EU, UK, US Directly Accuse Russia Of Hacking ViaSat Satellites

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the easily-avoidable dept

For literally more than a decade researchers warned that global satellite telecommunications networks were vulnerable to attack. These attacks vary in nature but several allowed an intruder miles away to both intercept and disrupt satellite communications. In 2020 hackers again clearly demonstrated how these perpetually unresolved vulnerabilities were putting millions of people at risk.

Fast forward to 2022 and a major hack of Viasat’s satellite systems caused (gasp) massive problems for tens of thousands of users. The attack on Viasat’s KA-SAT satellite system, suspected at the time to be the work of the Russian government, was aimed at disrupting Ukraine communications in the lead up to war. But, as such attacks often do, it also managed to impact a very large chunk of Europe.

This week, the EU and UK formally accused Russia of the attack, pointing out that it occurred exactly one hour before the country invaded Ukraine:

“The European Union and its Member States, together with its international partners, strongly condemn the malicious cyber activity conducted by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, which targeted the satellite KA-SAT network, operated by Viasat.”

The full press release formally accuses Russia of several other attacks during the invasion, including the 13 January defacements of Ukrainian government websites, and the deployment of Whispergate malware. After it was released the US put out its own statement also directly blaming Russia.

There’s no limit of telecom infrastructure vulnerabilities (including those routinely exploited by the United States) we’ve addressed too little, too late. The SS7 flaw, for example, has been exploited for years by global intelligence agencies and criminals (assuming you see the two segments independently) despite repeated complaints by security experts.

Instead of taking these warnings seriously and genuinely shoring up overall privacy and security (be it a telecom network or election system), U.S. policymakers and the broader discourse brain trust spent several years… hyperventilating about TikTok.

Filed Under: eu, hacking, privacy, russia, satellite, security, telecom, uk, ukraine
Companies: viasat

Elon Musk’s Starlink Still Can’t Seem To Answer Basic Customer Support Emails

Broadband

from the not-that-innovative dept

We’ve noted for a while now how Elon Musk’s Starlink low-orbit satellite broadband service isn’t going to have the impact many think. For one thing, the service can currently only provide service to a maximum of around 800,000 subscribers globally. For context, around 20-40 million people in the U.S. lack broadband, and 83 million live under a broadband monopoly (usually Comcast).

Even with everything working perfectly, we’re talking about a service that’s only going to make a very tiny dent in a very large problem. And Starlink, as a business, isn’t working perfectly.

The lack of capacity (plus some supply chain issues) has greatly constrained subscriber totals, forcing most Starlink users onto a waiting list that for many can be more than a year. Many users on said waiting list have been trying to get refunds after a recent round of price hikes on a service they haven’t received yet, only to find a company that simply can’t or won’t respond to customer support and refund inquiries:

At the end of March 2022, Sbi requested a refund of his Starlink deposit because of the price hikes – but has had trouble getting his money back because he can’t get hold of the company.

“I feel I was scammed by Starlink,” Sbi said. “This is not fair business practices. The company had my money for over a year, I need that money back, there shouldn’t be any conditions on how to receive my money back.”

This sort of problem isn’t particularly uncommon over at Tesla or Tesla solar, either (the horror stories involving installs of the latter are the stuff of legend). All three efforts are widely heralded for innovation, yet can’t respond to extremely basic consumer support inquiries. Raising prices on Starlink customers already stuck in order purgatory has proven the final straw for many:

Rich Kecher, in south Virginia, said he’d had trouble getting his Starlink deposit refunded after about a year. He told Insider of an “outrageous lack of communication” from Starlink, which had pushed back its expected start-date for service in his area from November 2021 to late-2022.

“The price increase was the final straw,” Kecher said.

To be clear, Starlink provides an amazing upgrade for users in unserved areas. But that’s assuming you can get and afford it. A major issue in U.S. broadband access gaps is affordability, and a service with a $710 first month price tag is going to be well out of reach for many. Many others who can afford it will likely find themselves elbowed out by Musk acolytes who see Starlink ownership as a status symbol.

