Exactly. Look at the starlink coverage map (https://www.starlink.com/map). Nearly the entire east of the US is "waitlist" aka at capacity. This is basically exactly what I predicted would happen - starlink is beyond awesome as a way to get internet but really suffers from lack of capacity "at scale".

Keep in mind too that each year average internet consumption rises so the existing sats can service fewer and fewer users.

I am personally surprised they have reached capacity so quickly - I thought they would have fit more users per sat on by aggressive traffic shaping/data caps.

Starlink will only be a niche service imo, FTTH/cellular will continue to roll out to more and more rural locations. It's a great niche service but the capacity really constrains it.

I also wonder how long SpaceX can afford all these falcon launches for starlink. I think the plan was spaceship would do huge deploys at a way lower cost per sat, which would increase capacity much quicker. But it seems spaceship is understandably delayed?

There's still tons of folks on 56k phoneline modems, <512k ADSL, unreliable&expensive cellular or expensive, slow and high latency VSAT connections in rural areas. In those places Starlink will dominate.

And the real global growth will start when the satellite-to-satellite links finally allow coverage away from SpaceX's teleports. So coverage in the middle of the seas and in the middle of Africa or South-America.

Yes but every year that goes by that market shrinks as new fibre gets rolled out and 4G/5G continues to grow in service. I don't know if it really is enough of a market to cover the cost of servicing thousands of small sats long term.

The global angle is interesting; but I don't think Africa will be as simple as people make out - there is a lot of corruption around telco contracts there and they won't just allow SpaceX to turn on all of Africa and bypass it all.

As they mass produce sats at ever increasing rates and at the switch to Starship and increase production rate of their termianls, their price per unit of capacity is gone go down much more. They have 3 vital parts all are dropping in price.

In addition, with laser links and improving routing software they still have a ways to go in optimizing the whole network.

The global shipping, flying and remote industrial use-cases are significant and pay a premium. In addition there are still a huge number of rural people in the world, Africa, Asia, Europe, South America. Then there are all kinds of mobile use-cases as well.

Starlink will also be used on things like rockets (like Starship) and all kind of military aircraft as well. Such usecases will also pay a premium.

Then there is global low latency backhaul as well.

I think if you really go threw it there is plenty of markets to service, even if you assume fiber is gone continue to roll out.

The launches were delayed by COVID for supply chain issues, just like the antennas were. One rather surprising issue was that all the high-grade oxygen was being used in hospitals, with none left over for rockets.

https://www.businessinsider.com/liquid-oxygen-shortage-covid...

> starlink is beyond awesome as a way to get internet but really suffers from lack of capacity "at scale". Keep

Surely it pays for itself if they can sign up users as fast as they can scale? But if capital is the problem, maybe Starlink should be IPO'd the old fashioned way, to raise capital rather than cash out investors.

To IPO, they would need to release information that might make the whole enterprise seem less tenable. And, if it turns a profit they would be less able to siphon the money off to private projects. (No, not for a Mars colony. There will not be one.)

>(No, not for a Mars colony. There will not be one.)

Well, not with that attitude >:(

With or without, makes no difference.

Mars is wholly unsuitable as a place to colonize, and Starship would anyway be far from adequate to attempt it, by at least two orders of magnitude.

Starship might suffice to maintain a moon base, after the model of McMurdo Station, albeit radically more expensive. But that would be an end in itself, not any sort of staging point. There is noplace to go from there.

O'Neill cans make better sense. After aneutronic p-11B fusion is mastered in some future century, O'Neill cans out in the Kuiper Belt will be a place for humanity to expand. The inner solar system is a dump, Earth excepted.

Show the math.

Reader, meet exercise.

Writer, meet basic standards of making claims on the internet.

That reads like a claim.

Starlink seems to be as much real business as a way for SpaceX to raise money.

Winner!

Exactly, the subsidy is meant as a "no household left behind" type program, so awarded companies need to prove they can cope with the best case scenario of 100% adoption, and StarLink probably wouldn't be able to cope with that many terminals in close proximity (typical rural community is sparsely populated, but not that sparsely).

I would imagine in the future they could narrow the scope of their bid just to really really really remote and unpopulated rural regions, where even a 100% adoption would fit comfortably in a satellite bandwidth, but then I don't know if such a smaller bid would be worth the hassle for them.

Per the article, the problem is that they can't cope with the users they have right now, not some theoretical future user count.

The FCC looked at data from Oopsla, and saw that Starlink is currently averaging 91Mbps Down / 9.5Mbps Up or something like this. Their bid was for 100 Down / 20 Up, so they are some way away from providing the level of service to their current users that they committed for the subsidized users.

But they have ~500k users now, with 20% of satellites deployed, and there are something like 600k subsidized households if I’m reading correctly. I think it’s safe to say that in 2024 they will be able to handle 600k extra users. (If they actually try and don’t oversubscribe!)

The 100/20 was observed early on IIRC so they have demonstrated it’s possible if they don’t oversubscribe. (Which is more than can be said about previous satellite internet services.) But yeah, they certainly aren’t currently in compliance. Given Musk’s general approach to regulatory bodies I can’t blame them for applying skepticism here.

As far as I understand from other comments, they will have the option to re-apply of they achieve these speeds sometime before 2028.

> I think it’s safe to say that in 2024 they will be able to handle 600k extra users. (If they actually try and don’t oversubscribe!)

We'll have to see. It's important to note that so far they've been able to use whatever launch capacity they want to increase the constellation, but by 2024 they will have to start using a good portion of their launch capacity to re-build it, since the satellites launched today will have fallen down by then.

If they manage to launch Starship by then (not sure if that's looking likely or not), maybe they will have extra capacity to be able to both replace satellites and expand the constellation.

Starship will blow the satellite count out of the water. Also, SpaceX gets to load up launches with payload space with more satellites.

What is apparent is that the other upstart satellite flotillas have zero chance of being competitive and getting off the ground, both figuratively and literally.

But at some point there were issues with getting components for the new gen of Dishys, they have less ports and flexibility than mine. Scaling dishys is still an issue along with the satellites, but it's not like growth has stalled.

This decision may minorly slow the growth of starlink, but not by much.

And if SpaceX does get Starship off the ground at anything close to their economic targets, fuggedaboutit.

Not sure why this comment was downvoted. I'm super pro-spacex, but you're spot on for all of these things.

That’s one objection, but another one in the FTC’s rejection as outlined in the article was the cost of terminal.

My point was “cost of terminal” seems like a weird one to be getting dinged on.

I agree capacity seems like a better thing to be focusing on. This seems like an own-goal from StarLink as they could have kept up their speeds by slowing growth and not enabling roaming. But maybe they are just prioritizing subscriber count over winning subsidy dollars.