
Amazon investing $10B to compete against SpaceX in satellite broadband - amaajemyfren
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/07/amazon-gets-fcc-approval-to-launch-3236-low-earth-broadband-satellites/
======
Lavery
Related question: What's the tech here that this can be accomplished
(streaming data via satellite) without spectrum? Spectrum assets are some of
the most valuable assets in the US (and are owned by Verizon et al). Satellite
phone networks (LightSquared is the big one) have been stymied in the past by
unavailability of spectrum and US Govt. concerns about interfering with GPS.

Is that not a problem in this case?

~~~
drmpeg
They're using frequencies in the 10.7 to 30.0 GHz range (GPS is much lower at
1.575 GHz) that are already allocated to satellite operations. However, they
do have to share these frequencies with others. You can read all the frequency
stipulations in the FCC authorization.

[https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-102A1.pdf](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-102A1.pdf)

For example, operation at 27.5 to 28.35 GHz overlaps a 5G millimeter band in
the US. 5G is primary and satellite uplink is secondary in that band, so if
Kuiper interferes with a 5G installation, they can be ordered to mitigate the
interference (possibly by stopping transmissions).

------
sawaruna
Since this story came out a few days ago, does anyone know if Amazon has
commented on whether or not they plan to launch these 'themselves' / with Blue
Origin?

~~~
gexla
Right, seems like the first question people would be interested in hearing an
answer to. I assume there is no answer yet. With a quick check, I was
surprised to see that Blue Origin is developing a rocket which would be
capable of launching these things (launch in 2021?)

~~~
kiba
But could they launch as cheaply or as often as SpaceX's Falcon 9, which is
years ahead?

SpaceX isn't resting on its laurel either, with their R&D effort on Starship.

~~~
gexla
Maybe they don't need to launch as cheaply. SpaceX wasn't the first to the
idea. There are other players and these companies didn't have their own
rockets. The numbers must be good enough to work even with pre-SpaceX launch
costs.

~~~
verdverm
Elon said that the satellites are now cheaper to build than the cost to get
them to orbit, and that they need starship to make it financially viable,
iirc.

He says this during a keynote with the US Air Force about 4 months ago. He
also says a ton of other interesting things as well.

------
KoftaBob
One of the more interesting use cases for SpaceX/Starlink and Amazon’s
satellite internet projects is their use as a back haul (not sure if the
correct term) provider for other ISPs as well.

One of the biggest roadblocks to starting a new ISP or expanding an existing
ISPs service area is the big capital expenditure of wiring up areas. I would
imagine that having the ability to rent capacity on these networks of
satellites would drastically decrease the barrier to entry for new ISPs to
form.

I can also see it being useful for mobile data coverage in remote areas. You
could install a cell tower along a highway somewhere remote, and you’d just
need a solar panel to power the tower, satellite signal to get internet
coverage, and then the cell radio to broadcast that to phones.

------
kerng
Thread from yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24010633](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24010633)

------
drmpeg
Interesting tweet about interference and collisions between the two systems.

[https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/12838888929120542...](https://twitter.com/Megaconstellati/status/1283888892912054273)

Link to FCC filing.

[https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=...](https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=2540187)

------
Theodores
I would like to see the economics of this. There is a saving in not having to
have 5g towers but if everyone in a small village has to spend $$$ on their
own satellite dishes then the economics aren't going to make rural high speed
internet via satellite so good.

Plus the uplink/downlink kit will be beyond mass consumer gear so the
economies of scale won't be great.

Anyone seen the uplink kit for the SpaceX or British efforts?

------
throwawaysea
Adopting broadband from Amazon or the other tech giants like google seems like
a bad idea for society. They have too much power to begin with, and given
allegations of how amazon may have abused seller data, I wouldn’t want them to
have access to even more data. Not to mention issues around centralized
control over information and the digital town square.

------
caiobegotti
...launched with what rocket exactly? I'll believe them (and Blue Origin,
supposedly) only after they put something up in space.

