Starlink : Markets and Marketing

[RocketGoBoom]

I was mostly responding to the first part of your post, which was not EU specific.  The new constellation deployment rules still give a very long time to complete the constellation.

I agree. SpaceX is already at 20% complete on one of their ITU filings with 300 of 1,500 launched in orbit. They will reach the 50% milestone of 750/1,500 satellites after 8 more launches. 13 launches X 60 satellites = 780 satellites. That will likely happen by June or July of 2020.

The full 1,500 satellites will require 25 launches X 60 sats = 1,500.
Bingo ... ITU required percentage of launched satellites complete for one SpaceX application.
ITU spectrum secured.

If SpaceX does 2 launches per month, they will reach that point by December 2020 or January 2021.

So, what will SpaceX have secured by finishing their first ITU filing so quickly later this year? I am not positive. Is it global Ku and Ka band rights for their entire constellation? Do the ITU rules allow for changes in an established constellation spectrum rights once established, with additions as needed for more capacity? I suspect the rules must allow for this.

SpaceX breaking up their constellation into 20 ITU filings of 1,500 sats each was very clever I think.

[gongora]

That last round of SpaceX filings (the extra 20k sats) was strange.  If the FCC ever gets around to starting another processing round for the Ku/Ka band constellations it will be interesting to see how SpaceX plays it.

The current satellites SpaceX is launching should be towards their first ITU filing, right?  (The one that was filed originally through Norway.)  That is the group of Ku/Ka band sats that has been approved by the FCC.  I'm really not clear on how their orbit changes have affected their ITU filings.  Did they have to make new filings, or amend the old ones?  The ITU process and publicly available information is very opaque to me.  The FCC makes a lot more information public (or at least easily accessible).

The ITU satellite deployment milestones are so long that I don't think they're really a deterrent for anyone.  I'm very interested though to see if Telesat goes through with ordering satellites this year when two competitors are already starting their main deployment phase.  Telesat has ITU priority in some frequency ranges (whatever that gets you in various jurisdictions) but they'll be years behind in reaching operational status.

[mandrewa]

I don't believe the British government will block Starlink.   Or to say it another way, I have seen nothing, absolutely nothing, to indicate that the Johnson government is going to be opposed to Starlink.  That is not the same thing as saying that they will immediately approve it.

On the other hand, I do have a fear, perhaps unreasonable, that the EU might play dirty pool and find some excuse to functionally prohibit Starlink.  There is always an excuse if you want one.  Now that is just a fear.  And I hope it's groundless.  But even if they don't do that, there will surely be a delay in granting approval.

OneWeb's advantage is its connections to many governments (the EU through Arianespace is a big investor) and many corporations.  Starlink stands pretty much alone.  Starlink will be effectively deployed roughly a year and a half before OneWeb.  That advantage can be dissipated with bureaucratic delay.

[RocketGoBoom]

The current satellites SpaceX is launching should be towards their first ITU filing, right?  (The one that was filed originally through Norway.)  That is the group of Ku/Ka band sats that has been approved by the FCC.  I'm really not clear on how their orbit changes have affected their ITU filings.  Did they have to make new filings, or amend the old ones? 

I recall reading one article a few months ago that SpaceX was amending existing filings and some competitors were not happy about it. But I could not find the article again just now.

The ITU satellite deployment milestones are so long that I don't think they're really a deterrent for anyone.  I'm very interested though to see if Telesat goes through with ordering satellites this year when two competitors are already starting their main deployment phase.  Telesat has ITU priority in some frequency ranges (whatever that gets you in various jurisdictions) but they'll be years behind in reaching operational status.

Before the ITU rule changes in November 2019, there was a lot of confusion as to who would was first, based on only a few (as few as two) satellites being in orbit. Of course that didn't make sense. Someone could launch a few cube sats, claim victory, then squat on the Ku/Ka band spectrum for years and never complete their constellation. Maybe even sell that spectrum to Amazon Kuiper later. So those rules needed to be updated and it happened.

But once the new rules were in place, it appears clear to me that all applications since 2011 now fall under the new rules in order to gain ITU spectrum approval for LEO Ku/Ka band. And frankly, I don't see anyone else even remotely on any schedule that will beat OneWeb and SpaceX from securing the top two spots and therefore, the premium real estate in LEO.