While Musk may be heralded as an innovator he’s not particularly innovative when it comes to customer service. He’s also not single-handedly able to defeat the laws of physics. Starlink capacity constraints are likely to result in a lot more of stories like this. And it’s not going to be helped with Starlink starting to partner with major airlines despite being unable to meet demand for existing pre-orders.

Eventually, to manage this capacity crunch, I’d imagine the service will implement network management tricks that annoy users further, whether that’s throttling of high definition and 4K video, or even usage caps and overage surcharges.

Even the hype-prone Musk has repeatedly acknowledged that Starlink will have limited impact and may not be financially viable over the longer term. The low orbit satellite broadband space is pock-marked with the wreckage of similar efforts, which is why many bristled at the $886 million in subsidies doled out to the company by the Trump FCC.

Most experts believe that if you’re going to subsidize broadband, it makes sense to throw that money at pushing future-proof fiber, then filling in the nooks and crannies with 5G and fixed wireless. Starlink can will help a little, but its innovation is greatly hamstrung if users can’t get it, can’t afford it, and can’t get the company to answer an email or pick up the phone.

Filed Under: broadband, customer service, digital divide, elon musk, high speed internet, satellite, space, starlink, telecom
Companies: spacex, starlink

U.S. Buries Fact It Gave Elon Musk $3 Million To Send Satellite Dishes To Ukraine

Overhype

from the self-made-men dept

A couple months back, Starlink and Elon Musk got several weeks of press adulation for shipping thousands of low orbit satellite terminals to Ukraine. The units, generally capable of 100 Mbps speeds with low latency, were likely a huge help to locals struggling to maintain Internet access while under Russian assault (with the small caveat that they could inadvertently act as beacons for Russian airstrikes).

To be clear it was a good thing to help folks in a desperate situation. And, unlike past Musk promises (ventilators, innovative cave rescue submarines, working “full self driving” technology), he actually delivered and the technology wound up being useful.

But at the time, Starlink and Musk had repeatedly implied that they had donated the terminals to the Ukraine as an act of pure altruism. But a new Washington Post report indicates that the U.S. government not only wound up footing a large chunk of the bill, they wound up paying Starlink nearly three times the retail value of the hardware ($600), plus shipping:

“USAID actually agreed to purchase closer to 1,500 standard Starlink terminals for $1,500 apiece and to pay an additional $800,000 for transportation costs, documents show, adding up to over $3 million in taxpayer dollars paid to SpaceX for the equipment sent to Ukraine.”

Musk’s company still did donate 3,667 terminals, and three months of free service. That said, other NATO countries have helped foot portions of the effort, and it’s not clear to what extent, because neither government representatives nor SpaceX much want to talk about it. As a rule, Musk companies generally refuse to respond to media inquiries, then get upset about press mischaracterizations.

Again, trying to help Ukrainians get online via a public/private partnership is good (especially since the Ukrainian government asked for the help). Less good is the way that Starlink soaked up millions of dollars in free press headlines that repeatedly implied this was all an act of pure altruism:

“…the company has cast the actions in part as a charitable gesture. “I’m proud that we were able to provide the terminals to folks in Ukraine,” SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said at a public event last month, later telling CNBC, “I don’t think the U.S. has given us any money to give terminals to the Ukraine.”

Musk’s outward facing public persona routinely maligns government subsidization, and bristles at the idea his companies receive such aid. But under the Trump FCC, Starlink and the controversial billionaire received nearly a billion dollars in taxpayer funds in exchange for vague promises to deliver Starlink service to some airport parking lots and traffic medians.

Nobody involved in the arrangement seems particularly interested in taxpayer transparency, or offering precise details on how much taxpayers paid. In fact, the U.S. government appears to have retroactively edited a press release to remove mention of the fact the partnership is valued at around $10 million:

Sometime after the announcement, the agency removed key details from its release. It now states that USAID “has delivered 5,000 Starlink Terminals” to Ukraine “through a public-private partnership” with SpaceX, but does not specify the quantity nor value of the donations.

