A new 650 satellite constelation

[Shpaget]

OneWeb plans to launch 650 satellites to provide worldwide broadband connection.

If this becomes a reality, it will be by far the largest constellation in existence.

[Kryten]

They've been planning this for some time, the news now is that they've actually ordered the sats, from Astrium.

[ComradeWolfe]

Sounds a lot like this or more recently this... But I like that it's a partnership between Richard Branson and Qualcom. I think this could spark a Musk vs. Branson space-internet-arms-race which would ultimately benefit us all.

[Nibb31]

This isn't news. It was actually announced before SpaceX's constellation.

I really don't see how these constellations can compete commercially with existing offerings (4G, fiberoptics, DSL, etc...), let alone among themselves.

[Kryten]

They're mostly intended to provide service to areas where DSL or fibre optic don't exist, rather than competing with them directly. The initial infrastructure cost at the receiving end would be much lower.

[Nibb31]

I understand that, but that is becoming more and more of a niche market. You can get decent internet pretty much everywhere in Europe and America. There are existing offerings for satellite internet, but that's a shrinking market as 3G and 4G expand. There are also niche markets like aircraft or ships, but those are small.

The areas with little internet coverage these days are mainly developing countries, which are hard to do business with. In fact, the reason people don't have access to the internet nowadays is more about affordability than a problem of coverage.

[Shpaget]

There is still some offshore market. Satellite phones and internet over them is still quite expensive and limited. With more airplanes, cruise and cargo ships every day, perhaps they see a market there.

[lincourtl]

The areas with little internet coverage these days are mainly developing countries, which are hard to do business with. In fact, the reason people don't have access to the internet nowadays is more about affordability than a problem of coverage.

It depends on what level of service you're going for. For instance, as of this year in the U.S. broadband is defined as 25mbps or greater, but most areas still do not have access to those speeds. Yes, these are low population density areas, but that's still quite a few people.

[Camacha]

I understand that, but that is becoming more and more of a niche market. You can get decent internet pretty much everywhere in Europe and America.

This is not true. Go beyond the cities and you will quickly find lots of towns and villages that do not have a large enough population to get anything beyond dial-up. That is even true in densely populated, rich and developed countries.

[Hcube]

Don't forget that we aren't only talking about an internet service for developed countries only. A constellation of satellites like that plans to offer internet worldwide, and that opens a huge market with the developing countries that do not offer internet connections on their whole territory. I'm thinking about countries like brazil, india, some african states... Internet is a very good way of speeding up development, and such countries have very little access to it.

I might be wrong about this^, but i think that these constellation programs aim at this kind of market.

[Nibb31]

Not true in Europe at least... You can get low bandwidth (1Mbps) DSL practically anywhere you have a phone line. Where you can't get it, you can get satellite or 3G. 4G is still only for urban areas, but it's expanding to smaller towns.

Satellite internet is still a niche in terms of population coverage, and therefore marketshare, and it's not necessarily growing. It's going to be hard for OneWeb or SpaceX to compete with established operators, and they won't go down without a fight.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget that we aren't only talking about an internet service for developed countries only. A constellation of satellites like that plans to offer internet worldwide, and that opens a huge market with the developing countries that do not offer internet connections on their whole territory. I'm thinking about countries like brazil, india, some african states... Internet is a very good way of speeding up development, and such countries have very little access to it.

I might be wrong about this^, but i think that these constellation programs aim at this kind of market.

You're right, but it's notoriously difficult to do business in those countries. There are political, cultural, and legal barriers. You need to set up billing and customer services for all sorts of currencies, and you also need to make sure your service is affordable. It's not an easy combination, which is why companies like Google or Amazon don't do business in many of those countries.

[LordFerret]

Satellite internet access will be slow ... (approx) 300ms up and another 300ms down ... not exactly good for gaming.

[Pipcard]

Satellite internet access will be slow ... (approx) 300ms up and another 300ms down ... not exactly good for gaming.

Not unless you have a lot of satellites in low Earth orbit, which is what this is planned to be.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Pipcard

[LordFerret]

Not unless you have a lot of satellites in low Earth orbit, which is what this is planned to be.

Even in LEO, you're still looking at a 1/4 second delay round trip, and that's just for the signal to go from the ground transmitter to the satellite and then back down to a ground receiver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Challenges_.26_limitations

I faced a similar problem (tasked for the software solution) back in the late 1980's with a ship-board inventory system which relied on a satellite phone modem connection for communications back to headquarters (Maersk). The delay was about 300ms up and another 300ms down, 600ms+ overall considering all the rest of the switching and shuffling around (processing/response from home office) required.