If I have missed something in the ITU articles, someone please point me to it with a link. Thanks.

[kb9zm]

As a person stuck with satellite internet I would jump to any service that would offer internet service that was better even at higher prices then I pay now. 

[Lar]

This may or may not be the right thread to discuss the legal implications, but here we are. Russia and the PR of China are not in the EU so the EU arguments are not that relevant when discussing their actions. I suspect PR of China will ban end user terminal ownership of Starlink terminals unless there is some way for them to route traffic through the Great Firewall, because direct Starlink connection circumvents their censorship.

[dcengineering]

 Posting the same thing over and over isn't going to make it correct. Starlink is not going to grant connections in areas that have banned the service. There's no need to worry about illegal equipment because the system won't work there.
 I hate to be the one to break it to you, but freedom of the market, speech or anything else is not universal.

Ah yes, the "you're wrong, just deal with" argument with zero additional substance. No, I don't think I will. There is no mechanism for countries which don't want Starlink or any other constellation to force these companies to do anything. Period. The reality is much more complicated than you are acknowledging.

What actually ends up happening in practice is that Russia, China (or whatever country) makes an agreement directly with the company offering satellite services. These companies don't want their services blocked outright, so they agree to certain terms to prevent that. This is exactly what happened with Iridium and Inmarsat who's services are restricted and controlled, but not blocked. However, those companies offer services too expensive for use by the general population anyways, and make most of their money from airlines or marine traffic where it makes little sense for either party to want to block. Starlink is targeting a different and much wider customer base however, so it is not directly comparable.

Despite your claims it is not possible to say how this will play out. If these countries were to outright deny all Starlink services in their territory from the start, then it makes little sense for SpaceX to help them accomplish that. Doing so would actually weaken their own negotiating position. Again though, there is little reason these countries would want this outcome either especially when the host country doesn't offer a comparable service. What they want is for the service to be tightly controlled and there are numerous mechanisms to accomplish this outcome if the two parties can come to an agreement.

Personally, I am going to bet on the guy who has the first wholly owned vehicle factory in China to be able to iron out an agreement long before this ever becomes an issue. We will find out what happens should that not be the case, but stop pretending you know what the outcome will be years in advance

[abaddon]

There is no mechanism for countries which don't want Starlink or any other constellation to force these companies to do anything. Period.

Of course there are methods - plenty of them.  Receiving equipment could be declared illegal.  (Yes, you could still buy grey-market items, but at a high level of risk that would greatly depress usage).  Tariffs are another effective way to pressure companies.  Oh, and that great factory you mention, you think Elon is going to fight the Chinese govt over Starlink when Tesla has so many eggs in the China basket?  They have all kinds of leverage over him.

Soverign nations - particularly autocratic and repressive ones - have many ways to force companies to do what they want. You just have to see the NBA's behavior for a recent example of this.

[RocketGoBoom]

Oh, and that great factory you mention, you think Elon is going to fight the Chinese govt over Starlink when Tesla has so many eggs in the China basket?  They have all kinds of leverage over him.

The biggest customer in China is likely the Chinese government and state owned companies. Plus major Chinese online companies, Alibaba, the big Chinese telecoms, etc.

SpaceX will not merely be B2C. A huge portion of their business will be B2B for telecom companies. Chinese data centers will park a Starlink antenna on their roof and access the Starlink network globally. China can censor whatever they want on their end and still use Starlink.

Starlink doesn't even have to do the censorship. China can do it on their end by just limiting the locations of approved connections to Chinese businesses that follow China's rules.

SpaceX will play ball with that.
Elon is not in the business of bringing freedom of speech and content to China.

[vsatman]

SpaceX already has FCC and ITU permission for the first 12,000 satellites.

Approval from FCC - YES!
Approval from ITU - NO!!

[envy887]

Approval from ITU - NO!!

Can you elaborate on that?

[dcengineering]

There is no mechanism for countries which don't want Starlink or any other constellation to force these companies to do anything. Period.

Of course there are methods - plenty of them.  Receiving equipment could be declared illegal.  (Yes, you could still buy grey-market items, but at a high level of risk that would greatly depress usage).  Tariffs are another effective way to pressure companies.  Oh, and that great factory you mention, you think Elon is going to fight the Chinese govt over Starlink when Tesla has so many eggs in the China basket?  They have all kinds of leverage over him.