In short, taxpayers wouldn’t have even known they paid Musk $3 million if not for the leaked documents. The Post being a Bezos-funded paper, and Bezos’ Blue Origin being a direct Musk competitor, means it should be fairly trivial for Musk fans to concoct reasons to casually dismiss the report.

But there’s every indication Musk not only got millions in free press for his Ukraine altruism, he was able to get the U.S. government to pay him subsides three times greater than the hardware was worth. The government, knowing that subsidizing billionaires isn’t a great look given U.S. budget shortfalls elsewhere, then obscured the total. That’s fairly innovative, just not in the way headlines initially suggested.

Filed Under: broadband, elon musk, government waste, internet access, satellite, starlink, subsidies, telecom, ukraine, war in ukraine
Companies: spacex, starlink

Satellite Broadband Options Like Starlink Shouldn’t Be Getting Precious Broadband Subsidies

Broadband

from the future-proof dept

While Elon Musk often crows about his disdain for subsidies, Musk companies routinely hoover up billions in government assistance. For example, Starlink gamed the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) subsidy auction to nab nearly a billion dollars to deploy broadband to areas that didn’t need it: including some airport parking lots and a few parking medians.

Not too surprisingly, the fiber broadband industry isn’t particularly thrilled with the idea of government funding going to satellite broadband, in part because options like Starlink lack the kind of capacity needed to truly fix the U.S. broadband problem, and even Musk concedes they may not be financially viable over the longer haul, meaning that money could be wasted.

But Fiber Broadband Association CEO Gary Bolton notes that every time a satellite broadband company like Starlink gets awarded government broadband subsidies, it precludes another company willing to deliver faster, better fiber from getting that money:

Bolton noted that those homes are not eligible for deployments funded through other government programs that have come into being since the RDOF auction because they are supposed to get the SpaceX service [and] fiber broadband should be made available to everyone in the U.S. because it is the most future-proof technology available.

“We don’t want to be able to discriminate based on your zip code,” he said. “To solve societal issues, we have to make sure everyone has more bandwidth than they could ever use.”

While it’s not too surprising to see the fiber industry unhappy that other technologies are getting government subsidies, they’re not wrong. Organizations like the EFF have also repeatedly noted that if we’re going to subsidize broadband, that money should be going toward “future proof” fiber, with 5G and fixed wireless filling most of the gaps.

Low-orbit satellite broadband solutions like Starlink are fine, they’re just constrained by the laws of physics, which is why Starlink’s initial launch not only can only serve 500-800k subscribers max, but the 250,000 customers that have signed up are already seeing network slowdowns.

Starlink can and is a good niche solution for users without alternative options. But physics are physics, and it simply doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to be throwing millions of dollars at a billionaire-backed broadband solution that can’t scale and may not even exist in several years. If you put fiber in the ground, even if the company goes to hell, that fiber is still useful.

Filed Under: 5g, broadband, elon musk, fiber, gov't subsidies, high speed internet, satellite, subsidies
Companies: spacex, starlink

Elon Musk’s Starlink Gets Even More Expensive

Broadband

from the don't-believe-the-hype dept

We’ve noted for a while now how Elon Musk’s Starlink low-orbit satellite broadband service isn’t going to be the miraculous revolution many people think. For one thing, the service can currently only provide service to a maximum of around 800,000 subscribers globally. For context, around 20-40 million people in the U.S. lack broadband, and 83 million live under a broadband monopoly (usually Comcast).

Another issue: for millions of Americans the real issue is broadband affordability (see this OTI report on the subject). Starlink already wasn’t cheap, launching at a price point of $100 a month, with a $500 first month down payment for hardware. The company is now bumping the monthly price to $110 per month, and users will now have to shell out $600 for the same hardware:

“SpaceX’s internet-from-space program Starlink is increasing prices for both the purchase of Starlink kits and for the monthly service, according to a new email sent out to customers this afternoon reviewed by The Verge. The company says the “sole purpose of these adjustments is to keep pace with rising inflation.”

The service currently has around 250,000 active users worldwide. Roughly 500,000 people have pre-ordered, many of whom have been waiting for more than a year for service. Those users were already pissed off because Starlink customer service (or even a basic email update on shipping status) is basically non-existent.

