers and a mobile RV tier aren’t really the issue. The issue is that Starlink has been unable to respond to basic customer inquiries about long wait times, much less provide refunds to those waiting for more than a year if they want them, so adding the option to skip the queue if you pay even more is a bit of a slap in the face.

Granted many of those users have no broadband access at all, and may be motivated to sign up for the deprioritized, more expensive RV service, which will… result in long wait times for the RV product as well.

Starlink’s issue is that the service capacity is capped out at somewhere around 800,000 total users for the first few years. So the company’s in a race to keep Starlink financially viable (which Musk himself has claimed may not be possible), while simultaneously keeping pre-orders from defecting en masse after long waits and taking their down payment with them.

Somewhere between 20 and 40 million Americans lack access to any broadband whatsoever. 83 million more currently live under a broadband monopoly, usually their cable provider. That’s an awful lot of demand Starlink won’t be able to meet for a very long time even if everything goes perfectly (which it isn’t). The entry price of $600 down and $110 a month is also far too steep for many of those disconnected users.

This is all a fairly delicate balancing act that could easily go wrong if Starlink can’t keep pace with demand and balance irritable users that have been waiting for an extremely long time for service. Musk fans have a lot of patience, but even that patience will eventually find its limit.

Filed Under: broadband, digital divide, high speed internet, low-orbit satellite, satellite broadband, starlink, telecom
Companies: spacex, starlink

Musk's Starlink Continues To Struggle With Very Basic Customer Service

Failures

from the this-is-not-what-innovation-looks-like dept

We’ve noted a few times that Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite broadband service is going to have a hard time meeting expectations. One, while the service is often sold as a near-magical cure for the estimated 20-42 million Americans without broadband access, it only has the capacity to serve somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 users. Due to additional supply chain issues, only about 150,000 users have received access so far. And those who’ve paid the company $100 to wait in line say the company is incapable of giving them any kind of timeline of when they can expect service.

Last fall, reports emerged showing how many of these users had been waiting months for any update whatsoever on the progress of their orders, and that Starlink customer service was utterly nonexistent. Nearly four months later and another report indicates that things haven’t seemingly improved much. Customers who’ve been waiting a year for service say they’ve seen complete and total radio silence from the company:

“Insider spoke to more than ten people who have waited nearly 12 months for Starlink’s internet service. However, they have received no updates from Elon Musk’s company on when Starlink will be available in their area and if the kit is on its way.”

Much like Musk’s Tesla solar division, and Tesla itself on occasion, installations, repairs, and fundamental customer service are often no shows. You’re apparently supposed to pretend this isn’t happening for innovation’s sake, but there’s little use for innovation for products that don’t work, or simply never arrive. In Starlink’s case, users who’ve ordered see absolutely no contact for Starlink for a year, then when they ask for refunds that doesn’t go much better:

“Jason Kirkpatrick, who is based in Michigan, told Insider that he paid $100 to secure Starlink in March but decided to request a refund in December because of the lack of contact from SpaceX. Kirkpatrick said that when he logs onto his Starlink account, it says his deposit was refunded. However, he said he never got the money back, adding that he can’t get through to SpaceX to alert them of the issue.”

As with many issues at Musk’s companies, these problems could be mitigated if it had an actual PR department willing to discuss what’s going on with the press and public. But motivated by Musk’s animosity to the press, the general response to inquiries is usually snark by Musk or dead silence by the company, which doesn’t add much to the overall ambiance of dysfunction. Again, you’ll notice a bit of a pattern if you’ve read about the experiences of Tesla solar customers, where the company’s response has generally been either apathy or silence.

As for Starlink, I imagine more disappointment lays over the horizon. Starlink’s inability to offer service to more than 500-800k subscribers depends greatly on the success of the Space X’s Raptor engine, a development process that’s not going well. If Starlink can’t boost its capacity dramatically it can’t gain the kind of critical mass necessary to make a profit, something that even the reality-challenged Musk has been forced to acknowledge. This is before you even get to the whole light pollution scientists say is being caused by Starlink deployments.

