Google and the opening of the cellular network

We discuss the open architecture of the Internet, a "dumb" network, that connects smart devices. Users, not the network operators, decide what hardware to use and which applications to develop. As such, we see rapid innovation and massive investment. We have contrasted this with the cellular telephone network in which the network operators control the hardware and applications that are developed.

The cellular network is beginning to open. New spectrum is being auctioned off and Google is lobbying the to open the cellular network. They are dominant in desktop Internet services and advertising, and would like to exploit an open cellular network to dominate mobile Internet services and advertising.

During the last month, the New York times has published four articles on the opening of the cell network and Google's role in it.

• I, Robot: The Man Behind the Google Phone
• Google Enters the Wireless World
• Cellphone Straitjacket Is Inspiring a Rebellion
• Google Says It Will Bid for Wireless Spectrum

Individuals, organizations and the economy would benefit from an open cellular network, but do you worry that Google, if successful, may become too powerful?

Can Google open the celllular network?

As we have seen, the cellular network is closed. On the Internet, anyone can deploy an application, but most cellular operators control applications. This problem was highlighted by John O’Rourke, general manager of Microsoft’s Windows Mobile business, who pointed out that it had taken Microsoft more than half a decade to get to its current level -- doing business with 160 mobile operators in 55 countries. Even Microsoft has to negotiate with mobile operators one at a time.

Mr. O'Rourke was quoted in a New York Times article on Google's plan to provide open-source telephone software and application development tools. They have formed a coalition to develop and promote this software. The coalition, called The Open Handset Alliance, includes a number of large telephone manufacturers and network operators, but others, like Apple, Verizon and AT&T are noticeably missing.

Columnist Robert Cringely predicts that Google will go further and become a cellular operator by bidding in the FCC auction of 700 MHz spectrum which will be freed up by the switch to digital television broadcast. If that happens, he expects them to offer free, ad-supported cell phone service.

Given the Apple iPhone and Google's plans, what do you expect your cell phone and service to be like in five years?

Petition to open the cellular networks

In a recent post, we noted that Apple had succeeded in negotiating some control over application and hardware design from Cingular wireless. Now Skype has petitioned the FCC to open cellular networks. If they prevail, we could see a wireless end-to-end network, with Internet like innovation. Wouldn't that be cool?

My guess is that the cellular companies will fight this vigorously, but that might be short sighted. If they provided competitively priced Internet access, they would take the wind out of the municipal network and hotspot movements. More important, an open wireless network would be an important piece of infrastructure, providing a much needed boost to the US economy and our sagging Internet.

There will be powerful companies on both sides of this important issue -- make your voice heard by signing an FCC petition.

The Skype petition is not yet posted on the FCC Web site, but we will update this post with a link when it is.

Video of a Google Android cell phone prototype

We have seen that a dumb, open network encourages investment and hardware and software innovation. We have contrasted this with the telephone and cellular networks, where application and hardware innovation are controlled by the network operators. We've also followed Google's efforts to open the cellular network by possibly purchasing spectrum and by developing and distributing Android, an open source mobile phone operating system bundled with Google applications like maps and mail.

Google has released some videos demonstrating prototypes of Android phones. For example, the following video shows a touchscreen phone reminiscent of the Apple iPhone.



(You can find other Android-related videos at the Android Web site linked to above or by searching on Youtube).

The most important feature shown in the video is not clever hardware or software -- Apple already did that with the iPhone -- but the open platform. The video begins and ends with Google co-founder Sergey Brin inviting developers to build Android applications. Based on his Internet experience, he feels that openness will be critical to the success of Android, and has kicked things off with a ten million dollar contest for application developers.

If he is right, third party applications will spur Android sales, and each Android phone sale will spread Google applications -- and ads. Not satisfied with being on your desktop, Google also wants to be in your pocket.

After viewing the prototype video, can you think of applications you would like to have on your next cell phone? Would you be willing to watch targeted advertisements in return for free cell phone service?

Will open WiMax disrupt the closed cellular networks?

As we have seen, WiFi and 3rd generation cellular networks are the primary options for mobile and portable connectivity today. But, WiFi covers only limited areas (though there are millions of them), and cell networks are closed to innovation and focused on a business model of selling voice and other expensive services rather than pure Internet connectivity.

One day, Google and others may force the cellular networks to open up, but it will be a struggle. Another possibility is that a new standard, WiMax, will provide viable wireless Internet access.

We have spoken of WiMax earlier, and the WiMax leader at this time seems to be Clearwire Communication led by industry veteran Craig McCaw. You can read of McCaw, Clearwire, and their possibly foundering negotiations to combine WiMax networks with Sprint in this Wall Street Journal article.

If WiMax sounds promising, you can follow standards and industry progress in blogs written by Glenn Fleishman and Steve Stroh both of whom know a lot about wireless technology and business. Fleishman has just written a positive review of Clearwire's test deployment of pre-standard mobile WiMax in its home city of Seattle.

Do you plan to subscribe to either Stroh's or Fleishman's blog? What industry blogs do you subscribe to?

Combination Wifi-cellular phone and service

T-Mobile announced a combination Wifi-cellular phone and service. You make and receive calls using Wifi when at home or at T-Mobile public hotspots. When you are out of range of a Wifi radio, the phone automatically switches to the cellular network. If you leave home while on the phone, the transfer is automatic and the call is not interrupted. T-Mobile has Wifi hotspots in Starbucks coffee shops, Hyatt hotels and other locations.

They are calling this "the only phone you need" because it will work well inside your home where cellular reception may be poor and outside. Calls are unlimited and the cost is fixed.

If you use your telephone for applications other then telephone calls, it may not be the "the only portable device" you need -- they are selling telephone service, not open Internet connectivity.

Would you consider this service yourself? (Check the prices before answering). What do you use your telephone for beside phone calls? What might you use it for in the future? How did you like the T-Mobile web site?

The New York Times covered the announcement in this article.

FCC approves Verizon + Comcast -- The gentleman's agreement between cable and wireless companies

Verizon Wireless on Thursday won unanimous Federal Communications Commission approval to move forward with its $3.9 billion purchase of 4G LTE spectrum from the country’s largest cable providers. The partnership also enables the cable companies to market Verizon services and in some cases sell their own services inside Verizon stores.

Here is how the industry sees the deal:

Dan Mead, president and chief executive of Verizon Wireless: “This purchase represents a milestone in the industry, and we appreciate the F.C.C.’s diligent work to review and approve the transaction.”

David L. Cohen, executive vice president of Comcast: “a smart and efficient way for Comcast to deliver a broader array of wireless services, and is an efficient deployment of this spectrum.”