Soverign nations - particularly autocratic and repressive ones - have many ways to force companies to do what they want. You just have to see the NBA's behavior for a recent example of this.

I believe the word I used was force. I never said China has no leverage in this situation, don't confuse the two. Sure, China can go after Tesla if they want to but they have just as many eggs in that basket as Musk does, they very much want that project to succeed. Musk is a rockstar in China just like he is in the US, a one man bridge between east and west, going down this path benefits absolutely no one, nor is there any real reason to in the first place.

I keep saying it but nobody wants to listen, and instead choose to attack arguments I am not making.

It would be almost trivial for Starlink to route Chinese traffic exclusively through Chinese ground stations. Has Musk ever stated that a goal of Starlink was to circumvent national firewalls? Not that I have seen, so why does everyone assume that China or anywhere else would automatically try to ban Starlink outright in order to prevent an outcome that SpaceX isn't even aiming for in the first place? These things will be negotiated until a solution agreeable to both sides can be found, and there is plenty of middle ground to work with on that front.

Now, will China apply fees, tariffs or restrictions etc in order to protect a domestic competitor when one comes on-line? You bet. Again, totally separate topic.

[AC in NC]

I keep saying it but nobody wants to listen, and instead choose to attack arguments I am not making.

It's because they are doing you the courtesy of presuming you are making an argument that makes sense and is interesting to discuss.  The "they can't force" argument is kind of reductionist and silly.  Of course they don't.  That is an argument only one hair's breadth above tuatological.

Countries have enough leverage that SpaceX will effectively allow themselves to be forced for totally logical reasons.

By the way:  Speaking of "arguments not being made", several of your preceding posts argue against a country being able to force SpaceX into geofencing.  No one argued that in the posts I saw you responding to.  They said SpaceX will geofence [voluntarily] which they will do because that is being a good global corporate citizen and the proper way to do business.

Further discussion should be predicated on what others are suggesting:

1)  SpaceX will not operate within sovereign entities where not (explicitly or implicitly) approved; and,
2)  They will facilitate their ability to do that architecturally through geofencing.

No one is arguing what any sovereign will or will not do.

Has Musk ever stated that a goal of Starlink was to circumvent national firewalls? Not that I have seen, so why does everyone assume that China or anywhere else would automatically try to ban Starlink outright in order to prevent an outcome that SpaceX isn't even aiming for in the first place?

Starlink is de facto, from an architectural (not content) perspective, a circumvention of national firewalls.  That may be enough reason right there.  I'm unconvinced that particular sovereign entities are going to be all that fond of trusting backbones they don't have some considerable insight about.

[RocketGoBoom]

Approval from FCC - YES!
Approval from ITU - NO!!

Can you elaborate on that?

FCC approves only USA companies, then hands off the filing to the ITU on behalf of any company from the USA.
It is the same for every country. Each country only regulates their own companies, then send to ITU for global approval of this type of spectrum.

ITU changed the rules for everyone in November 2019.

Under the new rules, for all applications since 2011, constellation satellite owners have to launch (and bring into use) 10% within 2 years, 50% within 5 years and 100% within 7 years.

Based on progress so far, it looks like OneWeb (UK) and SpaceX (USA) will win the top two most valuable spots for ITU spectrum approval. Every other constellation that comes later will have to be designed to work around the first two.

https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/2019-PR23.aspx

Filings for frequency assignments to NGSO satellite systems composed of hundreds and thousands of satellites have been received by ITU since 2011, in particular in frequency bands allocated to the fixed-satellite service or the mobile-satellite service.

Under the newly adopted regulatory approach these systems will be required to deploy 10 per cent of their constellations within two years from the end of the current period for bringing into use, 50 per cent within five years, and complete the deployment within seven years.

[dcengineering]

I keep saying it but nobody wants to listen, and instead choose to attack arguments I am not making.

It's because they are doing you the courtesy of presuming you are making an argument that makes sense and is interesting to discuss.  The "they can't force" argument is kind of reductionist and silly.  Of course they don't.  That is an argument only one hair's breadth above tuatological.

Countries have enough leverage that SpaceX will effectively allow themselves to be forced for totally logical reasons.