The problems are one of several reasons why folks complained when the Trump FCC threw nearly one billion in subsidies at Starlink, despite both Musk’s professed disdain for subsidization, and the fact the service — even if everything goes perfectly well, will barely put a dent in the U.S. broadband problem. Again, 20-42 million Americans lack access to broadband, and another 83 million live under a monopoly (usually Comcast). Fixing that problem is going to take a lot more than just a capacity-constrained, delay-plagued solution from a company that’s heralded for innovation but seemingly can’t answer the phone.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, customer support, elon musk, expectations, satellite broadband, starlink
Companies: spacex, starlink

EU, US Start To Realize Letting Elon Musk Dictate Global Space Rules Might Not Be The Brightest Idea

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the who-needs-a-plan? dept

As previously noted, Space X, Amazon, and others are pushing harder than ever into the low-orbit satellite broadband game. The industry, pockmarked by a long road of failures, involves firing thousands of smaller, cheaper, lower orbit satellite constellations into space to help supplement existing broadband services. The lower orbit means that LO satellite service will offer lower-latency broadband than traditional satellite offerings, which for 15 years or so have been widely maligned as expensive, slow, and “laggy,” with annoying monthly caps.

And while these services should absolutely help bring some additional options to rural Americans, nautical ventures, and those out of range of traditional service, folks shouldn’t get their hopes up in terms of broader disruption of the uncompetitive U.S. telecom market. The physics involved in satellite transmission means there will always be limited capacity and odd throttling and network management restrictions, meaning it won’t really make much headway in highly monopolized major metro areas. In short, the tech is absolutely a positive advancement, but it’s not going to be the game changer many think.

Enter the other major problem: the gold rush into the low orbit satellite space without much in the way of regulatory oversight has resulted in an explosion of space traffic and debris that’s already causing genuine harm. The tens of thousands of additional low orbit satellites being flung into orbit without much of an over-arching plan not only make space navigation immeasurably more complicated and dangerous, the light pollution created is having clear and profound harms on astronomy and other research. Harms researchers say can’t be mitigated with technology.

While regulators in the U.S. have taken a few steps to mitigate space debris, most experts say it’s not enough. And regulators have done even less to manage the low-orbit gold rush’s impact on science. Generally, the modus operandi has been to kiss the ass of companies like Amazon and Space X in this space, letting them dictate the cadence and rules of deployment. The same approach is occurring in the EU, and it’s starting to raise some hackles:

The head of the European Space Agency has urged the continent?s leaders to stop facilitating Elon Musk?s ambition to dominate the new space economy, warning that the lack of coordinated action meant the US billionaire was ?making the rules? himself. Josef Aschbacher, the new director-general of ESA, said that Europe?s readiness to help the rapid expansion of Musk?s Starlink satellite Internet service risked hindering the region?s own companies from realizing the potential of commercial space.

Again it’s effectively global regulatory capture, where wealth dictates who gets to make the rules. Eventually that won’t just be bad for competition, but science. That you need an intelligent, over-arching plan to manage this massive explosion in debris and space traffic that considers more than just wealth generation seems like a no brainer. Yet you’re only just now starting to see some folks in policy and government start to mention that letting Elon (COVID is no big deal) Musk dictate the entire planet’s space policy and regulatory structure might not be the smartest idea:

“Aschbacher said Musk?s Starlink was already so big that it was difficult for regulators or rivals to catch up. ?You have one person owning half of the active satellites in the world. That?s quite amazing. De facto, he is making the rules. The rest of the world including Europe…?is just not responding quick enough.”

Aschbacher?s concerns were echoed by Franz Fayot, Luxembourg?s economy minister, who said new rules were needed to ensure the safe use of space.

?You have people like Elon Musk, just launching constellations and satellites and throwing Teslas up into orbit. We need to set common rules. Colonization, or just doing things in a completely deregulated space, is a concern,? he said on the sidelines of the New Space conference in Luxembourg.