And here is the opinion of Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge, a nonprofit organization based in Washington that promotes an open Internet:

“By allowing Verizon and the cable companies to sell each other’s services, the D.O.J. and the F.C.C. are acknowledging what has been clear for some time — that broadband competition policy in the United States has failed."

I have to agree with Gigi Sohn. The US congress tried to foster competition with the 1996 Telecommunication Act. The idea was that the incumbent telephone companies would allow competitors to use their facilities at wholesale rates to compete as retail level service providers. The telephone companies drug their feet and fought at the state and local level to keep that from happening, and they succeeded.

This is what William Kennard, who, as chairman of the F. C. C. from 1997-2001, was charged with implementing the Telecommunications Act, had to say near the end of his term:

“All too often companies work to change the regulations, instead of working to change the market.”

“[regulation is] too often used as a shield, to protect the status quo from new competition - often in the form of smaller, hungrier competitors -- and too infrequently as a sword -- to cut a pathway for new competitors to compete by creating new networks and services.”

“companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists and politicians, instead of plant, people and customer service.”

Some have argued that wireless connectivity would eventually bring competition to the Internet service industry, but it seems we have instead a gentleman's agreement in which the cable companies will provide land-line connectivity and the cell phone companies will provide wireless connectivity. Furthermore, sometimes they can sell each other's service.

My experience illustrates the gentleman's agreement. I was a Verizon DSL customer for years. I was about to leave them when I started seeing ads and billboards saying I would soon be able to get their fiber service, FIOS. After a couple years wait, they announced they would not be bringing FIOS to my neighborhood after all. Then they cut my DSL speed from 5 to 1.5 mbps! I switched to cable -- my one alternative.

My current slim hope for getting connectivity that close to what is available in Riga Latvia is Google's pilot in Kansas City.

-----
Update 10/5/2014

The FCC okayed Comcast's deal with Verizon, but maybe they are getting tougher now. They've put the Time Warner Cable merger on hold:

In a public letter to Comcast and Time Warner Cable executives, the FCC announced that it is hitting the pause button on its review of the proposed $45 billion merger. Citing inadequate responses by both cable companies to earlier FCC requests for additional information, the agency is stopping the clock on its 180 day review period until late October.

-----
Update 5/10/2015

The end game has been revealed -- Verizon will exit the wireline business within ten years:

A utility company familiar with Verizon's business plans says Verizon has told it the company plans to exit the fixed-line broadband business entirely within the next ten years. Stop The Cap directs our attention to a filing at the FCC made by Florida Power & Light, urging the FCC to reject Verizon's decision to offload its Florida, Texas and California DSL, FiOS and POTS customers to Frontier Communications.

I guess they are counting on 5G cellular, but I hope public WiFi hotspots give them some stiff competition.

-----
Update 11/8/2015

During a recent earnings call, Verizon CFO Fran Shammo said that FiOS will be available to about 70% of their east coast, fixed-line customers once the company finishes the sale of their Texas, Florida and California fixed-line networks to Frontier Communications.

If they stick to their plan of leaving the wireline business, they will have 100% penetration the day before selling off the last customer.

While no further sales are imminent, Shammo stated that all options remain on the table. "As I have always said you never say never," Shammo noted. "We're always open to new options and we always keep our eyes open for that but at this point we're very committed to the wireline business."

Verizon is living up to the aforementioned gentleman's agreement with Comcast. In my personal case, that means Time Warner Cable will remain my only viable Internet service provider until Google or Elon Musk or someone else comes to my rescue.

The cellular network is broken -- two examples

As we discuss, the Internet was designed to be an end-to-end, dumb network. The large ISPs would like to break that principle in order to give higher priority to certain users and applications, and, as we have seen, the cell phone network is even more restricted.

Developers cannot create and use cell phone applications without permission from cell phone carriers. We had a graphic example of this recently when Verizon would not permit an abortion rights organization to use their text messaging service. They later reversed the decision, but this illustrates how badly broken the cell phone network is.

Along the same lines, a software upgrade to Apple's iPhone renders phones with third party applications installed inoperable. This was not inadvertent. Apple CEO Steve Jobs said it was done to protect carrier networks and to make sure the phone was not damaged.

His first reason -- protecting the network -- was what AT&T claimed before the 1968 Carterphone decision that allowed people to connect equipment to their network as long as it did no harm. His second reason -- protecting the phone from damage -- is exactly what he has done -- turned them into worthless "bricks."

People are working on an open cell phone, and perhaps Wimax will lead to open network access one day.

Does being open pay off?

In spite of setbacks and roadblocks, there is an overall trend toward increased Internet and telecommunication openness and standards. (The ball started rolling with the 1956 Hush-A-Phone Case which forced AT&T to allow us to attach devices to their network).

We talk about openness and transparency in various contexts. We talk about the end-to-end, dumb Internet where anyone can run any application and connect any device. We talk about the cellular providers trying to keep control over their networks, but gradually begining to loosen up. We have seen record companies first try to control music copying, then starting to sell unprotected .mp3 songs. YouTube is open to all comers as are FaceBook, MySpace and thousands of other sites. I came across a different sort of openness while ordering a book at Amazon.com.



As you see here, Amazon sold new copies of the book I wanted for $18.25 plus shipping. They also listed offers to sell the same book from 36 of their competitors. One competitor, FeelGoodReaders, was selling the book new for $14.55 and another had a used copy that was "like new" for only $12.75. In fact Amazon listed 12 competitors who were selling new copies of the book for less than their price of $18.25 and many others selling cheaper used copies. Amazon also told me that FeelGoodReaders had an excellent reputation -- 99% of their customers gave them positive reviews.

Based on this, I bought the book from FeelGoodReaders. Was Amazon hurt or helped by their openness? What did the decision to show the competitor's prices and customer ratings cost Amazon? Did it benefit them at all? Did it benefit the economy?

President Obama selects Tom Wheeler as FCC chairman

The President has selected Tom Wheeler, former lobbyist for both the cellular and cable industries and a major contributor to the Obama campaign to head the FCC, and AT&T and Comcast are both lauding the appointment.

That smacks cronyism -- the revolving door between industry to government.

I signed a petition to name Susan Crawford next head of the FCC, but will keep an open mind.  Wheeler may have been a lobbyist for the cable and cellular industries, but he was also an Invited Expert by the The President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), which issued a report calling for the use of smart radios in sharing federal spectrum. He presumably endorses (or at least understands) the report of the PCAST Spectrum group.

His October 2011 blog post Updating Spectrum Policy provides further evidence that he "gets" IP and unlicensed spectrum. Here are a couple of quotes from that post:

"Exhibit A for 21st century spectrum planning is WiFi. Operating in unlicensed spectrum, WiFi is a cacophony of competing claims for use of the spectrum. The characteristics of Internet Protocol (IP) packets allow WiFi in a Starbucks hotspot, for instance, to operate more efficiently that the licensed spectrum on the sidewalk outside."

and

"It is time to abandon the concept of perfection in spectrum allocation. The rules for 21st century spectrum allocation need to evolve from the avoidance of interference to interference tolerance. We’ve seen this evolution in the wired network; it’s now time to bring the chaotic efficiency of Internet Protocol to wireless spectrum policy."