Edited June 15, 2015 by LordFerret
expand answer

[78stonewobble]

I'll believe it, being profitable, when I see it.

[AngelLestat]

oneweb said it will be 6mbytes by second at 18ghz, lets take the half of that.. that is still enoght for HD streaming.

The spacex constelation will have 4000 sats with higher broadband at 24ghz.

You know how much investment you need to do to carry internet by fiberoptics to each house? You need dig and make a subterraneal hole where you already have pavement, streets or other types of pipes to dodge. You know how much cost build and mantain all that?

And this system has a huge advantage.. You just paid 1 system, and you have internet no matter where you go.. you dont need to use a different service plans for your smartphone which it becomes a lot more expensive if you leave your country or in some cases, just the city.

If you have internet, you can talk with everyone in everywhere.

That is why all companies are rushing to achieve this. Because there is a lot of money behind it.. this is not a niche.. I will said that our currents internet services are niches compared to this.

After all, Elon musk plains to fund his mars dream with this.

[Rune]

I will say this, don't get fooled by what we see on "developed", first work countries. The majority of the world population is still far away from a decent internet connection, or any connection at all in fact, so the potential market is huge. If the terminal is cheap enough, you could even tap into it effectively, offsetting the high initial infrastructure cost and low consumer income with sheer numbers. Other three billion, right?

There are unknowns, of course. Otherwise somebody would have already done it. But put a price per satellite low enough, and it starts making sense. I remember when I thought 3G internet was probably a niche market, because "how are you going to compete with the speed s of fiber optic cable", and next week we are upgrading my workplace internet to a 4G modem because cable is just horrible in comparison (on account of an old copper DSL installation) and it would be more bothersome to upgrade the installation than just hooking to the nearest wireless tower for pretty much the same service.

Rune. Which is why, I imagine, the gold rush.

[sgt_flyer]

oneweb said it will be 6mbytes by second at 18ghz, lets take the half of that.. that is still enoght for HD streaming.

The spacex constelation will have 4000 sats with higher broadband at 24ghz.

You know how much investment you need to do to carry internet by fiberoptics to each house? You need dig and make a subterraneal hole where you already have pavement, streets or other types of pipes to dodge. You know how much cost build and mantain all that?

And this system has a huge advantage.. You just paid 1 system, and you have internet no matter where you go.. you dont need to use a different service plans for your smartphone which it becomes a lot more expensive if you leave your country or in some cases, just the city.

If you have internet, you can talk with everyone in everywhere.

That is why all companies are rushing to achieve this. Because there is a lot of money behind it.. this is not a niche.. I will said that our currents internet services are niches compared to this.

After all, Elon musk plains to fund his mars dream with this.

Actually, optic fibers can also be aerial like classic phone lines. But yes, it won't be cheap best bet, would be to have a fiber coming to the neighborhood, then have a VDSL broadband on the existing copper wires for the last section. (Those last section being the most costly ones, as you have to install an optic fiber for each home)

Though, regarding the latency, it might even be greater than just going to LEO and back - ground stations aren't that cheap to build, so they might need to relay the signal through several LEO sats in order to have a link between the nearest ground station and the end user.

And some countries (*cough* china *cough*) might see from a bad eye this kind of global network they won't be able to fully control. (Especially if the 'nearest' ground station is in a neighbor country) - so chinese market might be not avaible for selling the end user's equipment set. (And yeeeah, additional 'directional' antennas powerful enough to reach out to space - guess aircraft regulation authorities will be overjoyed ) (for a reminder, current cellphone towers reach out to max 30km - horizontally. (Birds don't have cellphones ) (at least in europe - the GSM protocol there is set up that way))

Edited June 15, 2015 by sgt_flyer

[Albert VDS]

40% of the world's population has Internet, that leaves 60% without it.

According to the UN, 1,2 billion people don't have access to electricity and 1 billion only have access to unreliable access.

That leaves 2,075 billion people who could have Internet, but don't. Imagine how the world would change if those people had Internet access.

Also, you can't have 4G coverage every where.

It's just not profitable to have the whole country completely covered.

With satellites you can cover the whole globe.

The latency isn't a problem either, if you have the satellites closer to Earth.