It’s not too surprising that captured regulators in the U.S., UK, and EU are going to bend over backwards to please the planet’s wealthiest men. Especially given that Space X has truly been so innovative in the space. The problem is even Musk has acknowledged that low-orbit efforts like Starlink may not be financially viable over the long haul. And that was before recently leaked Musk emails showing how delays in Raptor engine production could keep Starlink from meeting future deployment goals or making at real money at scale.

Yet U.S. regulators keep throwing millions of dollars at Musk (a guy who professes to be opposed to government aid), and generally has let Bezos and Musk dictate the cadence and scope of anything vaguely resembling oversight. Despite no solid evidence that Musk’s low-orbit Starlink venture is even going to be financially viable or operational two to three years from now. And with nary a peep about the low-orbit light pollution researchers have complained about for three years straight. Surely none of this ends badly, right?

Filed Under: broadband, elon musk, eu, low earth orbit satellites, satellite broadband, space, space junk, us
Companies: spacex

Survey Suggests Eager Starlink Users Don't Understand Service Will Have Limited Reach

Studies

from the good-luck-with-that dept

So we’ve noted more than a few times that while Elon Musk’s Starlink will be a good thing if you can actually get and afford the service, it’s going to have a decidedly small impact on the broadband industry as a whole. Between 20 and 42 million Americans lack access to broadband entirely, 83 million live under a monopoly, and tens of millions more are stuck under a duopoly (usually your local cable company and a regional, apathetic phone company). In turn, Starlink is going to reach somewhere between 300,000 to 800,000 subscribers in its first few years, a drop in the overall bucket.

Thanks to massive frustration with broadband market failure (and the high prices, dubious quality, and poor customer service that results), users are decidedly excited about something new. But not only are there limited slots due to limited capacity and physics, a lot of those slots are going to get gobbled up by die-hard Elon Musk fans excited to affix Starlink dishes to their boats, RVs, and Cybertrucks. As a result it will be extremely unlikely that most users who truly need the improved option will absolutely be able to get it.

But a new PC Magazine survey continues to make it clear that most consumers don’t quite understand they’ll never actually have the option (especially if they live in a major metro market):

Starlink is expected to come out of beta next month for a broader commercial launch, and has seen 600,000 orders so far. But many of the customers who have signed up say getting a status update from Starlink customer service is effectively impossible. While major Wall Street analysts like Craig Moffett estimate the service may be able to scale to 6 million users over a period of many years, he also notes that guess is extremely optimistic, and will require a significantly updated fleet of 42,000 satellites to achieve.

This all assumes that Starlink will remain financially viable as it works toward that goal, something that’s not really guaranteed in a low-orbit satellite industry that has a history of major failures. And there will be questions about throttling and other restrictions once the network gets fully loaded with hungry users. Again, Starlink will be great for off the grid folks if they can get — and afford — it, but I suspect there’s going to be some heartache when folks excited about the service realize the limitations of its actual reach. And this scarcity is only going to drive even greater interest in a service you probably won’t be able to get anytime soon.

Filed Under: competition, satellite broadband, starlink, survey
Companies: spacex, starlink

Amazon, Space X Throw Hissy Fits As They Bicker Over Government Contracts, Subsidies

News

from the nobody-wins dept

We’ve noted a few times that the Space X, Starlink satellite broadband service isn’t going to be quite as disruptive to telecom as many people might think.

For one, capacity constraints mean that the company will only be able to serve somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 subscribers in the first few years. That’s a drop in the bucket when you consider 42 million Americans don’t have broadband, and 83 million live under a monopoly (usually Comcast). Once Musk fanboys flock to limited subscriber slots to outfit their boats and RVs, there likely may not be many left for those that genuinely need access. And at $100 per month (plus a $500 equipment cost) the service doesn’t really help with the primary reason for low broadband adoption: high costs.

Starlink, like a lot of what Musk does, is really about other things. One, to help drive up company value via press excitement (like that recent dancing robot vaporware). Two, to help subsidize Space X’s other space ventures (Starlink recently courted controversy for nabbing nearly $900 million in FCC funds to serve a few parking lots and traffic medians). Other companies have the same idea as they try to hoover up government subsidies and nab lucrative contracts, which is why we’ve been seeing a significant boost in hissy fits between companies like Space X, Amazon, and ViaSat.