Don't forget that fiercely anti-Communist Richard Nixon, opened US relations with China. Perhaps Dark Side lobbyist Tom Wheeler will modernize wireless IP communication.

-----
Update 11/11/2016

This post has turned out to be true -- Tom Wheeler has acted against the wishes of his old industry friends. He turned out to be something of a sheep in wolf's clothing. There is speculation that Donald Trump will reverse Wheeler's stance on network neutrality and I will be pleasantly surprised if his FCC appointees pursue his proposal for a standard TV-interface box that combines the functions of today's set-top boxes and Internet interfaces.

Portable devices -- innovation and form factors

In discussing mobile and portable connectivity, we talked about competing device form factors and innovation. We have also discussed new devices which may influence future form factors and user interfaces: the One Laptop Per Child Foundation (OLPC) laptop, the Apple iPhone, and, most recently, Amazon's Kindle.

Each has hardware and user interface innovations that may become standard fare on future portable devices. For example, the Kindle and OLPC laptop have low power displays that are legible in daylight, and the iPhone has an elegant touch screen interface and can be programmed to automatically switch between displaying documents in landscape or portrait mode if it is rotated. The OLPC laptop automatically forms a mesh network with nearby machines; the Kindle is directly connected to Amazon via Sprint's cellular network; and the iPhone can move between WiFi and AT&T's cellular network. The list goes on.

They each deliver different functions. The Kindle is a book reader, period. The iPhone a phone, Internet browser, email client, camera, etc., and it is now open to third party developers. The OLPC laptop is a PC running Linux. It comes preloaded with applications and there are tools for what I hope will become a vibrant developer community. It was conceived of as a computer for school children in developing nations, but in many ways it is more attractive than a "serious" compact laptop like a Sony Vaio for a business traveler.

Each is physically different:

	iPhone	Kindle	OLPC
Height (in)	4.5	7.5	9.5
Width (in)	2.4	5.3	9
Depth (in)	.46	.7	1.25
Weight (oz)	4.8	10.3	51
Pixels/inch	183	167	200
Resolution	420x320	600x800	1200x900
Screen diag (in)	3.5	6	7.5

The iPhone is a smart phone with a bright and large enough screen to browse the Web and read email fairly comfortably. The Kindle is designed for easy reading, and the OLPC laptop's high resolution display may be even better.

Which form factor do you favor? Are you willing to carry around a 3 pound OLPC laptop? Is the iPhone screen large enough for your portable applications? Would you rather carry a Kindle or a paperback book and a magazine when you board a plane?

Tim Wu on wireless network neutrality

Skype recently petitioned the FCC to open access to cellular networks in the United States. That petition was based on a study by Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University. Our class notes cover the Carterfone case which opened the wired telephone network, making the end-to-end Internet possible. Wu feels that a neutral-access cellular network would enable Internet-like innovation and competition on wireless networks.

You can read Wu's paper and see the Skype petition at the New America Foundation. Wu was also interviewed on wireless network neutrality by National Public Radio's On The Media. You can hear the interview (with a rebuttal by an industry representative) or read a transcript at the On The Media Website.

ISP competition -- testing a Time Warner Cable public WiFi access site

As mentioned earlier, a welcome bit of infrastructure deployment competition seems to brewing between the telephone and cable companies. At the Mobile World Congress last week, Philips and Ericsson announced WiFi-ready streetlights and a coalition of five cable companies has formed to roll out open WiFi hotspots.

I am a Time Warner Cable (TWC) customer, so I decided to try it out. I checked in my neighborhood and found a WiFi hotspot at a school two blocks from my house. I drove over, parked on the street in front of the school and logged in using my TWC account credentials. I had a solid, five-bar connection (whatever that means).

I ran Speedtest, which showed 16 ms ping time, 40.6 mbps download and 5.06 mbps upload -- considerably faster than the service at my home.

Our phones are able to switch seamlessly between WiFi and the cellular network (see, for example, Republic Wireless). I do not want to be bothered knowing which I am using at any time -- I just want my phone to pick the best connection available given my ISP terms and the application I am running.

I've beaten up on TWC and the other ISPs for exploiting their non-competitive markets in many blog posts, so it is only fair that this post congratulate them on providing a meaningful, competitive service.

Today the five-ISP coalition lists 200,000 hotspots in their database. How many will they have in five years? Might the cable companies have outsmarted the phone companies in splitting up mobile and landline access?
-----
Update 4/12/2014

Comcast has revealed that they have a million public access points, with at least 800,00 of them in the homes of their broadband subscribers and, if they succeed in acquiring Time Warner, that footprint will expand significantly.

We may be witnessing a race between cable companies deploying WiFi and phone companies deploying 4G (and later 5G) infrastructure. That might lead to increased competition or, more likely, they will gerrymander access so as to limit competition (following the example of the U. S. House of Representatives).

-----
Update 5/29/2014

FON's public WiFi routers are gaining steam. I've had one of their dual-SSID routers for years, but never used it because there are so few in my neighborhood, but they are catching on with ISPs in other nations.

Starlink in Ukraine: What Three Years of Wartime Connectivity Taught Us

Ukrainian soldier with a Starlink dish near Kreminna, eastern Ukraine. Photo: Clodagh Kilcoyne

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, few people thought of satellite Internet as strategic, but what began as an emergency request made on Twitter became one of the most consequential infrastructure decisions of the war.

At 4:04 a.m. on February 26, 2022, Ukraine’s Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, asked Elon Musk to activate SpaceX’s Starlink service over Ukraine. That same day, Musk replied that service was active, and within forty-eight hours, a truckload of terminals arrived. Minutes after their arrival, Ukrainian engineer Oleg Kutkov posted a speed test from Kyiv. Starlink was live. 

At the time, this looked like a dramatic but limited response—an emergency patch to help a government under attack stay online. Over the next three years, it became something much more consequential: a privately owned satellite network evolved into a core layer of wartime infrastructure. Today, there may be as many as 200,000 terminals in Ukraine, making it the biggest Starlink user in Europe.

I have been writing about Starlink in Ukraine since those first days of the invasion, beginning with early observations on connectivity, coverage, and ground-station dependence, and following its rapid expansion into government, military, energy, healthcare, and civilian use. Those earlier pieces are collected here on CircleID (see links below). This post is not another update. It is a synthesis of what the Starlink experience in Ukraine tells us about Internet infrastructure in war and dependency.

