SpaceX Starlink beta and beyond

SpaceX began public beta testing of the Starlink Internet service in the northern US late last October. Since then, they have made many software updates based on the beta experience and have expanded the uninterrupted-coverage area by launching new satellites. By the end of the year, they had begun beta service in southern Canada and sent beta test invitations to a few UK users. The beta-eligibility area is expected to expand from the current 45-53 degree latitude this month or next.

SpaceX is actively seeking permission to operate in other nations. The legal ins-and-outs are confusing but it has foreign affiliates in at least 5 European countries and one of those, Starlink Holdings Netherlands B.V., has subsidiaries in 4-6 other European nations, including Germany and Greece, and in Argentina. SpaceX also has foreign affiliates in Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and South Africa and is in discussion with the Philippine government.

SpaceX will have to establish relationships with every nation they plan to operate in and these affiliate companies are an important asset. They also have contacts through their launch business, for example in Argentina, where they launched the SAOCOM satellites. This is obviously a fast-changing situation and you can watch the list grow and find more information by following this FAQ wiki and the Starlink discussion on Reddit.

The cost of the beta service in relatively affluent nations seems to be roughly the same. In the US, beta testers are paying $99 per month for the service and $499 for a terminal, including a tripod and WiFi router. In Canada, it's $649 CAD and $129 CAD per month and £439 and £89 per month for service in the UK. There are no data caps for now, but that might change if demand outstrips the evolving capacity. Elon Musk claims that users can easily install the terminal themselves -- just point it at the sky and plug it in -- and, while that may be true for users with a clear view of the sky, others will have the added expense of creating custom mounts to avoid trees and other obstacles.

What about the prices in less affluent nations like the Philippines, South Africa, Chile, Columbia, and Argentina?

The percent of the rural population that can afford the current beta prices is lower in those nations than in North America and Europe and the gap is even wider in many other nations. SpaceX will either charge less in poor nations in order to fully utilize capacity or focus on organizations like schools and clinics rather than individual consumers.

In addition to licenses, SpaceX will need ground stations with fiber connectivity to the regions they serve. The map shown here shows ground stations in North America and Australia, but it is somewhat out of date. They are also working on ground stations in France and New Zealand and, as with licenses, Reddit is a good place to follow current developments.

SpaceX has a clear lead over other would-be low-Earth orbit Internet service, providers. They have 874 working satellites in orbit, beta-testers in four nations, affiliates in others, and superior launch technology, but this is just the start of the game. Satellite broadband is a dynamic, multi-dimensional market; technology is changing rapidly and SpaceX has formidable competition. The situation reminds me of "IBM and the seven dwarfs" in the 1960s.

The digital divide has persisted over the life of the Internet.

National Bandwidth Potential, a novel Internet diffusion metric indicating application feasibility, shows a persistent digital access divide.

People have been trying to measure the global diffusion of the Internet and the digital divide between rich and poor nation for twenty five years. The first to do so was Larry Landweber, who noted whether or not a nation had an Internet (or other) connection. It was a binary metric -- yes or no -- and it was suitable to its time because there were only a handful of users who were restricted to teaching and research, using a few applications like email, file transfer, news groups and remote login.

1991 Internet diffusion (purple)

Five years later, the Internet had many more users and applications in commerce, government, entertainment, etc., so my colleagues and I developed a multidimensional Internet diffusion framework. One of our dimensions was pervasiveness, based on the number of users of the Internet per capita.

That made sense in 1995 since there were relatively few applications available for the slow dial-up connections of the time. A few people had faster ISDN or DSL connections and an organization might connect over a faster digital link, but most users were running the same few applications over analog phone lines.

Today, users per capita is pretty well meaningless. A Cuban who accesses email using a 2G cell phone and a Google Fiber user who has symmetric gigabit access to multiple computers and devices on a home LAN are clearly not equal.

To some degree, we anticipated this sort of thing via the connectivity infrastructure dimension in our framework. It considered international and intranational backbone bandwidth, Internet exchange points and last-mile access methods, but it was an imprecise measure -- mapping a nation into five levels -- and data was not readily available. (Our case studies typically required two weeks of in-country interviews).

Skipping ahead twenty years, a paper by Martin Hilbert uses an interesting diffusion metric -- nationally installed bandwidth potential (BP), which is a function of the number of telecommunication subscriptions (fixed and mobile), the kind of access technology per subscription (cable, DSL, GSM, etc) and the corresponding bandwidth per access technology. Their estimation of the latter is quite complex, taking factors like data type, upload/download speed, compression, etc. into consideration. The methodology is described in a ten page supplement to the paper. (It is behind a paywall -- let me know if you would like a copy).

Hilbert computed the BP of 172 countries from 1986 to 2014 and observed that the digital access divide is persistent. It is true that wireless connectivity is relatively inexpensive and mobile Internet use is growing rapidly in developing nations, but it is just as clear that many applications are precluded by the speed and form factor of mobile devices. A WhatsApp chat with a friend is not the equivalent of watching a high-resolution movie on a large screen TV and I am confident that Hilbert did not conduct his research or write the paper I read on a mobile phone. Even reading this blog post, following its links to other documents and taking notes on it would be tedious on a phone.