ViaSat has been trying to derail Space X by (accurately if not self-servingly) pointing out the company’s low-orbit satellites may pose environmental and light pollution threats. Amazon has also been ramping up its verbal assault on Space X and Starlink, claiming the company’s plan to launch updated low-orbit satellites violates FCC rules. In filings this week with the FCC, Amazon lamented the fact that when it comes to Starlink and Space X, rules often just don’t apply:

“Whether it is launching satellites with unlicensed antennas, launching rockets without approval, building an unapproved launch tower, or re-opening a factory in violation of a shelter-in-place order, the conduct of SpaceX and other Musk-led companies makes their view plain: rules are for other people, and those who insist upon or even simply request compliance are deserving of derision and ad hominem attacks.

While Amazon, like ViaSat, is absolutely engaged in self-serving behavior here (it doesn’t want competition, wants government subsidies and contracts for itself, isn’t much of a fan of regulatory authority, etc.), that doesn’t mean it’s not true. The Trump administration for example twisted itself into pretzels to throw hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies at Starlink for broadband coverage promises that made no coherent sense. But when it comes to the light pollution both Starlink and soon Amazon are creating (something researchers say can’t be fully mitigated), U.S. regulators are just completely asleep at the wheel.

Amazon’s specific complaints in their latest filings focus on claims that Space X is violating FCC rules governing inconsistent and incomplete applications, and has redesigned several antenna arrays “clandestinely.” The company then whined to the FCC that when you point out the company’s tendency to play fast and loose with government rules, Space X acts like a brat:

“Try to hold a Musk-led company to flight rules? You?re ?fundamentally broken.? Try to hold a Musk-led company to health and safety rules? You?re ?unelected & ignorant.” Try to hold a Musk-led company to U.S. securities laws? You?ll be called many names, some too crude to repeat. In the words of the Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk wages a ?War on Regulators,? the public servants charged with uniformly applying the same rules to all. As the Journal reported, ?Federal agencies say [Musk is] breaking the rules and endangering people . . . . Rather than engaging in a give-and-take with government authorities, Mr. Musk?s default response includes making public, sometimes crude, remarks via Twitter disparaging them.”

Of course Amazon’s sudden concern about regulatory authority is highly performative as a company that routinely enjoys tap dancing around regulatory obligations and rules when it suits it (like say its union busting). But again, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong that Space X is also terrible in this particular arena. Because Space X doesn’t deem it necessary to have a functioning PR department, the best you get in response to Amazon’s allegations is often just… more Musk tweeting:

Starlink is currently in beta and will likely launch next year. Amazon’s comparable low-orbit satellite broadband service isn’t expected to go live until 2023. While both services will provide users with an additional option for broadband access, limited capacity and physics means it will be some time before either has the impact their billionaire owners promised, assuming both projects can remain financially viable that long (the low-orbit satellite market is a historical highway of failures). Honestly, at least in terms of broadband access, it remains utterly uncertain if any of this endless drama is going to actually be worth it.

Filed Under: competition, elon musk, fcc, jeff bezos, low earth orbit, satellite broadband, spectrum, starlink
Companies: amazon, spacex, starlink, viasat

Judge Shoots Down ViaSat's Quest To Stall Starlink Launches

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the star-wars dept

For a few years, scientific researchers have warned that Elon Musk’s Starlink low orbit satellite broadband constellations are harming scientific research. Simply, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky, a problem researchers say can be mitigated somewhat but not eliminated. Another problem is there are simply so many low orbit satellites being launched, the resulting space junk is creating navigation hazards. US regulators, so far, have done little to nothing about either problem.