From novelty to infrastructure

In the earliest phase, the number of Starlink terminals in Ukraine was small, but their value quickly became clear. A handful of portable terminals in the hands of senior officials, military commanders, communications staff, and journalists could preserve continuity of government if fiber lines were cut, cellular towers destroyed, or local networks surveilled or jammed.

By mid-March 2022, more than 5,000 Starlink terminals were operating in Ukraine. Terminals were used by the armed forces, energy companies, emergency services, hospitals, NGOs, journalists, and local governments. In some towns, a single terminal provided backhaul connectivity for thousands of civilians.

Political and Army leaders used Starlink for military planning and decision-making. Starlink also facilitated propaganda and foreign relations. We saw videos of President Zelensky at the front lines, meeting foreign leaders, and addressing foreign parliaments. We also saw daily evidence of Russian atrocities on Telegram and in the news.

Software-defined warfare

Early Starlink terminals depended upon ground stations in neighboring countries -- Poland, Lithuania, and Turkey. Coverage and availability varied by geography, but performance was consistently good enough for coordination and reporting. Reliability, not elegance, was the wartime requirement.

Then the  Russian forces began jamming Starlink terminals. SpaceX responded not by shipping new hardware, but by pushing software updates. Roaming was enabled, allowing terminals to be used briefly, powered down, moved, and used again. Power consumption was reduced so terminals could operate from vehicle outlets. Jamming countermeasures were deployed over the air. (These changes occur without the delay of traditional military procurement cycles).

This was a glimpse of a new kind of infrastructure contest: electronic warfare meeting software-defined networks. Ukraine has given us a clear example of how modern Internet systems blur the boundary between civilian engineering and military operations, and shown us new skills that are needed.

Starlink and drones -- over land and on sea

Starlink’s military significance became clearest when paired with drones.

Ukrainian reconnaissance units used Starlink to relay imagery and targeting data from surveillance drones to artillery units, shortening sensor-to-shooter loops. Drones equipped with thermal cameras hunted at night. Others documented battlefield damage and war crimes. Starlink did not make this possible on its own—but it made it scalable.

At the same time, drone footage flooded social media and news outlets. Open-source intelligence groups analyzed videos and satellite imagery. Journalists verified claims. Governments responded. The Internet did not merely report the war; it became one of its primary theaters.

Civilian support ecosystems

By 2023, tens of thousands of terminals were in Ukraine, and distribution channels, training, repair, and modification were needed. Ukraine built a distributed ecosystem of engineers, service centers, and informal supply chains capable of repairing damaged terminals, adapting them for mobile and battlefield use, and keeping them operational under harsh conditions. A consumer product had become military infrastructure, often acquired, modified, and maintained by civilians.

This civilian technical mobilization—much of it voluntary—was as important to Starlink’s effectiveness as the satellites themselves. Without it, the system would have degraded quickly under battlefield conditions.

This was possible because the digital transformation in Ukraine began years before the Russian invasion. A Harvard study reports that before the war, Ukraine was arguably the number one country in the world regarding the pace and speed of digital transformation. The mobilization of Ukraine's commercial and technical Internet community should be noted and serve as a warning to other nations that are not as well prepared.

Dependence

By 2024 and 2025, Starlink was no longer an emergency backup but a routine part of military and civilian operations. That dependence carried risks. Ukraine’s experience highlighted the strategic implications of relying on privately owned, globally operated infrastructure whose technical evolution, pricing, and policy decisions ultimately lie outside national control – with Elon Musk in this case.

The lesson is not that Starlink is unreliable or that commercial systems should be avoided. On the contrary, Ukraine’s experience demonstrates the extraordinary value of Starlink. The lesson is that connectivity has become a strategic asset that must be planned with redundancy, diversification, and governance in mind—long before a crisis begins.

Today, OneWeb is Starlink's only operational commercial low-Earth orbit (LEO) competitor, and it is not close to being able to provide the service Starlink does. I hope the war in Ukraine is over before others, such as Amazon, Telesat, and IRIS^2, are ready to offer meaningful competition to Starlink, and I worry that, if Starship proves to be economically viable, the gap will grow significantly. 

Three years on, it is clear that LEO satellite connectivity is strategic, and when strategic infrastructure depends on privately owned networks, domestic competence, governance, redundancy, and accountability become matters of national security—not afterthoughts. 

Earlier posts in this series include:

SpaceXStarlink Service in Ukraine Is an Important Government Asset

SpaceXStarlink in Ukraine—A Week Later

FiveThousand SpaceX Starlink Terminals for Ukraine

TheUnprecedented Role of the Internet in the War in Ukraine

CivilianTech Mobilization in Ukraine

Starlink Is Critical in Support of Ukraine, and It Will Continue

Google wants the FCC to bring the entire Internet to your cell phone

We have contrasted a "dumb," end-to-end network like the Internet, where services are provided by network users, with a "smart" network, where services are provided by the network operator. In two earlier posts, we saw that Tim Wu and business customers have argued that the cellular networks should move to the open, Internet model.

Google has now joined the fray, saying they would bid on the spectrum that will be made available for auction by the FCC when the US converts to all digital television transmission in 2009 if the following were mandated by the FCC:

• Users should be able to install any software on their phones and PDAs
• Users should be able to connect any technically compatible device to the network
• Auction winners should be able to resell bandwidth to third parties
• The wireless network should connect to other networks

Of course cell phone companies are opposed to this sort of thing. Holy cow -- someone might install Skype on their smart phone and make VOIP calls or download a video from a Web site that was not paying the cell carrier a commission. The cell system is like the early telephone system. Before the 1968 Carterphone decision, we could not connect things to the telephone network -- not modems or computers or even answering machines.

Respected columnist Robert Cringley agrees with Google's goals, but thinks they will fail and have made a serious business mistake. What do you say?

Telesat -- a fourth satellite Internet competitor

Telesat will begin with only 117 satellites while SpaceX and the others plan to launch thousands -- how can they hope to compete? The answer lies in their patent-pending deployment plan.

Polar (green) and inclined (red) orbits

I’ve been following SpaceX, OneWeb, Boeing, and Leosat's satellite Internet projects, but have not mentioned Telesat's project. Telesat is a Canadian company that has provided satellite communication service since 1972. (They claim their "predecessors" worked on Telstar, which relayed the first intercontinental transmission, in 1962). Earlier this month, the FCC approved Telesat's petition to provide Internet service in the US using a proposed constellation of 117 low-Earth orbits (LEO) satellites.

Note that Telesat will begin with only 117 satellites while SpaceX and the others plan to launch thousands -- how can they hope to compete? The answer lies in their patent-pending approach to deployment. They plan a polar-orbit constellation of six equally-spaced (30 degrees apart) planes inclined at 99.5 degrees at an altitude of approximately 1,000 kilometers and an inclined-orbit constellation of five equally-spaced (36 degrees apart) planes inclined at 37.4 degrees at an approximate altitude of 1,248 kilometers.