Now, not only are new customers having to pay more for service, customers who already pre-ordered are being told they have to pay $550 for the hardware (instead of the $500 originally stated), and they’re understandably not particularly happy about it at forums like Reddit:

Went to bed early last night not feeling the best. Woke up this morning feeling better and checked my phone. EMAIL FROM STARLINK. YES! THE WAIT MUST BE OVER!

Nope. Still waiting… but here’s a $50 price increase for the dish and a $11 per month increase. What a kick in the nuts.

To be clear, Starlink is a nifty service if you can get it. Reviews so far have been decidedly average, though for many rural users gigabit service with low latency is going to be a huge upgrade from nothing, crappy DSL, or pricey, slow, and capped traditional satellite broadband.

Starlink’s obstacles are several fold. Musk has already made it clear that the service won’t have the capacity to disrupt existing duopolies, and may be tricky to keep financially viable even with a focus on underserved areas. Obtaining the scale needed to be profitable also requires fixing Dragon engine production woes and ramping up satellite production despite ongoing supply chain issues.

Even if everything goes perfectly smoothly, and the company launches its full array of 42,000 low orbit satellites, the maximum global reach is still estimated to be only around 6 million subscribers — which would still only be a drop in the bucket for demand in the U.S. alone. The uncertainty of whether Starlink will even survive means the FCC likely should stop subsidizing the billionaire-backed effort.

The other issue: as more users flood to the network, the inherent physics of limited satellite capacity means the company will likely start implementing restrictions on usage, whether that’s the throttling of HD video, or the imposition of usage caps and overage fees, driving up already high prices further.

And this is all before you even touch on the fact that scientific researchers say the Starlink constellation is creating significant light pollution that harms scientific research and cannot be mitigated (Musk stated in 2020 Starlink would “not cause any impact whatsoever in astronomical discoveries.”).

So again, while Starlink is a great niche option if you can actually get and afford it, anybody acting as if it’s going to disrupt a broken U.S. telecom market isn’t living in reality. It’s taking a year for many people to get it, it’s not affordable for a large swath of the people who need it most, and even at maximum potential it will struggle to have any meaningful impact on the US broadband market.

It’s a nifty niche product with a lot of obstacles to overcome to succeed and survive. Most broadband policy experts I talk to still think it makes better sense to spend the majority of investment cash on deploying “future proof” fiber to more places, and plugging any remaining holes with fifth-generation (5G) technology.

Filed Under: astronomers, broadband, competition, elon musk, internet access, satellite, satellites, space, starlink
Companies: spacex, starlink

Avoidable Viasat Satellite Hack Causes Headaches Across Europe And Ukraine

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the as-predicted dept

For literally more than a decade researchers have been warning that global satellite telecommunications networks were vulnerable to all manner of attacks. These attacks vary in nature but allow an intruder miles away to both intercept and disrupt satellite communications. In 2020 hackers again clearly demonstrated how these perpetually unresolved vulnerabilities were putting millions of people at risk.

Fast forward to 2022 and a major hack of Viasat’s satellite systems has caused, you guessed it, massive problems for an estimated 27,000 users. The attack on Viasat’s KA-SAT satellite system, suspected to be the work of the Russian government, appears to have been intended to disrupt Ukraine communications in the lead up to war, but managed to impact a very large chunk of Europe:

Viasat told Reuters that the cyberattack Viasat says was made possible courtesy of a misconfiguration in a “management section” of its network. The impact was severe enough that many users of the satellite in Germany, the UK, France, the Czech Republic, and elsewhere found that their modems had effectively been bricked and “rendered unusable.”

Thousands still remain offline across Europe—around 2,000 wind turbines are still disconnected in Germany—and companies are racing to replace broken modems or fix connections with updates. Multiple intelligence agencies, including those in the US and Europe, are also investigating the attack. The Viasat hack is arguably the largest publicly known cyberattack to take place since Russia invaded Ukraine, and it stands out for its impact beyond Ukraine’s borders. But questions about the details of the attack, its purpose, and who carried it out remain—although experts have their suspicions.