I expect this imbalance to persist because improved technology is costly and it enables ever more complex, demanding applications. The only trend I see that may in part reduce this feasible-application gap is the move to server-side processing for big data and AI applications, but even then interaction and the display of results will require bandwidth.

Hilbert's data also shows global shifts in application feasibility. As shown below, BP dominance has shifted from the US in the early, NSFNET days to China today. Korea has joined the top ten and the shares of Japan and Western Europe have dropped. The share of the bottom 162 countries rose slightly in 2001, but had fallen below the 1986 level by 2014.

Ten countries with most installed bandwidth potential

Income differences explain much of the persistence of the digital divide, but policies regarding Internet infrastructure ownership and regulation are also important. For example Estonia ranks 40th in the world in GDP per capita, but is ranked 20th on the International Telecommunication Union ICT Development Index.

Policy choices may play an even larger role among the top ten nations. The US ranks 9th in GDP per capita and Korea is 30th, but my son, who lives in Korea, pays $22 per month for symmetric, 100 mbps connectivity and has a choice of several competing Internet service providers. I live in the US and pay considerably more than he does for considerably slower service and have no ISP choice -- I am stuck with Time Warner Cable.

While we are waiting for enlightened policies, we can hope for technical change like the OneWeb and Spacex satellite Internet projects.

Will Google Fiber go nationwide?

Today's New York Times has an article on yanking US broadband out of the slow lane. Might Google Fiber inspire broadband competition? Better yet, might it be broadband competition? (One also wonders why this article appeared now -- might it have been encouraged by Google PR)?

The article presents a good overview of the mediocre state of broadband connectivity in the US. It prominently features Google Fiber as a possible solution, quoting Milo Medin, who heads the Google Fiber project and was a co-founder of @ Home Networks, a pioneering first attempt to bring broadband to homes shortly after the passage of the 1996 Telecommunication Act (which was designed to create competition, but failed).

Google's announcement that they would install Google Fiber in Provo, Utah, drove speculation that they were planning to go nation wide. This article does nothing to dampen that speculation.

-----

Update 5/31/2013

Speaking at the Fiber-to-the-Home Council meeting, Milo Medin, Vice President of Access Services for Google, told an audience of city planners, engineers, and mayors that Google Fiber is a business that they expect to make money from -- "a great business to be in."

Medin admitted that at first Google didn't see Google Fiber as a viable business -- it was to be a testbed for Google services. At that time, Google was lobbying for a Gigabit networking bill in Congress, but "someone on the management team" said "If we really think this is important, why whine to the government, when we can do it ourselves?"

Rather than worry about Federal or State governments and subsidies, as the phone and cable companies do, it seems that cooperation with cities is a strategic part of their plan.

The project began with a call for proposals from cities wishing to become the first gigabit testbed. Medin said "We thought a handful of cities would say they were interested ... Then we saw that 1,100 communities replied. No one at the time thought there was a real business here. But that changed when we saw the interest."

Google wants to be your ISP! Wow -- when do the come to Los Angeles?

-----

Update 6/25/2013

Seattle will have gigabit connectivity for $80 per month with no installation fee with a one year contract. This sounds pretty much like Google Fiber and lends credence to Google's claim that this is a real business.

One caveat -- it is not clear which parts of the city will be covered. As of last December, they spoke of 14 neighborhoods, shown on this map:

-----

Update 7/2/2013

This article and picture gallery profiles Startup Village, home to more than 20 startups in a cluster of small houses in Kansas City. The village was established to take advantage of Google Fiber, but the community of local start-ups is even more important than 1Gbps speed.

-----

Update 7/15/2013

More innovation spurred by Google Fiber -- The KC Gigabit Education Project.

-----

Update 8/1/2013

Google to offer Starbucks WiFi (http://bit.ly/142g2Mp). Google says that most locations should see 10x faster Internet speeds than currently available. Every single one of the over 7,000 locations will see this increase in speeds, and the rollout should be completed over the next 18 months. And, Starbucks in areas with Google Fiber access will utilize Google Fiber and its gigabit Internet speeds.

Bob Frankston (http://bit.ly/1edA9J7) has pointed out that as browsing speed rises, ad clicks rise, so Google has a hidden motive for gigabit speed.

-----

Update 8/5/2013

Japan and Korea lead in fiber penetration -- US 14th

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports that Japan and Korea lead the world in fiber broadband penetration. The US is 14th, trailing Turkey. I've given up on ever seeing FIOS in my neighborhood -- let's root for Google Fiber.

More statistics at the OECD Broadband Portal.

-----

Update 8/15/2013

DSL Reports has seen an internal memo sent to Comcast employees, which says they will revise their bundle offerings and pricing in Provo, Utah in response to Google Fiber.  Google is offering aggressive competition, and, if the leaked report is accurate, Comcast will still be much slower than Google.