By the way:  Speaking of "arguments not being made", several of your preceding posts argue against a country being able to force SpaceX into geofencing.  No one argued that in the posts I saw you responding to.  They said SpaceX will geofence [voluntarily] which they will do because that is being a good global corporate citizen and the proper way to do business.

Further discussion should be predicated on what others are suggesting:

1)  SpaceX will not operate within sovereign entities where not (explicitly or implicitly) approved; and,
2)  They will facilitate their ability to do that architecturally through geofencing.

No one is arguing what any sovereign will or will not do.

Well, I guess you missed all the content of those discussions because neither point 1) nor point 2) are true. That's basically what I have been saying this whole time? You can keep trying to frame this in black and white terms but that's not the way things will actually happen. I am likely not the greatest communicator but that's what i've been trying to say.

There will be no blanket ban, and if there is SpaceX has negative incentive to geo-fence its Starlink constellation. Is that clear enough of a statement? China certainly has a lot of leverage, but so does SpaceX in these negotiations, far more than you and others are giving credit to. We seem to be unintentionally focused on China here, but while we are Musk is not a guy China has any intention of alienating when SpaceX is extremely likely to give in to their security demands without a fight anyways. Im not talking about full market access, its all about degrees of access. Starlink can be severely restricted yet still make a killing on what it does have access to

Speaking exclusively in terms of ban or no ban is foolish and counterproductive. I apologize if I wrongly assumed a website full of extremely smart and well read individuals would see the nuance in between.

Starlink is de facto, from an architectural (not content) perspective, a circumvention of national firewalls.  That may be enough reason right there.  I'm unconvinced that particular sovereign entities are going to be all that fond of trusting backbones they don't have some considerable insight about.

Why would Starlink be different than Iridium or Inmarsat?

[su27k]

Approval from ITU - NO!!

Can you elaborate on that?

I think this page is the ITU approval results: https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/go/space-epfd-data

STEAM-1/2 are the original filing for Starlink, filed by Norway, and they have received favorable findings. I think this is just the 4400 satellite constellation at 1150km, now they changed the orbit to 550km, they'll need to modify their filing with ITU, I don't think this modification is approved yet.

[gongora]

FCC approves only USA companies, then hands off the filing to the ITU on behalf of any company from the USA.
It is the same for every country. Each country only regulates their own companies, then send to ITU for global approval of this type of spectrum.

Not exactly.  Companies can file through other countries, it happens all the time.  SpaceX did their initial filings through Norway and then started doing it through the US after everything became public knowledge.  Companies routinely set up a subsidiary in a friendly regulatory jurisdiction and legally base the satellite(s) there.

ITU changed the rules for everyone in November 2019.

Under the new rules, for all applications since 2011, constellation satellite owners have to launch (and bring into use) 10% within 2 years, 50% within 5 years and 100% within 7 years.

https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/2019-PR23.aspx

Filings for frequency assignments to NGSO satellite systems composed of hundreds and thousands of satellites have been received by ITU since 2011, in particular in frequency bands allocated to the fixed-satellite service or the mobile-satellite service.

Under the newly adopted regulatory approach these systems will be required to deploy 10 per cent of their constellations within two years from the end of the current period for bringing into use, 50 per cent within five years, and complete the deployment within seven years.

The bringing into use deadline is seven years, so that's 9 years to deploy 10% and 14 years to complete the constellation.

Based on progress so far, it looks like OneWeb (UK) and SpaceX (USA) will win the top two most valuable spots for ITU spectrum approval. Every other constellation that comes later will have to be designed to work around the first two.

Anyone who filed before SpaceX or Oneweb and gets their constellation up within the allotted timeframe would have ITU priority.  Getting your whole constellation launched first doesn't matter.  Oneweb and Telesat have priority for most of the frequencies.

[AC in NC]

Speaking exclusively in terms of ban or no ban is foolish and counterproductive. I apologize if I wrongly assumed a website full of extremely smart and well read individuals would see the nuance in between.

You are 3 days, 7 posts, and an unknown timeframe of lurking into your time here.  Welcome!!!  Seriously, this site is full of exactly those type of people and they welcome new posters in one of the most gracious manners anywhere on the interwebs.  But when you find yourself arguing with them in your first few posts, you should recognize that yourself as a red flag without it needing be pointed out.   All those smart people are discussing exactly the nuance between ban and no ban that you insultingly suggest they are not. It's the logical fallacy of the strawman to characterize their positions as something they are not.