This hybrid polar-inclined constellation will result in global coverage with a minimum elevation angle of approximately 20 degrees using their ground stations in Svalbard Norway and Inuvic Canada. Their analysis shows that 168 polar-orbit satellites would be required to match the global coverage of their 117-satellite hybrid constellation and according to Erwin Hudson, Vice President of Telesat LEO, their investment per Gbps of sellable capacity will be as low, or lower than, any existing or announced satellite system. They also say their hybrid architecture will simplify spectrum-sharing.

The following figure from their patent application illustrates hybrid routing. The first hop in a route to the Internet for a user in a densely populated area like Mexico City (410) would be to a visible inclined-orbit satellite (420). The next hop would be to a satellite in the polar-orbit constellation (430), then to a ground station on the Internet (440).

An inter-constellation route (source)

The up and downlinks will use radio frequencies and the inter-satellite links will use optical transmission. Since the ground stations are in sparsely populated areas and the distances between satellites are low near the poles, capacity will be balanced. This scheme may result in Telesat customers experiencing slightly higher latencies than those of their competitors, but the difference will be negligible for nearly all applications.

They will launch two satellites this year -- one on a Russian Soyuz rocket and the other on an Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle. These will be used in tests and Telesat says a number of their existing geostationary satellite customers are enthusiastic about participating in the tests. They will launch their phase 2 satellites beginning in 2020 and commence commercial service in 2021. They consider 25 satellites per launch vehicle a practical number so they will have global availability before their competitors. Their initial capacity will be relatively low, but they will add satellites as demand grows.

Like OneWeb, Telesat will work with strategic partners for launches and the design and production of satellites and antennae. They have not yet selected those partners, but are evaluating candidates and are confident they will be ready in time for their launch dates. Their existing ground stations give them a head start. (OneWeb just contracted with Hughes for ground stations).

Their satellites will work with mechanical and electronically steered antennae and each satellite will have a wide-area coverage mode for broadcast and distributing software updates. Their patent application mentions community broadband and hotspots, large enterprises, ships and planes, software updates and Internet of things, but not homes as initial markets.

Telesat's Canadian patent application goes into detail on all of the above, and I'd be curious to know what exactly would be protected by it. They also consider their global spectrum priority rights from the International Telecommunication Union as an asset, but they will have to agree to spectrum sharing conventions and debris mitigation agreements.

Let me conclude with a suggestion for Telesat and the Cuban government.

OneWeb has committed to providing coverage to the entire state of Alaska by the end of 2020 and Telesat says they will have global coverage by 2021. I follow the state of the Internet in Cuba and think Cuba would be a good starting place for Telesat service. Cuba has the best-educated, Internet-starved population in Latin America and the Caribbean, they have very little domestic Internet infrastructure and much of the infrastructure they do have is obsolete. Cuba is close to being an Internet "greenfield" and, since it is an island nation, their polar satellite "footprint" would not be densely populated.

Cuba could work with Telesat to leapfrog over several infrastructure generations. If Telesat can deliver on their claims, the barriers would be political and bureaucratic, not technical. Cuba is about to change leadership, and there is some indication that Miguel Díaz-Canel, who many expect to replace Raúl Castro, will favor Internet development.

SpaceX could also provide early Cuban connectivity, but dealing with a US company would be politically problematic and Cuba and Canada have a well-established political and economic relationship. Even if Cuba were willing to work with SpaceX, the current US administration would not allow them to do so. Connecting Cuba would be good for Cubans and good publicity for Telesat.

For more on Telesat and their plans for LEO satellite Internet service see their patent application and you can see animations of their proposed hybrid-constellation connectivity here and here.

Update 11/25/2017

LEO-1, Telesat's low-Earth orbit satellite, has been shipped to India for launch. The 168 kg satellite will be used in two-satellite tests of Telesat's forthcoming broadband service. Testing will begin when both test satellites are in operation. LEO-1 will be in polar orbit and I assume the other will be in an inclined orbit in order to test their two-constellation design.

Update 11/29/2017

The Soyuz 2 launch vehicle that was to have placed 19 spacecraft into orbit has failed, destroying one of the two satellites Telesat had planned to use in the first test of their forthcoming broadband Internet service. The other has been shipped to India for launch, but the project will be delayed until the lost satellite can be replaced.

Update 5/19/2018

SpaceX and OneWeb get a lot of publicity and have ambitious plans, but Telesat is the first LEO ISP to begin testing with potential resellers.

Last January, Telesat launched a demonstration satellite and it is now ready for testing. Maritime connectivity provider OmniAccess and Australian ISP Optus had committed to testing the system previously and this week they were joined by in-flight entertainment company Global Eagle Entertainment.

Global Eagle CEO Josh Marks said he was persuaded to collaborate with Telesat by their planned coverage over oceans, polar regions, and high-latitude routes and their "open architecture" business model. In addition to testing, they "will collaborate with Telesat on both the technology and commercial model for their new LEO platform.”

OneWeb and several airlines have formed the Seamless Air Alliance, which is developing standards for in-flight Internet connectivity through LEO satellites. I wonder whether Telesat and Global Eagle will join the alliance or go their own way.

Update 7/6/2018

Telesat now expects its LEO constellation to enter service in 2022, not 2021 and they have been pledged CA$20 million from Canada’s Strategic Innovation Fund. The delay may be a result of the failure of the launch of their first test satellite, but they are now operating a second test satellite.

Update 7/23/2018

General Dynamics will help develop terminals and Gilat will work on modem technology for Telesat. It seems that Telesat is following the OneWeb many-partners business model as opposed to SpaceX's do-it-yourself model.

Update 8/2/2018

Telesat has entered into two new contracts, one with Thales Alenia Space and Maxar Technologies and the second one with Airbus. Reading the press releases, it sounds like they are both working on comprehensive system designs and at the end of the process, one will be selected as the prime contractor.

Erwin Hudson, vice-president of Telesat LEO, also outlined their marketing strategy. In the long run, they plan to serve consumers directly through LTE or 5G mobile networks, but they will initially focus on government and enterprise companies. The long-run plan sounds similar to OneWeb's.

Update 12/17/2018

The test plane (source)

Unlike SpaceX and OneWeb, Telesat is a well-established provider of geostationary (GEO) satellite connectivity. They have now demonstrated seamless connectivity and switchover between their LEO and GEO satellites and an in-flight airplane. Round trip time from the plane to the ground via LEO satellite was only 19 milliseconds.

While this test was not done with a plane flying at the speed and altitude of a commercial jet, it points toward a future in which airline passengers may be able to stream entertainment and have low-latency Internet access.