Such spillover impact is routine in such attacks. The attack not only impacted basic broadband connectivity, 5,800 wind turbines in Germany were knocked offline, preventing them from being reset remotely should problems develop.

Again, this could have been avoided if companies had heeded researchers and white-hat hacker warnings. But instead, the dominant paradigm tends to be to try and silence those researchers, or misdirect our attention toward security and privacy issues that grab easy headlines, but are less of a direct threat (see: the two year long Trump-era freak out about TikTok).

Vulnerabilities such as the ones in satellite networks, or the massive, obvious security and privacy problems in the “internet of broken things” sector, tend to be downplayed and ignored because they’re “boring” for the press and politicians. As a result, there’s little incentive to do better. Wash, rinse, and repeat.

Filed Under: broadband, cybersecurity, hack, hacking, russia, satellite, telecom, ukraine, vulnerability
Companies: viasat

Space X Engine Production Woes Could Screw Up Musk's Starlink Broadband Play

Broadband

from the trouble-looming dept

We’d already noted how Elon Musk’s Starlink isn’t going to be the broadband disruption play many people had imagined. The service lacks the capacity to really provide broadband to more than 500,000 to 800,000 users during its first few years in operation (for context, somewhere between 20 and 40 million Americans lack access to broadband, and another 83 million live under a broadband monopoly). With a $100 monthly cost and a $500 first month equipment fee, it’s also not doing any favors for the millions of Americans who lack access to affordable broadband.

Eventually, with a fully upgraded fleet of 42,000 low orbit satellites years from now, Wall Street analysts estimate Starlink could potentially reach upwards of 6 million users. But again that’s an optimistic high end guess, and it requires that everything go swimmingly the next few years.

Everything is not going swimmingly. Chip shortages initially delayed Starlink’s exit out of beta. And now a new leaked email suggests that Musk is warning about a potential bankruptcy for Space X if the company can’t sort out production of the company’s Raptor engine:

“Unfortunately, the Raptor production crisis is much worse than it had seemed a few weeks ago. As we have dug into the issues following the exiting of prior senior management, they have unfortunately turned out to be far more severe than was reported. There is no way to sugarcoat this…What it comes down to, is that we face a genuine risk of bankruptcy if we can?t achieve a Starship flight rate of at least once every two weeks next year.”

Will Heltsley, former SpaceX senior vice president of propulsion, recently left Space X due to a lack of progress on the project. In the email, Musk makes it clear that if things don’t improve, Starlink could also be in deep trouble:

“The consequences for SpaceX if we can not get enough reliable Raptors made is that we then can?t fly Starship, which means we then can?t fly Starlink Satellite V2 (Falcon has neither the volume nor the mass to orbit needed for satellite V2). Satellite V1, by itself, is financially weak, while V2 is strong.”

One problem, of course, is that Starlink is poised to receive millions in FCC subsidies to bolster a service that may not be financially viable several years from now. The Trump FCC already faced a scandal after it announced it would be doling out nearly a billion dollars to the planet’s richest man (who professes a performative disdain for government subsidies) to deliver broadband to some traffic medians and parking lots. The Biden administration is scaling back the scope of the hand out after backlash, but Musk’s Starlink is still poised to receive tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Those subsidies are dependent on Starlink meeting certain projected deployment goals Musk’s newly leaked email suggests they won’t be able to actually meet if things don’t turn around quickly:

So again, the question then becomes: why is the FCC continuing to dole out millions in subsidies for a service that may not even exist in a few years? Especially when that money can be used to help fund future-proof and already proven fiber deployments across countless communities? Starlink does have the potential to provide some help to shore up U.S. broadband access, but even before these latest problems its full potential reach was limited. And the world’s richest man, who routinely professes a disdain for subsidies and “freeloading,” has made it abundantly clear he doesn’t want or need government financial help.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, elon musk, profitability, satellite, starlink
Companies: spacex

Chip Shortages Mar Starlink's Long-Awaited Exit From Beta

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the potentially-undercooked dept

Elon Musk’s Starlink has finally exited beta, but chip shortages may mar the low-orbit broadband satellite venture’s big day. The company has technically stopped calling Starlink a beta product, but warns in a new FAQ on its website that users expecting shipments of their new satellite dishes may be waiting a while:

“Silicon shortages have delayed production which has impacted our ability to fulfill orders. Please visit your Account page for the most recent estimate on when you can expect your order to be fulfilled.?