We aren't speaking in terms of "ban or no ban" but rather "can can or can't ban".  Countries effectively "can ban" Starlink from operating in their countries and discussion otherwise is pointless. 

You've wed yourself to a hobby-horse strawman that no one is arguing and taking aggressive positions against a panoply of the best posters (not me) on this site.  If you really think (1) from my two points isn't true, that's so far divorced from reality that you are going to have an extradordinarily difficult time engaging productively here.

Cheers

[RocketGoBoom]

Based on progress so far, it looks like OneWeb (UK) and SpaceX (USA) will win the top two most valuable spots for ITU spectrum approval. Every other constellation that comes later will have to be designed to work around the first two.

Anyone who filed before SpaceX or Oneweb and gets their constellation up within the allotted timeframe would have ITU priority.  Getting your whole constellation launched first doesn't matter.  Oneweb and Telesat have priority for most of the frequencies.

I see what you are saying there.

Correct me if I am wrong, the constellations that OneWeb and Telesat are launching/planning (and their ITU filings) are orders of magnitude smaller than what SpaceX is doing and has already filed for. SpaceX has filed 20 different ITU applications for 30,000 to 40,000 satellites, basically covering the entire planet except the north and south pole.

Telesat has not yet even selected the satellite manufacturing company for their proposed LEO constellation. There is an open question as to whether or not they can meet the 10% (2 year) and 50% (5 year) time requirements of the ITU. As of right now, they only have one LEO test satellite in orbit from 2018. When are those deadlines and what are the consequences for not meeting them? The goal of the new ITU rules is to prevent companies from filing for ITU approval and then squatting on the spectrum rights. The new rules require launch progress. Telesat is still trying to pick their manufacturing supplier. SpaceX is going to be signing up Canadian customers within a year or two and possibly taking away Telesat revenue and profits. Telesat is subsidized by the Canadian government and will survive this. But the resources for launching a LEO constellation will be expensive. We will see who coughs up the money, Loral and/or the Canadian Public Pension Board. I have my doubts about the Telesat LEO constellation ever happening.

OneWeb seems more solid, financed by SoftBank and already launching. They will likely complete their ITU applications on time.

[LouScheffer]

I have seen articles and comments in online forums that phased array antennas are about $30,000 each and those are the new ones just introduced in the past year. The only entities that buy these things are airlines, the US military, government entities, etc. Many of the comments have been extremely doubtful that SpaceX and OneWeb are going to be able to get the prices down to consumer levels anytime soon.

I have no idea if this is true or not. I find it hard to believe that the parts involved cost anywhere near that amount. $30,000 probably takes into account low volume production, lots of R&D recovery, salesman commissions, etc.

But at the end of the day, I have no idea what a consumer quality phased array antenna is going to cost SpaceX on a per customer basis. I wish someone would provide us with some solid info.

This is of course a critical question.  The $30,000 cost for commercial vendors now seems plausible.  Here is an 8 channel chip for Ka band.  If you had a 16x16 array (256 elements) it would be about pizza box size.  It would require 32 of these chips for receive, and 32 of the corresponding chips for transmit, so 64 chips in all.  I found one source online for $136 each, so that's about $10K worth of chips.  This would appear to be the major expense, so a $30K consumer price seems about right.

Now the question is how much cheaper you could get by spending a bunch of money to build a custom chip that did exactly what you need and no more, and only at the exact frequencies you intend to use.  If, for example, you could put 64 channels on a chip and make it for $50, then suddenly you need only 8 chips (4 receive, 4 transmit) for only $400 chip cost per terminal.  Without doing detailed design, I suspect this may be possible (for example, knowing your frequencies in advance, you might use 8 reference signals at 45^o phase shifts, which could allow you to replace phase shifters with simple MUXs.  You can use tuned power amplifiers, etc.)

So overall, I think a $30K price now is plausible, but it might well be possible to bring the cost down to $1000 or thereabouts.   Of course the design of the chips and the masks to make them might well be about $10M-$20M up front.  So this would only make sense if you intend to make 10s of thousands of units, all for the exact same market.  This market does not exist yet, which is why no-one has done it already.  But LEO direct to many points might make this development practical.