Both Musk and Wyler plan to eliminate that latency by placing their satellites in what’s called low Earth orbit, which ranges from roughly 100 to 1,250 miles above Earth. By bringing their satellites closer to home than other satellites, SpaceX and OneWeb could cut latency from 500 milliseconds to 20 milliseconds, which is about what you’d expect from a fiber optic home internet connection in the US.

The only problem is keeping the cost per satellite low enough to keep it viable.

[SeaDog]

Even in LEO, you're still looking at a 1/4 second delay round trip, and that's just for the signal to go from the ground transmitter to the satellite and then back down to a ground receiver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Challenges_.26_limitations

I faced a similar problem (tasked for the software solution) back in the late 1980's with a ship-board inventory system which relied on a satellite phone modem connection for communications back to headquarters (Maersk). The delay was about 300ms up and another 300ms down, 600ms+ overall considering all the rest of the switching and shuffling around (processing/response from home office) required.

No, the wikipedia link you gave talks about geo stationary. For LEO is actually says latency is no issue. The ship link you're talking about also uses geo stationary satellite.

In fact, I think there are good reasons to believe satellites will in the long term offer lower latency than what is usually seen for todays broadband connections.

[Camacha]

Let us not forget that hybrid solutions are also possible. You share a satellite base station, and wire things the rest of the way traditionally.

Not true in Europe at least... You can get low bandwidth (1Mbps) DSL practically anywhere you have a phone line. Where you can't get it, you can get satellite or 3G. 4G is still only for urban areas, but it's expanding to smaller towns.

You cannot, that is my point. Even in well developed countries you cannot get fast internet everywhere and a lot of it is up to the initiative of the residents. Some people are desperate for fibre, but simply refuse to cough up the many hundreds of thousands it costs to put a cable in the ground. DSL is often not feasible because of line lengths and noise. Some people substitute with 3G, but coverage is not always good and in a lot of places it actually is very limited or expensive due to data limits.

[78stonewobble]

40% of the world's population has Internet, that leaves 60% without it.

According to the UN, 1,2 billion people don't have access to electricity and 1 billion only have access to unreliable access.

That leaves 2,075 billion people who could have Internet, but don't. Imagine how the world would change if those people had Internet access.

Also, you can't have 4G coverage every where.

It's just not profitable to have the whole country completely covered.

With satellites you can cover the whole globe.

The latency isn't a problem either, if you have the satellites closer to Earth.

The only problem is keeping the cost per satellite low enough to keep it viable.

Njyah, I think the poorest 1-2 billion people in the world might have other problems than just a lack of internet access.

[LordFerret]

40% of the world's population has Internet, that leaves 60% without it.

According to the UN, 1,2 billion people don't have access to electricity and 1 billion only have access to unreliable access.

That leaves 2,075 billion people who could have Internet, but don't. Imagine how the world would change if those people had Internet access.

Also, you can't have 4G coverage every where.

It's just not profitable to have the whole country completely covered.

With satellites you can cover the whole globe.

The latency isn't a problem either, if you have the satellites closer to Earth.

The only problem is keeping the cost per satellite low enough to keep it viable.

Those same 1+ billion people you're taking about don't even have as much as a slit-trench to crap in... and they should worry about internet access??? Try food, water, and sanitation.

No, the wikipedia link you gave talks about geo stationary. For LEO is actually says latency is no issue. The ship link you're talking about also uses geo stationary satellite.

In fact, I think there are good reasons to believe satellites will in the long term offer lower latency than what is usually seen for todays broadband connections.

Geostationary or not, you've still got the distance to travel ... radio wave propagation still dictates that time is involved to cover the distance. That time up and back for those satellites at that altitude is 1/4 second.

[Kryten]

Geostationary or not, you've still got the distance to travel ... radio wave propagation still dictates that time is involved to cover the distance. That time up and back for those satellites at that altitude is 1/4 second.

How the hell can you be on this forum of all places and not understand sats for different applications are at different altitudes? We don't have an exact figure for these, but it's certainly a lot closer than GSO.

[LordFerret]

How the hell can you be on this forum of all places and not understand sats for different applications are at different altitudes? We don't have an exact figure for these, but it's certainly a lot closer than GSO.

Having had previous involvement in satellite communications (Ham and otherwise), I understand quite well, thank you. These sats are said to use LEO. Even at say a 160km minimum orbit plus all the relaying involved in-between... I wouldn't want to have to use it for a gaming connection.