A lot left on the table by OneWeb and the Google/SpaceX constellations

[TrevorMonty]

The whole situation is reminiscent of the 90s. Reduction of launch prices (Russia's entry back then), companies working on RLVs, all kinds of satellite constellations planned (with prominent support as well).

I don't see what's different this time.

Technology has improved and new players are better financed. Here is hoping it works this time.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The whole situation is reminiscent of the 90s. Reduction of launch prices (Russia's entry back then), companies working on RLVs, all kinds of satellite constellations planned (with prominent support as well).

I don't see what's different this time.

Technology has improved and new players are better financed. Here is hoping it works this time.

Actually the problem back then was the players were not financed! A few milion vs $1B is a big difference.

[nadreck]

The whole situation is reminiscent of the 90s. Reduction of launch prices (Russia's entry back then), companies working on RLVs, all kinds of satellite constellations planned (with prominent support as well).

I don't see what's different this time.

A) Well, the electronics are different we have had about 8 - 10 Moore's law generations since then (256 to 1024 times the performance).

B) The market is different, the average consumer of video content watched broadcast television not VOD over IP.

C) The launcher market just got another large step cheaper (Musk vs Russia) with promises of further price cuts which, if they do not appear, will be just like Pegasus and other launchers that were supposed to revolutionize but failed to.  So we don't know if that step is different yet, but we will in a few years. 

D) The Chinese and Indian economies, as well as other developing nations, can easily absorb 10 times the amount of services that they could have in 1998.

E) We are not on the brink of an inventory surplus from over manufacturing in anticipation of Y2K and then crash of dumping/discounting that inventory (including massive overbuild of fiber capacity) post Y2K

[Oli]

The whole situation is reminiscent of the 90s. Reduction of launch prices (Russia's entry back then), companies working on RLVs, all kinds of satellite constellations planned (with prominent support as well).

I don't see what's different this time.

A) Well, the electronics are different we have had about 8 - 10 Moore's law generations since then (256 to 1024 times the performance).

B) The market is different, the average consumer of video content watched broadcast television not VOD over IP.

C) The launcher market just got another large step cheaper (Musk vs Russia) with promises of further price cuts which, if they do not appear, will be just like Pegasus and other launchers that were supposed to revolutionize but failed to.  So we don't know if that step is different yet, but we will in a few years. 

D) The Chinese and Indian economies, as well as other developing nations, can easily absorb 10 times the amount of services that they could have in 1998.

E) We are not on the brink of an inventory surplus from over manufacturing in anticipation of Y2K and then crash of dumping/discounting that inventory (including massive overbuild of fiber capacity) post Y2K

a) So have electronics in ground-based systems, and they are not power-limited.

b) The demand for internet was there, with less infrastructure in place than today.

c) Sure and I think at some point in the future new, lucrative markets will appear. I don't think its satellite internet though.

d) I don't know about India, but countries like China and Russia won't allow their data to go over an American satellite network. The NSA will have access anyway, SpaceX will comply and not talk about it like everyone else. I think you're right though, there is definitely more potential in the developing world than back then.

Btw, Google is part of a consortium that is currently building an undersea fiber optic cable from the US to Brazil for $60m. Capacity: 64 terabits per sec.

[savuporo]

Technology has improved and new players are better financed. Here is hoping it works this time.

Actually the problem back then was the players were not financed! A few milion vs $1B is a big difference.

Uh, no. Iridium spent like 5-6 billions. Globalstar had billions. They were all backed by at the time big tech giants - Motorola was a godzilla.  EDIT : Oh, and Teledesic hit near $1B in '99
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

[meekGee]

b) The demand for internet was there, with less infrastructure in place than today.

I don't think that's true.  The demand today for mobile data (e.g. cars) is increasing, and it is characterized by wide geographical dispersion.  This is a specific kind of demand that is difficult to meet with land-based infrastructure.

Mobile towers are only a partial answer, they too need to link to the backbone, and it is difficult to scale them.

I fully expect, for example, that each and every car will be an internet node within only a few years.

[nadreck]

The whole situation is reminiscent of the 90s. Reduction of launch prices (Russia's entry back then), companies working on RLVs, all kinds of satellite constellations planned (with prominent support as well).

I don't see what's different this time.

A) Well, the electronics are different we have had about 8 - 10 Moore's law generations since then (256 to 1024 times the performance).

B) The market is different, the average consumer of video content watched broadcast television not VOD over IP.

C) The launcher market just got another large step cheaper (Musk vs Russia) with promises of further price cuts which, if they do not appear, will be just like Pegasus and other launchers that were supposed to revolutionize but failed to.  So we don't know if that step is different yet, but we will in a few years. 

D) The Chinese and Indian economies, as well as other developing nations, can easily absorb 10 times the amount of services that they could have in 1998.

E) We are not on the brink of an inventory surplus from over manufacturing in anticipation of Y2K and then crash of dumping/discounting that inventory (including massive overbuild of fiber capacity) post Y2K

a) So have electronics in ground-based systems, and they are not power-limited.

b) The demand for internet was there, with less infrastructure in place than today.

c) Sure and I think at some point in the future new, lucrative markets will appear. I don't think its satellite internet though.

d) I don't know about India, but countries like China and Russia won't allow their data to go over an American satellite network. The NSA will have access anyway, SpaceX will comply and not talk about it like everyone else. I think you're right though, there is definitely more potential in the developing world than back then.

Btw, Google is part of a consortium that is currently building an undersea fiber optic cable from the US to Brazil for $60m. Capacity: 64 terabits per sec.

A) yes but the increase in capability in electronics is missing from a lot of existing satellite systems and makes things that were impossible in 1998 possible today.

B) Lets agree to disagree, the demand for internet was not what it is today and as someone else pointed it it was no where near WHERE it is today. I could list many applications that are possible with the network SpaceX is proposing and more importantly with the potential they are creating for other satellite systems that just weren't possible back then. People are starting to get used to (and not even knowing that they are) the cloud being there for them all the time.

C) I don't see it as the only market, and I do see several niches of satellite internet that, if it creates a service at the costs suggested, will create market that will only exist if delivery of internet by satellite at those volume levels can exist.

D) Ah - I will wager that China, Russia and the non-islamic form Soviet sociallist republics will accept this, I think it will be the hard line islamic countries that resist the most. And what difference does having NSA tapping the comms have for russian commercial use? Their governments will tap them from the ground end anyway. Anyone who wants secure communications encrypts end to end. Then the NSA only knows where your packets went, not what was in them. NSA taps would not block or invalidate TOR for example, or more importantly, those secret systems similar to TOR but that are not disclosed.  So let's agree to disagree here.

Bonus round: Google project between US and Brazil (and the follow on one between EU and Brazil) are great for the end points of the cable but don't help further off. As well cable infrastructure over land is a lot more expensive because of the breaks for router points and the land rights.