_____
Update 10/26/2014

Google has a 180 day license to experiment with millimeter wirelss transmission. The high frequency transmission would cover only short distances, but, if they are thinking of taking Google Fiber nationwide, they may be looking for a technology to cover the last few hundred yards from an access point on a street to the houses on the block. Google (or municipally owned fiber) would provide high speed backhaul.

_____
Update 10/27/2014

Google is evaluating 34 cities for the possibility of installing Google Fiber.

-----
Update 10/29/2014

Google has a 180 day license to experiment with millimeter wireless transmission. The high frequency transmission would cover only short distances, but, if they are thinking of taking Google Fiber nationwide, they may be looking for a technology to cover the last few hundred yards from an access point on a street to the houses on the block. Google fiber (or municipal fiber, as in Stockholm) would provide high speed backhaul.

-----
Update 3/2/2015

Milo Medin, VP of Access Services at Google Fiber, spoke of problems they have dealing with city bureaucracy at the Comtel Summit last week.

Medin mentioned byzantine permission processes, inaccurate information about infrastructure and the reluctance of owners of multi-unit buildings to cooperate as hurting some cities chance to attract Google Fiber.

His remarks must have left folks from the incumbent ISPs smiling and mumbling "we told you so." They also make me curious as to the nature of the deals Google makes with the cities. Does Google expect some sort of advantage over the incumbents? Do they prohibit municipal ownership of infrastructure in the future?

Google is offering a terrific deal in Fiber cities today, but what will happen in, say, ten years if Google advertising revenue has flattened and the company has a lot of employees and overhead? Will they become just another oligopolistic ISP?

-----
Update 3/4/2015

Under Title II, Google can now access telephone poles, simplifying the installation of Google fiber, but what fees do they have to pay for that access and what sort of red tape permitting may they face?

When the 1996 Telecommunications Act ordered incumbent telephone companies to grant competitors access to their lines, the incumbents stifled those efforts. Could something similar happen with respect to phone pole access? (That is not a rhetorical question -- I don't know).

Why US connectivity is lagging

We have discussed the decline of the US in terms of connectivity. A recent article in the Economist asks why some developed nations are doing better than others, concluding that "The best explanation, in fact, is that broadband thrives on a mix of competition and active regulation, to ensure an open contest".

In South Korea, where half the population lives in large apartment buildings, each owns its own internal cabling and allows rival operators to install equipment in the basement. Tenants choose which to use. In Japan, politicians pressured the dominant operator, NTT, to connect people's homes by high-speed fiber lines. The Communications Ministry has indicated that it will make NTT open those lines to rivals.

In theory, France, Canada and the US also passed laws requiring incumbent telephone companies to allow competitors access to their local lines. Those laws have succeeded in generating competition in France and Canada, but not in the US where regulatory and court decisions have enabled the telephone companies to keep competitors out.

Average advertised download speed in Japan is 95 megabits per second. How does that compare to the speed in your home? What sorts of applications would such high speed make possible? In Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland, over 30% of inhabitants have broadband. In the US it is around 22%. How might that impact the economy?

Home connectivity is lagging in the US

One measure of a nation's home connectivity is the rate of household broadband connections. A recent survey showed that 89% of South Korean homes have broadband connections while the United States has fallen to 25th in the world with 50% penetration. The situation is even worse than these statistics indicate, since US broadband speeds are lower than most nations and costs are higher.

With increasing demand for video content, homes, organizations and other fixed locations will eventually have fiber connections -- our DSL and cable modem connections will one day seem as slow as dial-up connections do today. South-east Asia, led by densely populated nations like China, Japan and South Korea, is deploying fiber faster than the rest of the world. As we see, 47 percent of the broadband connections use fiber:



Why is the US falling behind the rest of the world? What are the implications for a nation of falling behind on connectivity? Are there any advantages?

Fiber is the future

In the long run, most of us will have fiber to our homes and other fixed locations. The cost of installing fiber is generally estimated at about $1,000 per home or building. You can see why it is so costly in this description of a Verizon fiber installation. (Incidentally, it is at the home of spreadsheet co-inventor Dan Bricklin).

While retrofitting old construction is expensive, the cost of installing fiber in a new housing tract or other new construction is relatively low and the maintenance cost is less than that for copper infrastructure.

The OECD reports that, as of June 2006, over 37% of broadband connections in the Czech Republic used fiber, 26% used fiber in Japan and 7% in the United States. (Of course the US and Japan have many more broadband connections than the Czech Republic). Many feel the deployment of communication infrastructure will impact the quality of life and economy in a nation.

While installing fiber is a daunting task in the United States, critics argue that the telephone and cable companies are slowing progress in order to maximize profit and minimize investment. Critics like Bruce Kushnick argue that US phone companies have already been given over $200 billion ($2,000 per household) in rate increases and tax breaks in return for commitments to install fiber which they reneged on. Kushnick recently stated his case in a PBS documentary on The Net at Risk.

OECD broadband statistics

The OECD just released statistics on broadband connectivity per 100 habitants. The US ranks 12th, but the OECD did not report on cost, speed or symmetry. It is interesting to note that fiber to the home or premises is creeping up in Japan, Korea, Scandinavia and the Czech Republic.