capacity – Techdirt (original) (raw)

from the take-me-to-the-limit dept

A new study from researchers at X-Lab shows that Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite broadband service lacks the capacity to put a serious dent in U.S. broadband. Despite recent efforts by the Trump administration to rewrite a $42 billion subsidy program with an eye on giving Musk billions in taxpayer dollars.

The researchers found that given the limited nature of satellite physics, the more people that use Starlink, the slower the network is going to get. That’s not a surprise to users who have increasingly seen slowdowns on the network over the last four years, resulting in speeds that often don’t even meet the FCC’s fairly weak definition for broadband (100 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up).

The researchers estimated that pushing the network past any more than 6.7 Starlink customers per square mile results in significant slowdowns that will get worse. That’s why, they note, it’s a terrible idea for the Trump administration to redirect infrastructure bill grant money from more reliable (often fiber-based and locally owned) ISPs and instead give it to Elon Musk:

“Many State Offices are concerned that Starlink proposals may be the lowest bid and alternative proposals may not be within the 15% window for consideration. What this analysis presents is that across many geographic areas Starlink may not be a qualified bidder as it may be unable to attain the required 100/20 Mbps service level (and, in deploying Starlink services, may actually degrade pre-existing users’ services to the point that they no longer receive minimal broadband speeds).”

Techdirt has been noting for years how Starlink is a niche service. The nature of satellite physics and capacity means slowdowns and annoying restrictions are inevitable, and making it scale to permanently meet real-world demand will be challenging if not impossible.

Some Wall Street analysts have been talking about the Starlink capacity crunch since at least 2001 (and mostly getting ignored). Those same analysts have raised questions about whether Starlink can meet its satellite launch goals in order to meet projected targets (spoiler: no).

But Starlink has also been criticized for harming astronomical research and the ozone layer. Starlink customer service is largely nonexistent. And the service is also too expensive for the folks most in need of reliable broadband access. It’s getting even more expensive as Starlink applies up to $750 “congestion charges” in areas where it knows it can’t meet demand.

This is all before you get to the fact the company’s CEO is an overt white supremacist who basically purchased his own authoritarian U.S. government before his ego ruined the fun.

So yeah, Starlink is a good option if you’re in the middle of nowhere with no other access, can afford it, and have no qualms about doing business with a white supremacist.

It’s not so great if you care about the environment, like to shop ethically, are on a fixed budget, or want to use taxpayer money to ensure widespread broadband availability. Still, because many Republicans still worship at the feet of Elon Musk, they tend to view Starlink as almost akin to magic, helping them justify throwing billions in undeserved subsidies at their billionaire benefactor.

The first Trump FCC tried to give Musk nearly a billion dollars in subsidies to deliver Starlink to some traffic medians and airport parking lots. The Biden FCC reversed the funding, stating (correctly) that Starlink’s bid gamed the system and they weren’t sure that Starlink could consistently meet program speed requirements.

That rollback by the Biden FCC resulted in no limit of crying and teeth-gnashing by Elon Musk and Republicans, who have since dedicated themselves to throwing billions more at the billionaire.

There’s always waste in these programs. But some of the money being directed toward Elon Musk’s congested and expensive satellite service is money directed away from popular community-owned and operated fiber providers, or many local small businesses with a genuine, vested interest in bettering the local communities they serve. In short, it has the very real potential to actually make U.S. broadband worse. Under the pretense that we’re fixing the problem for good.

Filed Under: bead, broadband, capacity, elon musk, fiber, high speed internet, infrastructure bill, leo, low earth orbit satellite, telecom
Companies: spacex, starlink

from the subsidize-me-please dept

Tue, Jul 6th 2021 01:40pm - Karl Bode

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 500despitecosting500 despite costing 500despitecosting1000 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 99amontheachtorecoupa99 a month each to recoup a 99amontheachtorecoupa5 billion investment in a year’s time, said analyst Tim Farrar, president of TMF Associates.

A 30billioninvestmentoveradecadewouldnotrequireadramaticriseinsubscribers,buttoachieveMusk’s2020projectionofroughly30 billion investment over a decade would not require a dramatic rise in subscribers, but to achieve Musk’s 2020 projection of roughly 30billioninvestmentoveradecadewouldnotrequireadramaticriseinsubscribers,buttoachieveMusk’s2020projectionofroughly30 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 600firstmonthcost(600 first month cost (600firstmonthcost(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

from the not-good-enough dept

Tue, Sep 29th 2020 06:25am - Karl Bode

We’ve noted a few times that while Space X’s Starlink will be a very good thing for a limited number of rural customers out of the range of traditional broadband options, it’s not going to truly disrupt the busted U.S. telecom market in any revolutionary way. The service should be a step up from traditionally expensive, capped, and sluggish old-school satellite broadband, since new low-orbit satellites can provide lower latency service at a price point Elon Musk insists will be competitive.