The FCC has approved Telesat's application and they plan to award a satellite manufacturing contract in 2019 and are targeting 2022 for the start of commercial LEO service.

Last, but not least, Telesat has a $2.8 million contract to study inter-satellite laser links between their constellation and DARPA satellites. DARPA is also interested in learning about “commercial, commoditized buses, their operational concepts, and to define their mechanical, electrical, and network interfaces,” and they have a four-month contract with Telesat to learn from them. (OneWeb and their satellite supplier Airbus have similar contracts).

Update 2/13/2019

Last year, Telesat said they would concentrate on the maritime, aviation, and cellular-backhaul markets until the cost of end-user antennas came down. As you see here, it seems to have come down. They currently plan to launch 292 satellites but have spoken of the possibility of expanding that to 512. Perhaps they will do it now. (Inter-satellite laser links may still be a difficult technology).

Telesat also announced that an undisclosed number of those 292 satellites will be launched by Blue Origin.

They also completed system requirements reviews with the two teams they contracted with last year to develop system designs Airbus Defence and Space and a consortium of Thales Alenia Space and Maxar Technologies. Each team is continuing to advance its detailed designs for the complete LEO system -- both space and ground segments.

Update 5/10/2019

Erwin Hudson, vice president of Telesat LEO, summarized their plans at the Satellite 2019 conference:

• They are shopping for a company to manufacture 20-25 satellites per month.
• They hope to start service at the end of 2022 with around 200 satellites in polar orbit. They will add 100 more in inclined orbit in 2023 and perhaps eventually reach 500 satellites.
• Their satellites will rely on much less hardware than previous generations -- “basically some antennas, a few computers, and some laser beams.”
• Each satellite will have four inter-satellite links, two thrusters, and multiple phased arrays.
• They are designing satellites to operate for at least 10 years – twice as long as OneWeb and SpaceX anticipate.
• They will leave consumer broadband to OneWeb and SpaceX, targeting aviation, maritime, and fixed communications for cellular backhaul and enterprises.
• They will have different antennas for each market -- pairs of parabolic antennas on ships, electronically steerable flat panels on airplanes and a mix for enterprises.

For details on these points and links to supporting material, see this SpaceNews post.

Update 2/11/2020

C-COM’s iNetVu® FLY-74 antenna has been tracking Telesat’s Phase 1 LEO satellite over a six-month period. They achieved full-duplex data rates up to 158 Mbps up and down and 20-40 msec latency at elevation angles as low as 10 degrees above the horizon. C-COM is also working on an electronically steerable, modular, conformal, flat panel phased array antenna. In cooperation with the University of Waterloo. That antenna will probably be designed for the broadband LEO end-user market.

Check this video clip showing the quick, automatic setup of an iNetVu antenna.

Update 5/15/2020

Telesat has joined the Rural Broadband Consortium. Telesat will provide analysis tools and experience with LEO technology to help the consortium work on new business models designed to encourage and promote third-party engagement. Microsoft and Nokia are also consortium members and it seems like Telesat's contribution will be backhaul for terrestrial wireless networks in rural areas. The bankruptcy of OneWeb leaves an opening in Alaska and other northern/southern rural markets.

Update 6/26/2020

Telefónica, a major Internet service provider in Latin America and Europe has completed tests with Telesat. (Telefonica owns the Movistar, O2, and Vivo brands). The test scenarios included high-definition video streaming, video conferencing with teams, remote desktop connection to seamlessly manage a remote computer, a VPN connection without any delay or outages, FTP-encrypted file transfers of 2 GB in both directions, and IPSec tunnel encryption with no reduction in the performance of the link. This was done without TCP acceleration or data compression and they achieved round-trip latencies of 30-60ms with no packet loss.

Update 10/1/2020

Telesat will partner with Nelco, India’s leading and fastest-growing satellite communication service provider to provide Layer 2 Metro Ethernet Forum standard connectivity for 4G/5G backhaul, mobile hotspots, distance education, telemedicine, village connectivity, and maritime and inflight connectivity. Apparently, Telesat will not be competing for the end-user market with OneWeb.

The partnership announcement also says the satellites will have inter-satellite laser links improving latency and reducing the need for ground infrastructure.

Update 12/28/2020

Telesat made significant progress this year. Their revised constellation plan calls for 1,671 satellites in both polar and inclined orbits and they received DARPA grants as well as a rural connectivity grant from the Canadian government. They are planning an IPO to fund the constellation and system design is complete and they will announce a prime contractor soon.

OneWeb satellite Internet project update

The OneWeb mission is to bridge the digital divide globally by 2027.
Greg Wyler, 2017 Softbank World conference

Whoever gets the most data wins.
Masayoshi Son, 2017 Softbank World conference

Global prices will vary, making connectivity affordable in developing nations.
Greg Wyler, 2017 Senate testimony

Satellites in 18 orbital planes

SpaceX and OneWeb are formidable, experienced competitors in a race to become global Internet service providers using satellite constellations -- routers in space. I posted a status report on SpaceX last week, now let's look at OneWeb.

OneWeb founder and executive chairman Greg Wyler has extensive experience with networking in developing nations. In 2003 his company, Terracom, signed a contract to connect Rwandan schools, government institutions, and homes. Terracom failed to meet their goal, and the difficulty of dealing with terrestrial infrastructure led Wyler to focus on satellite connectivity.

In 2007, he founded O3b Networks (Other 3 billion), which today provides high-speed connectivity to Internet service providers and phone companies using a constellation of 12 satellites orbiting at 8,012 km above the equator. (The geosynchronous satellites used for TV transmission and Internet access in remote areas orbit 35,786 km above the equator). In spite of its name, O3b was not going to connect the entire world and Wyler founded OneWeb in 2012, with the mission of bridging the digital divide, which he hopes to do by 2027.

Satellites will be mass-produced,
reducing cost and cutting production
time significantly.

OneWeb and SpaceX have the same goal, but their organizations are dissimilar. SpaceX is integrated -- building the rockets, satellites and ground stations themselves -- while OneWeb has partners that bring skills and funds to the project. For example, Qualcomm will design and supply communication chips and Airbus will manufacture satellites.

OneWeb also has a symbiotic relationship with Softbank, their largest investor. SoftBank's Vision Fund has invested $1 billion in OneWeb and OneWeb plays a strategic role in SoftBank's vision of the future.

SoftBank founder and CEO Masayoshi Son outlined his vision of the future in the keynote session ofth the 2017 SoftBank World conference. He believes the information revolution will be driven by strong, general artificial intelligence (AI), therefore the key material asset for the information age will be AI training data -- "whoever gets the most data wins."

Low-cost, user-installable
terminals will support WiFi, cell
phones, and the Internet. Solar panels
and batteries are optional.

