> > As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are the > real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling demand > because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to > overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe that > makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see > marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just > software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll. > - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month, that's $165M in revenue,
- A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up to 60 Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k sats in the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you assume the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own stuff, they aren't launching an external paying customer.) - The reported price per sat is $250k. Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the orbital buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and $10B for sats. - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K cluster, that's 1200 a year. That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats. Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there. So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And that's just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing costs of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from staff , R&D, etc . Numbers kinda speak for themselves here. I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he > does have big ambitions. > Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math. On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > > On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: > > Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner >> rather than later? >> > > Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for those > services to completely replace terrestrial only service. > > Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only niche? I > mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he > does have big ambitions. > > From my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the incumbents. > I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest. > > As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are the > real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling demand > because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to > overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe that > makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see > marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just > software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll. > > Mike > > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >> >> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote: >> >> Mark, >> >> >> >> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options. >> >> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. >> >> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US >> >> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there is >> >> no service. >> >> >> >> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not a >> >> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a ~1/3 >> >> take rate. >> > >> > I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many markets >> > is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers that, >> > since there is only so much money and resources to go around. >> > >> > What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the >> > opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are >> > capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low >> > hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative >> > provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other thread. >> > >> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner >> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even if >> they do they could compete with their caps. >> >> Mike >> >>