That said, the financial analysts at Cowen came out last week to note that even at its current maximum of 12,000 such satellites, Starlink will never have enough capacity to truly service more than 485,000 subscribers at full capacity:

“While Starlink has the ability to provide a practical satellite-based broadband solution for the underserved, the capacity has limitations in most of the US especially considering the growing demand for bandwidth driven by in-home data-rich applications and devices,” the firm wrote in a research note first spotted by Light Reading.

Starlink currently has 650 satellites in orbit, with 12,000 planned by 2026. But even at full capacity the researchers estimate the service won?t be able to service any more than 485,000 simultaneous data streams at speeds of 100 Mbps.

Granted most ISPs operate under the “oversubscription” model, which correctly assumes that not all customers will be using the full throughput of their connection all day, every day. So Starlink can certainly offer slower speeds to notably more people. Especially if (with no net neutrality and a Trump FCC that couldn’t care less about it) Starlink utilizes strange throttling technology that limits what users can do with those connections. But even that would barely dent the estimated 42 million Americans that lack access to any broadband, or the 83 million currently stuck under a broadband monopoly (usually Comcast).

Musk himself has acknowledged this limited capacity means Starlink won’t be a major player in any major urban or suburban U.S. markets. That brings us to the other problem Cowen raises, namely that low orbit satellite will never really be able to scale with consumer demand the way traditional fiber optic broadband can. Especially not in the cloud computing, 4K game streaming era:

“US broadband consumption, and the speeds that users demand, is continuously growing,” Cowen wrote. “Thus, as satellite throughput and technology continues to progress, so too will demand for faster speeds. As such, our analysis shows that LEO satellites will continuously be a step behind wireline telco/cable operators in meeting US consumer demand for broadband.”

So yes, Starlink will be a good thing for a limited number of folks out of range of decent broadband or somewhere on a boat. But anybody framing this as a massive disruption to the status quo (something the press tends to enjoy doing when Musk is involved) is misrepresenting what the service will actually accomplish. As Starlink lobbies the FCC for up to $16 billion in subsidies, it’s also worth remembering that U.S. taxpayers have thrown countless billions at existing monopolies for fiber optic networks that routinely wind up only half deployed.

Which is to say we could focus on state and federal corruption, and the decades of fraud and cronyism that have gifted entrenched telecom giants like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon massive geographical monopolies. Then finally just deploy the coast to coast fiber networks American taxpayers have likely already paid for several times over with the help of pissed off communities. Or we could do nothing about that problem, over-hype half-measure efforts to re-invent the wheel, then grumble in a few years about the fact we never seem to quite fix America’s stubborn “digital divide.”

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

AT&T CEO Says Wireless Networks Aren't Prepared For Data Traffic — Frankly, He Should Know

from the got-some-knowledge-about-this-stuff dept

AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said this week that US mobile networks can’t keep up with all the data traffic being spawned by smartphone users. This is something Stephenson’s got a lot of first-hand knowledge about. Earlier this month, AT&T blocked the SlingPlayer app for the iPhone, saying it didn’t have the capacity to support it, while the company annoyed lots of geeks with blogs when its network in Austin couldn’t keep up with the influx of iPhone users during the SXSW conference in March. Stephenson says the company is taking steps to address the problem by upgrading its 3G network to HSPA+ technology that will double its throughput. The logic here isn’t completely clear, though: the new technology will require new device hardware, and furthermore, the real issue is capacity not speed. And capacity doesn’t just apply to the mobile network — each individual cell site’s backhaul connection needs to be beefed up, too. But the real solution AT&T and other operators employ to fix this issue may not be a technological one. Stephenson hints that flat-rate data plans could be on their way out, with variable-use pricing on its way back in. By bringing back per-unit pricing, operators will hope to increase their revenues from data-hungry users, but all they’ll really do is end up stifling mobile data use — just like they did before they went to flat-rate plans.

Filed Under: capacity, wireless networks
Companies: at&t

Mobile Operators Say Inauguration Will Tax Systems, Provide PR Fodder

from the no-i-can't-hear-you-now dept

Apparently there are going to be a lot of people in Washington, DC, next month, for Barack Obama’s inauguration. With up to 4 million visitors coming to DC, a city with a population of 1.1 million, there’s the potential for a logistical mess. But at least one group is getting out ahead of things: the nation’s wireless operators, which want to assure everybody that they’re beefing up capacity ahead of the event… just like they do before every Super Bowl and other events where there are predictable swells in network traffic. So, even if you aren’t traveling to Washington for the inauguration, rest assured that the country’s operators are looking out for you, just in case. And, of course, that they’re not missing out on any chance for some PR — even if it really just highlights their own capacity limitations. One question, though: will any of them come back after the event to detail just how many calls didn’t go through on their networks during the inauguration because of capacity constraints?

Filed Under: capacity, inauguration, mobile operators