Enter ViaSat, which clearly isn’t keen on having its captive business market disrupted by new competition. Back in January, the company urged the FCC to conduct an environmental review of SpaceX?s low-orbit Starlink constellation, arguing that the fledgling system poses environmental hazards in space and on Earth. Since the 80s, satellite systems have had a baked in exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), excluding their businesses from environmental review. But the sheer scale of what Starlink and Amazon are doing (more than 50,000 low orbit satellites in orbit) should change that equation, ViaSat argues:

“…given the sheer quantity of satellites at issue here, as well as the unprecedented nature of SpaceX?s treatment of them as effectively expendable, the potential environmental harms associated with SpaceX?s proposed modification are significant,? the company stated.

?Relying on the Commission?s decades-old categorical exemption to avoid even inquiring into the environmental consequences of SpaceX?s modification proposal would not only violate NEPA, but also would needlessly jeopardize the environmental, aesthetic, health, safety, and economic interests that it seeks to protect, and harm the public interest,? Viasat continued.”

The thing is, ViaSat is most certainly only really interested in its own revenues here, even if the concerns it’s pushing are legitimate ones. But after petitioning for change saw no reaction at the FCC, ViaSat sued the agency last May, demanding a pause of Starlink satellite broadband deployments. This week, judges made it clear that wasn’t going to happen. Though the court’s order (pdf) did grant a motion to expedite the appeal, which should speed up the legal feud somewhat.

The FCC and Space X have largely been aligned on this issue, insistent that any environmental harms can be mitigated. Space X, meanwhile, quite correctly notes that ViaSat’s environmental concerns are likely performative and its arguments not entirely consistent:

“Viasat’s newfound environmentalism is belied by its actions at every turn. Viasat failed to raise any environmental concerns in connection with any other satellite authorization, including SpaceX’s authorization to operate Starlink satellites at a different altitude and its prior request (nearly identical to the one at issue here) to lower many of those satellites. To the contrary, Viasat?a non-US licensee that has previously sought to escape Commission regulation altogether?ultimately relies on “competitive harm” to support its stay request. But stifling competition and protecting profits is not what NEPA is about.”

But again, ViaSat is correct that the concerns about space junk and light pollution are legitimate ones that aren’t being taken particularly seriously at the FCC. But the solution to that problem likely isn’t going to come at the hands of a company predominately and transparently only looking out for its own best interests.

The FCC under both Trump and Biden has been very eager to give Musk’s Starlink pretty much anything it wants, including some extremely dubious subsidies. All of this favorable treatment and subsidization comes despite the fact Starlink isn’t going to have quite the innovative impact many assume. As noted previously, the service will only have the capacity to reach 400 to 800,000 subscribers in its first few years (a max of 6 million several years from now), a small drop in the bucket when you consider upwards of 42 million Americans lack broadband access, and another 83 million live under a broadband monopoly.

So there are still legitimate questions here about whether Starlink will really be worth the cost(s), and whether Starlink will be able to remain financially viable (the majority of past efforts on this front have not). And while a self-interested competitor like ViaSat may have been the wrong messenger for worries about space junk and light pollution, the concerns themselves likely aren’t going anywhere.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, light pollution, satellite broadband, space pollution, starlink
Companies: spacex, starlink, viasat

Elon Musk's 'Next-Gen' Broadband Service Is Overheating In The Arizona Desert

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the reinventing-the-wheel dept

As we’ve noted a few times, SpaceX’s Starlink service will be a massive improvement for the up to 42 million Americans that lack access to broadband. The ongoing 10,000 user beta is delivering speeds between 50 and 150 Mbps at low latencies, something that’s much better than the expensive, slow, high-latency, usage-capped traditional satellite broadband service most people hate.

That said, early reviews have also showcased how the service isn’t going to be quite the miracle some Elon Musk fans are expecting. And this week complaints bubbled up among Starlink beta participants that their service dishes have been overheating in the summer sun:

“But according to user complaints on Reddit, the Starlink satellite dish user terminal, affectionately dubbed ?Dishy McFlatface? by SpaceX, is experiencing temperature issues for some users. Reddit user SocietyTomorrow stated that his broadband connection shut down at noon in the Arizona Summer sun, only to kick back on again after being sprayed with a hose.