Several Vision Fund investments focus on collecting that training data from Internet of things (IoT) devices. They have invested in ARM, which dominates the IoT and smartphone processor markets, Nvidia which makes processors used in AI, Boston Dynamics which is building intelligent robots and, you guessed it, OneWeb, which will link 1 trillion IoT devices to AI projects.

Wyler and representatives of some other Vision Fund companies made presentations during the keynote. Here is a summary of what Wyler said:

• They have priority rights to 3.55 GHz of globally harmonized spectrum for non-geostationary satellites. (They also have a technique for avoiding interference with geo-stationary satellites when over the equator).
• They will have 49 satellites in each of 18, 1,200 km orbital planes.
• With Airbus, they have devised a novel satellite manufacturing process that will allow mass production rather than hand building.
• Cost per satellite will be under $1 million and they will be able to produce three per day.
• They will connect both Internet gateways and end users.
• The first satellites will have a capacity of 595 Mbps, but that will increase to over 1 Gbps. (More on capacity below).
• Latency will be under 50 ms, making interactive applications like 5G mobile telephony, game playing and Web surfing possible.

The following is a video (9:43) of his presentation:

(You can see the entire keynote session with presentations by several Vision Fund companies (2:12:15) here or just Son's introduction, outlining his Vision Fund strategy (30:17) here).

Satellite footprint 1,080 by 1,080 km

System capacity is a key variable. OneWeb claimed satellite throughput would be "up to" 7.5 Gbps in a June 2016 presentation to the ITU, but Wyler quoted much lower capacity in his Softbank talk. (I've asked OneWeb for clarification on this change, but have not received a reply. I will update this post if and when I do).

That revised capacity estimate may explain Wyler's February 2017 statement that they had sold a considerable portion of the capacity of their planned constellation. The following month they filed an application with the FCC for an additional 720 satellites orbiting at 1,200 km and 1,280 orbiting at 8,500 km. The 720 satellite constellation application has been approved.

I have no idea what their planned customer mix is. They will presumably serve relatively few Internet gateways, but those will require considerable bandwidth. End users like homes and schools will require less bandwidth, but there will be more of them. There will be large numbers of IoT devices, but they will require little bandwidth. Population densities also vary greatly -- between urban and rural areas, continents and islands and, in the extreme, ships at sea. 1 Gbps will go a lot further in Alaska than Bangladesh.

OneWeb seems to be ahead of SpaceX's schedule. They plan to launch their first satellites in March 2018. (That will satisfy the ITU requirement that they are using their spectrum). They will begin offering service in Alaska in 2019 and hope to cover all of Alaska by the end of 2020. By 2025 they expect to have 1 billion subscribers and their mission is to eliminate the global digital divide by 2027.

Update 10/28/2017

The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) and OneWeb have signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on rural connectivity. Greg Wyler, Founder and Executive Chairman of OneWeb, promised that “Starting in 2020, OneWeb will be able to deliver everyone in Saudi Arabia, regardless of their location, high-speed broadband at their home, office, or school."

The Saudi National transformation plan calls for extending connectivity to nearly all rural areas and OneWeb is expected to help them reach 30% of rural homes. No details were released, but since this is a deal with the government, the strategy may be to use OneWeb for a national "backbone" and provide backhaul for local area networks rather than serving consumers directly.

Note that OneWeb investor and partner Richard Branson is witnessing the signing.

OneWeb's Greg Wyler signing an MOU with the Saudi MCIT

Update 11/3/2017

Greg Wyler testifying

Greg Wyler, Founder and Executive Chairman of OneWeb, testified before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing on "The Commercial Satellite Industry: What’s Up and What’s on the Horizon."

In his introductory remarks, Wyler said their schedule had slipped by two months and they will launch their first ten satellites next May. By 2019, they will be able to offer service throughout Alaska and will cover the entire US in 2020. Their first constellation will offer connections of up to 500 mbps and have a total capacity of 7 tbps. The second constellation, planned for 2021, will offer speeds up to 2.5 tbps and bring total capacity to 120 tbps. (High speeds will be possible in lightly populated regions). The third constellation, planned for 2013, will cover 1 billion potential consumers by 2025 and have a total capacity of 1,000 tbps. By 2027 they will cover the globe.

Wyler said they and their partners will invest $30 billion and provide many high-paying jobs. They will partner with local ISPs and phone companies in marketing their service. He also spoke of space debris and reentry casualties.

After the introductory remarks, the senators asked questions of the panelists. Mr. Wyler said the US is the technology leader among spacefaring nations and, if we take the lead in regulation, other nations and the International Telecommunication Union would follow. For example, he feels that a 125 km orbital altitude separation should be maintained between satellites and they should be limited to a five-year lifespan.

Several senators asked about pricing and data caps and Mr. Wyler responded that their partner ISPs, not OneWeb, would set prices that were affordable in their regions -- we can expect a customer in a high-GDP nation to pay considerably more than a customer in a low-GDP nation. He also stressed the importance of safety, saying investments would dry up if there were a satellite collision and he said prolonged uncertainty over spectrum-sharing would also dampen investment.

You can read Wyler's written testimony summarizing their plans, expected benefits and policy recommendations here or watch his oral testimony, beginning 1:02:50 of the archived video of the hearing. Representatives of OneWeb, Intelsat and ViaSat also testified, but, Boeing was noticeably absent.

Update 12/11/2017

OneWeb is deepening ties with partners.

Softbank has invested an additional $500 million in OneWeb, bringing their total investment to $1.5 billion. They previously had a 40% stake in OneWeb and their share will remain under 50%

Boeing is also developing ties to OneWeb. They will build satellites for O3b, a company Wyler founded. It has also been reported that Boeing wants to give one of its V-band satellite broadband FCC filings to SOM1101, a Wyler-controlled company. Boeing recently announced a rapid acceleration of their Mars exploration program. Might OneWeb team up with Boeing, which is developing a very large rocket for Mars missions, in order to compete with SpaceX and their large rocket, the BFR?

Update 3/14/2018

Liquid crystal display antennas

Hughes has shipped a new satellite-Internet gateway to OneWeb. It is capable of making 10,000 handoffs per second -- times have changed since antennas moved to track satellites! (Hughes has contracted to deliver 40 of these gateways to OneWeb).

Isotropic Systems has announced that they will be making a low-cost, consumer terminal that will be available to OneWeb in 2019. Note that they have developed a novel optical antenna technology.

It looks like both Isotropic and Alcan Systems are shooting for the consumer edge-terminal market with novel technologies -- Alcan antennas utilize low-cost, mass-produced liquid crystal displays.

SpaceX and OneWeb have different strategies. OneWeb is working with partners like Hughes and Isotropic Systems while SpaceX is vertically integrated; however, even if they are designing their own edge terminals, SpaceX may use components from companies like Isotropic and Alcan.