Over 500,000 users have signed up for the broadband service which delivers speeds of 100 Mbps or more for $100 a month (plus a $500 first month equipment charge). Users who had signed up for the service were already complaining that Starlink often just doesn’t respond to customer support inquiries asking when a user’s dish will ship, and this was before chip shortages entered the picture. There was also another Starlink website bug revealed this week that pushed back user pre-order dates by a year or more if they made tiny account changes.

Early reviews of the service have also been decidedly mixed, with complaints about line of sight and sporadic outages.

Starlink has consistently been heralded as a potential solution for the U.S.’ broadband competition problem, but capacity and physics mean the service’s overall reach was always going to be limited. Even Musk, who has a propensity to oversell his products, has acknowledged that the service won’t be able to offer service in most densely populated urban and suburban areas. In other words, U.S. monopolies aren’t sweating Starlink’s entry into the market.

Early, pre-chip shortage estimates suggest that Starlink will struggle to deliver service to somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 users, with many of those spots likely gobbled up by Musk fans. The service’s $600 first month price point is also out of reach for the millions of Americans who can’t afford broadband. With up to 42 million Americans without broadband access — and another 83 million living under a monopoly — even Starlink’s maximum potential impact (which assumes the company can remain financially viable) will barely put a dent in the problem.

So yeah, Starlink will be a very good thing if you can get it, can afford it, and have no other options. But actually getting it will likely prove tricky for many. That’s why there was some annoyance at the FCC throwing millions of dollars in subsidies at the planet’s richest man for a service even he acknowledges many be tricky to keep financially viable over the longer haul.

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

Even Elon Musk Makes It Clear Starlink Could Have Limited Impact, May Not Be Financially Viable

Broadband

from the subsidize-me-please dept

When even Elon Musk is reining in expectations and speaking carefully about one of his products, you know you probably shouldn’t get too excited.

We’ve noted how Musk’s Starlink satellite broadband venture will certainly help a few people out of the reach of broadband options, but isn’t going to meaningfully disrupt telecom. Limited capacity means Starlink will be able to provide broadband service to somewhere between 400,00 and 800,000 subscribers, in a country where up to 42 million Americans lack access to broadband, 83 million live under a broadband monopoly, and tens of millions more live under a duopoly. In short, Starlink will “fix” US broadband much like a squirt gun will kill an elephant.

Musk clearly knows that Starlink’s reach doesn’t meet the usual hype surrounding the billionaire’s products, so he continues to be more candid and honest when talking about Starlink versus many of his other abundantly hyped projects. Like during his onscreen talk at Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona, where he once again tempered enthusiasm about Starlink’s real-world impact:

“You can think of Starlink as filling in the gaps between 5G and fiber, and really getting into parts of the world that are hardest to reach,? he told interviewer Justin Springham, publisher of Mobile World Live, in a keynote Tuesday at the wireless industry trade show. As in, the last “3%, maybe 5%.”

Musk also made it clear that the low orbit satellite broadband business is littered by failures, something he’d like to avoid:

“Every other low earth orbit constellation ever done has gone bankrupt,? Musk said early in the half-hour talk, citing such past collapses as Iridium. ?Step number one for Starlink is don?t go bankrupt.”

At the same speech Musk noted he’s currently selling his “Dishy” terminals to users for around $500 despite costing $1000 to make. Other outlets, like Reuters, were even more pointed about the chance of Starlink success given it lacks the capacity to really obtain any real scale:

“Starlink would need a few million subscribers paying about $99 a month each to recoup a $5 billion investment in a year’s time, said analyst Tim Farrar, president of TMF Associates.

A $30 billion investment over a decade would not require a dramatic rise in subscribers, but to achieve Musk’s 2020 projection of roughly $30 billion revenue a year would require tens of millions of subscribers, he said.