“I did submit a ticket and they only said it will shut down at 122 [degrees],? the user wrote. ?Sadly tomorrow will be 122, and Wednesday will be 123. Dishy is already out at 112 so [I?m] gonna be quiet at home while I work out a solution.”

To be clear this is the kind of stuff betas are for. It’s not clear that this is happening at any scale (SpaceX/Starlink wouldn’t comment). I spoke with an engineer that has dissected Dishy, and he suggested that fixing the satellite dish’s heat issues, while very likely, could take some time:

“Since they’ve got a lot of custom silicon in there?likely the limiting factor?the turnaround time on this would be very slow,? he added. ?They could resort to some form of active heat removal like fans or thermoelectric cooling, but then they burn a ton of power which would make Dishy even more power hungry than it already is.”

?This is a really tricky engineering problem with some insanely tight constraints,? Keiter said. ?The good news is that the team is pretty sharp.”

But even if engineers resolve the heat problem, Starlink isn’t likely to have quite the impact many people think. Wall Street estimates indicate that limited capacity (aka the laws of physics) means the service will likely be able to serve around 300,000 to 800,000 users with its initial fleet of around 12,000 satellites. That’s around 1% of the U.S. broadband market. Even on the very optimistic end, with 42,000 low orbit, upgraded satellites feeding 60 Gbit/s each several years from now, 6 million users is the max number of potential customers, and those will mostly be rural, boat, or RV users that can afford it.

And this ignores Starlink’s negative impact on night sky research (which US regulators certainly are). And the fact that in a post net neutrality world, the service is likely to eventually impose odd caps and throttling restrictions to manage capacity. And the fact that at $600 for the first month, it’s not really going to be a service for the tens of millions of Americans that lack access due to affordability. And some of the quirky line of sight issues indicated in early reviews.

Fiber networks of course don’t suffer from any of these restrictions, which is why many in telecom circles argue that if you’re going to subsidize broadband, you should be subsidizing future-proof broadband without odd caveats and constraints. It’s also why consumer groups have been a bit disgusted at the fact that the FCC recently threw at $886 million at billionaire Elon Musk so he could deliver Starlink broadband to some traffic medians and a few already served airports. Again, Starlink will provide some help to the uncompetitive US broadband market, but a miraculous US broadband market disruptor it’s not.

Filed Under: overheating, satellite broadband, starlink
Companies: spacex

Starlink Reviews Show The Limitations Of Musk's Broadband Play

Broadband

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

So we’ve already noted several times that while Elon Musk’s Starlink internet broadband service will be a great thing for folks certainly out of the range of existing broadband options, it’s not going to be the massive disruption many people assume. For one thing, the service is only going to serve around 800,000 subscribers in a country where up to 42 million Americans lack broadband access and another 83 million consumers live under a broadband monopoly. So even at the high-end, extremely optimistic, longer term goal of 6 million total Starlink subscribers, we’re talking about a small dent in a very big problem.

Another problem is that for many of America’s underserved populations, the real issue is cost. And given its $500 initial down payment for hardware, and $100 monthly price tag, the service is going to be well out of range for many folks who really need it. That said, if you can actually get it, and actually afford it, and currently have no access to fixed line service, it’s going to be an upgrade. Probably, anyway.

New reviews at outlets like The Verge have taken some additional bloom off the rose, noting that line of sight and other technical issues are marring the service, at least during its current, ongoing 10,000 user beta. Says The Verge’s Nilay Patel:

“Starlink, a new satellite internet service from SpaceX, is a spectacular technical achievement that might one day do all of these things. But right now it is also very much a beta product that is unreliable, inconsistent, and foiled by even the merest suggestion of trees.”

Throughout the review, Patel makes it clear these problems aren’t small potatoes:

“I am going to emphasize the line-of-sight requirement, since it is crucial to understanding what Starlink can and cannot do right now, and it?s an important reality check on what it might be able to do in the future. Like the similarly over-hyped mmWave 5G, Starlink is remarkably delicate. Even a single tree blocking the dish?s line of sight to the horizon will degrade and interrupt your Starlink signal. Whatever satellite internet dreams you may have will run crashing into this reality until you can literally rise above.”