Update 3/25/2018

OneWeb has joined the Seamless Air Alliance, which is developing standards for in-flight Internet connectivity through low-Earth orbiting satellites to terrestrial Internet gateways. Early members are mobile network operators Sprint and Bharti Airtel, Delta Airlines and Airbus.

Will SpaceX Starlink join the alliance? Will medium-Earth orbit satellite Internet service provider SES-networks (O3b)? An open standard for connectivity and billing will facilitate competition.

OneWeb's Greg Wyler expects standard communication with LEO in-flight Internet service to disrupt the industry. He says they will be offering service in 2020 and there will be several competing terminal manufacturers at that time.

Update 12/16/2018

OneWeb has made two major changes to their plans.

Citing pressure from national regulators who insisted on being able to control the routes of all traffic coming into or out of their nations, OneWeb has dropped inter-satellite laser links from their design. Doing so will simplify satellite design and save money and weight, but will lead to increased latencies and require more terrestrial gateways.

They have also decided to cut the number of satellites in their initial constellation from 900 to 600. After seeing better than expected results in their satellite ground tests, they concluded that they can achieve global coverage with only 600 satellites. The satellites will cost a little more than the initially budgeted $500,000 each, but this represents a significant overall cost reduction. They have also decided that their initial priority will be connecting boats and planes before focusing on the Internet for the masses.

They have not decided whether or not the next 300 satellites will be the same design as the initial 600 or a next-generation, higher capacity design. Their first 10 satellites will launch next February and while company founder Greg Wyler said he hopes to begin service next year, that could slip to 2020.

Update 2/6/2019

OneWeb founder Greg Wyler announced that his self-funded side project, Wafer LLC, has developed $15 antenna module, paving the way for user terminals priced between $200 and $300. (The antenna is only one component of the Earth station, but it has been a sticking point). Wyler said that “The entire antenna is less than an eighth inch thick -- you can have an extremely light, thin, low-power antenna that’s very cost effective and can be produced in large volumes.” Wyler said tests of prototypes showed 50 Mbps capacity per antenna "tile" and said multiple tiles could be combined. It is not clear how many tiles there are per antenna, but presumably, combing them would cut into the number of satellites that could be visible at any one time. SpaceX just asked the FCC for permission to deploy 1 million Earth stations and is slated to begin launching their constellation in 2019. They must be capable of mass producing cheap antennas too.

Update 2/20/2019

OneWeb has pushed their launch date back to February 26 and the British Space Agency is providing them with 17 million pounds in funding. The article refers to OneWeb as UK-based -- they have operations in the US, but must be incorporated in the UK. It also describes LTE-based ground stations that could be deployed in emergencies as establishing 200-meter coverage circles.

Update 3/29/2019

Nine-minute launch timeline (Source)

In February, a Russian Soyuz rocket launched a cluster of six OneWeb test satellites. Shortly after the launch, all the satellites were reported to be healthy.

Once the testing is complete they plan 20 more Soyuz launches, each carrying up to 36 satellites. Virgin Orbit, which has a 39 mission contract, is also expected to begin launches this year. OneWeb plans to have 150 satellites in orbit by the end of this year, start regional service in 2020 with around 300 satellites and have global coverage in 2021 with 600 operating satellites and 48 spares in orbit.

The test satellites were placed in a 1,000-kilometer orbit and they will climb to 1,200 kilometers during the 60-90 day test. Perhaps the two-altitude test is related to the conflicts over sub-1,200 km orbits and spectrum between OneWeb and SpaceX. (At one time, OneWeb founder Greg Wyler and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk planned to work together, but today they are said to be personally hostile in addition to being business competitors).

OneWeb, formerly known as WorldVu Satellites, was founded in Arlington, Virginia in the US but is now headquartered in London and the UK Space Agency has given them an £18 million grant to work on 5G cellular integration through the European Space Agency. OneWeb's mission is to bridge the digital divide by 2027, and moving its headquarters to London emphasizes its position as a global company. (Airbus, Virgin Orbit and Softbank are collaborators and investors in the OneWeb project). Ironically, both the US and England are distancing themselves from Europe at this time.

Update 4/27/2019

Tim Farrar reports that Elon Musk is telling potential investors Starlink terminals will cost $500, dropping to $150 over time. If that is the case, OneWeb may have an advantage since they are reporting steady low-cost antenna improvement. (The OneWeb antenna shown here is much smaller than the tablet it is resting on).

That being said, an investment of $500 is a relatively small part of the cost of ongoing broadband Internet service to a home or a school or other organization.

Update 6/25/2019

The FCC has granted OneWeb's application for an experimental license to operate 75 earth stations across the US.

Update 1/13/2020

OneWeb hopes to establish three ground stations in China. They have signed a "framework agreement" for one in Sanya, a city in southern China, and hope to have that and two others approved. They are also seeking partners to market and support their service. They plan a total of 45 global ground stations.

Update 1/20/2020

Pacific Dataport Inc, a subsidiary of established geostationary satellite company, Microcom, has signed an agreement to distribute OneWeb Internet service in Alaska. (The Web site refers to it as an "exclusive agreement with Alaska and Hawaii," but the press release does not mention Hawaii or exclusivity). Regardless, you can sign up to be notified when the service becomes available now. The service will be available "as early as" the fourth quarter of 2020.

Update 2/17/2020

The team with sats ready to go source

On February 7, Arianespace launched the first 34 of 648 Internet-service satellites for OneWeb. The satellites were deployed in nine batches at an altitude of 450 km and they will self-propel to their operational orbit of 1,200 km. altitude and 87.4° inclination. OneWeb confirmed signal acquisition with all 34 satellites within hours after launch.

They plan one more launch in March and then they will take a "breather" to produce a newly designed element of the satellite. They expect to conduct customer demos by the end of 2020 and to provide full commercial global services for maritime, aviation, government and enterprise in 2021.

Update 3/3/2020

OneWeb has obtained the permit -- signed an MOU -- for working in Armenia, Georgia, and Kazakhstan. I wonder if it is exclusive? This sort of thing is necessary along with launches and technology.

Update 3/20/2020

Bloomberg reports that OneWeb is considering filing for bankruptcy. If that is the case, it is bad news. We need a competition. I would not want to see SpaceX or Hongyun or any other company become a monopoly ISP in any nation or region.

Might Amazon acquire OneWeb?

Update 12/13/2020 OneWeb has emerged from bankruptcy and chairman Sunil Bharti Mittal says they planned to offer coverage in most of northern Europe by October or November of next year and would cover the entire world by may or June of 2022. He also said the current 648 satellites would be able to provide precision timing service and that the next generation would offer positioning, navigation and timing services.


---
Click here for a couple of earlier posts on OneWeb.