But even the most rosily optimistic projections I’ve seen, which assume a full fleet of 42,000 satellites capable of offering 60 Gbit/s each many years from now, tops out at around 6 million max subscribers. So in other words there’s a very real potential that Starlink not only doesn’t really make much of a dent in the US broadband problem, but can’t get anywhere close to financial viability anytime soon.

So the question then becomes, why bother? And the answer is because much like his heavily-ridiculed Las Vegas space tunnel, he’s using potentially doomed side projects to nab government subsidies to finance his space ambitions. The FCC recently came under fire for giving the planet’s second-wealthiest human being $883 million to deliver satellite broadband to a handful of traffic medians and already served airports. Instead of funding future-proof fiber, the FCC has been criticized for throwing money at a man who doesn’t need it, to finance a project that may not even be around a few years from now.

To be clear, Starlink, if it survives, can genuinely help Americans out of the reach of traditional options. But keep in mind with a $600 first month cost ($500 for hardware, $100 a month) it’s not exactly helping those who can’t afford broadband. And with only 300,000 to 800,000 initial slots, those who really need the service will have to battle with Musk fanboys who already have decent options, but just want to be early adopters due to the Musk brand. In short there’s an awful lot that can go very wrong here, and even the most optimistic projections for the venture aren’t particularly productive or disruptive.

Filed Under: broadband, capacity, competition, elon musk, satellite, starlink
Companies: spacex

Elon Musk Makes It Clear Starlink Won't Have The Capacity To Disrupt U.S. Broadband

Broadband

from the baby-steps dept

SpaceX says the company has received more than 500,000 pre-orders for the company’s growing low-orbit satellite broadband service. The company opened up pre-orders back in February, and says it currently has about 10,000 users around the world participating in the beta. Starlink, which (for now) costs about $100 per month (plus a $500 first month equipment charge), should provide a welcome new option for many folks currently stuck without any broadband whatsoever.

But for those who continue to think Starlink is going to truly disrupt the broken U.S. broadband market, here’s a few quick numbers. Up to 42 million Americans lack access to any broadband whatsoever, be it wired or wireless. Another 83 million currently live under a broadband monopoly, usually Comcast. Tens of millions more live under a broadband duopoly, which usually consists of Comcast and some regional phone company that stopped caring about upgrading its DSL networks sometime around 2005 or so. This regional monopolization directly results in spotty, expensive, sometimes sluggish service.

In contrast, SpaceX and Musk say that the 500,000 users will probably get the service they’ve pre-ordered. But Musk noted last week that as the company begins to push into the several million connection territory, things will likely get tricky. Particularly in more dense areas where capacity constraints will continue to be a big problem, much like existing higher-orbit satellite offerings:

Wall Street analysts recently predicted that even with Starlink’s projected max deployment of about 12,000 low-orbit satellites, it’s still only going to serve somewhere between 300,000 to 800,000 households, or less than 1% of the US market. And while over time analysts estimated that it could scale to about 6 million subscribers, that’s still a fairly small dent in a very large US broadband problem. And at $600 for the first month of service, it’s still out of range for many for whom broadband affordability is the real impediment to reliable access.

It’s also still not entirely clear what kind of network limitations we’ll see on a fully-loaded commercial Starlink network in the post net neutrality era. The company initially won’t want to impose too many draconian limits (like caps, overage fees, or heavy-handed throttling) in order to lure in new subscribers. But as the network gets congested and runs into the unnegotiable limitations of physics, it seems inevitable we’ll see more and more restrictions of this type, once again making it clear that wireless and satellite offerings are still no substitute for future-proof technologies like fiber.

Again, if you can afford the $600 first month payment, can actually secure a pre-order, and have no other options, it’s very likely that Starlink will be a godsend regardless of where on the planet you live. It will also probably be helpful for those interested in getting portable access when camping, driving around in an RV, or in the middle of the ocean. But even the normally hype-prone Musk is making it abundantly clear that those expecting a major U.S. broadband market disruption shouldn’t hold their breath.

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