~~~
solarkraft
Blue Origin's timelines are actually realistic, so I wouldn't be surprised to
see New Glenn (closer in payload to Falcon Heavy than Falcon 9) actually
launch next year.

~~~
riffraff
in what sense are they realistic?

I would be happy if they were on time, but it seems BO missed their milestones
quite often.

~~~
sitkack
Hitting objectives is way more important than hitting a date in BO's case.
Even if SpaceX has a head start, Amazon has scale.

~~~
nickik
Blue Origin is not amazon.

~~~
sitkack
When Amazon invests 10B it is. That is like saying Alphabet isn't Google.

~~~
solarkraft
Jeff Bezos invests privately, not Amazon (of course due to that relationship
talent and resources will probably flow more easily between the companies).

It's like saying SpaceX isn't Tesla.

------
blntechie
I’m wondering why it’s FCC which need to approve satellite communication
services which orbits and provides services to the entire world?

I mean is the LEO is open for all countries to launch as many satellites as
they want? What if China launches 10k satellites in the next year
hypothetically?

~~~
jankeymeulen
Because they still need ground stations (and users!) in the US?

------
blackoil
Are these supposed to be replacement of Satellite Phones? If I have a cheap
Gbps connection or a cheaper 100 Mbps mobile connection, am I still a target
customer?

~~~
7952
If they have spare bandwidth they could actually undercut existing providers.
And why not? The marginal cost of adding an additional subscriber is
effectively zero. So the cost could change by location depending on how much
competition for bandwidth there is. All they need to do is make enough money
to increase the number of satellites and maintain the network. And as the
number increases the footprint can be reduced. The satellite targets a smaller
area on the ground. And you add more subscribers using the same logic.

It's an amazing business model really. You have a different price and a direct
kind of customer in different places. A satellite starts an orbit over
Antarctica and uploads scientific data. Then heads out over the sea and
connects a few ships. Over Africa it connects rural 4g masts, schools and
thousands of small businesses. Then over the Mediterranean it serves Netflix
to cruiseline passengers. Over Europe it connects data for a NATO exercise and
rural communities. Then later over London it sends data for high frequency
traders. Then heads out over the North Sea to send YouTube to oil rig workers
and telemetry for wind turbines. Heading up into the Arctic circle it connects
a stream of airline flights to the web. And all you have to do is be
_slightly_ cheaper than the competition to win customers.

------
gilstroem
[https://www.underluckystars.com/save-our-
stars](https://www.underluckystars.com/save-our-stars)

~~~
bamboozled
Thanks for sharing this, it's an amazingly unfortunate consequence of this
technology which I never thought about.

------
sschueller
I wonder how long people are going to be ok with these projects when one of
them comes from China or Russia. Or even Germany...

------
odc
Too bad the FCC does not think about space pollution. The astronomers were
already very fed up with the Starlink constellation interfering with their
observations, now they will have to deal with twice the number of satellites.
Not to mention the risk of collision in space which keep going up.

~~~
seibelj
I’m supposed to “think of the astronomers” when billions of people will get
cheaper internet and advance humanity? Astronomers can find ways around this,
we can’t stop progress for 0.0000000001% of the population.

~~~
bamboozled
Are you entitled to clean air when 0.000000000001% of the population can make
billions from selling fossil fuels ?

~~~
dakna
Air pollution results in a higher death rate and is a public health issue.
Light pollution is certainly a problem, but probably not on the same scale.

~~~
bamboozled
This point I'm making here is that it's really just a matter of perspectives.

~~~
jessaustin
Even if one might quibble with the premise, parent's point is that the
fortunes of the many outweigh those of the few. Your point is what... the
converse? I don't think I can agree.

~~~
bamboozled
That is only because it’s the view of some peope this will be of net benefit
to the world, flossing over some of the more obvious problems we are seeing
the Internet cause today. Surveillance, disinformation, interference in
democratic process to name a few.

------
cblconfederate
These space internet monopolies look increasingly like an international
security and privacy nightmare in the making. Space wars indeed and i wonder
how non US/Korea/china people will be able to protect themselves.