It’s likely things will improve, but even at max capacity (see above) we’re talking limited impact. It’s clear Musk is mostly interested in using Starlink to fund and market Space X, even though he’s acknowledged that profitability will be difficult and the low orbit satellite broadband market is paved with failure. There’s also that whole polluting the night sky and derailing scientific research both Musk and US regulators seem largely apathetic to. So this system, while promising and assuming it survives, will impact business interests (shipping, nautical) far more than residential broadband.

That said, Patel’s review of Starlink does something tech coverage of broadband often doesn’t do: he clearly acknowledges that US broadband is a busted and uncompetitive market thanks to decades of failed US telecom policy. He then uses that historical context to properly frame the potential promise Starlink offers:

“Starlink also represents something else: the American telecom policy establishment?s long-standing, almost religious belief that consumers are best served by something called ?facility-based competition.? Starlink is a new facility for accessing the internet, one that does not rely on existing infrastructure. ?Facility-based competition,? telecom lobbyists feverishly whisper while handing out their dirty, sweat-stained checks in Congress. ?That is the American way.?

AMERICAN BROADBAND POLICY STINKS, AND WE ALL PAY TOO MUCH MONEY FOR SLOW SPEEDS AND TERRIBLE CUSTOMER SERVICE Of course, the only thing a decades-long commitment to ?facility-based competition? has brought to most Americans is? a total lack of competition. Reality, as I have said, is quite irritating.

(By contrast, in Europe, where the prevailing philosophy is called ?service-based competition,? large incumbent providers are required to lease fiber access to competitors and there is a thriving market for internet access with much lower prices for much faster speeds. If the United States were in Europe, it would have the most expensive broadband in the region.)”

FCC data has long shown that open access networks (where multiple ISPs compete over a single, centralized fiber network) results in better, faster, cheaper service. But because that would bring competition to regional monopolies, we’ve never really embraced that approach. We did try to hack together some flavor of line sharing as part of the 1996 Telecom Act, but it was dismantled by telecom lobbyists before the ink was even try, resulting in an absolute bloodbath for smaller broadband providers.

Which brings us to the most important thing: the reality is you’re just not going to fix US broadband dysfunction with spit, innovation, and elbow grease. That’s because what’s driving US broadband dysfunction is two major things: extremely politically powerful regional telecom monopolies (most of which are tied directly into our intelligence gathering apparatus, shielding them from accountability), and the state and federal corruption that protects this broken mess. Innovative tech can help, but it’s not going to truly get to the root of the problem because the problem is human ethical failure, not technical.

For decades, telecom monopoly lobbyists have argued that you don’t need functional FCC or FTC regulatory oversight of telecom — or pro-competition policies that disrupt monopolization — because a miracle technology is waiting in the wings to fix everything. Back during the big deregulation push in the early aughts, broadband over powerline (BPL) was hyped as a holy grail. Former FCC boss Mike Powell (now a top cable lobbyist) told anyone who’d listen that his decision to deregulate lumbering telecom monopolies was wonderful, because BPL would act as a competitive layer that would fix everything.

But BPL wound up being aninterference prone mess. And instead of telecom Utopia as promised, we just saw regional monopolies double down on the same bad behavior, now free of both functional regulatory oversight and competition.

These days it’s 5G that’s being treated as a miracle market panacea, despite the fact that 5G isn’t a competitive silver bullet either for a number of reasons we’ve well explored. The real solution to improving U.S. broadband involves driving as much residential fiber to homes as possible, regardless of whether that’s the private sector or community broadband

That’s not to say 5G and Starlink can’t help! But again, the problem at this point is incompetent and corrupt policymakers on the state and federal level. Policymakers in mindless sway to monopolists. We could have delivered fiber to every home in America several times over by now for less than AT&T spent on its bungled AT&T Time Warner merger. We don’t do that not because it’s all that expensive and hard, but because this would upset dominant regional monopolies that effectively own US broadband policy and despise anything even resembling real world competition.

Filed Under: competition, satellite broadband, starlink
Companies: spacex, starlink