Re:Google and AT&T invest in Starlink rival for satellite-to...
by AnthonyMouse on Tuesday January 23, 2024 @03:36AM
(#39100888)
> And at that point, it seems to make much more sense for a local carrier to partner with AST instead, since they'd be able to serve almost everybody using their existing terrestrial coverage and would need to use the satellites only to fill in the gaps.
Which is irrelevant to the point that if AST is competing with "Starlink" in those countries, they'll also be competing with (and presumably getting most of their users from) other local carriers.
> Being able to set the price for that for all operators in a country as the only seller sounds extremely beneficial in the short term.
Except that hardly anybody is going to be willing to pay significantly more than that than they could pay to get similar service from a terrestrial local carrier, so there was never really a monopoly rent to be had to begin with.
This would require AT&T to acquire local spectrum, since they (to my knowledge) don't any global spectrum.
And at that point, it seems to make much more sense for a local carrier to partner with AST instead, since they'd be able to serve almost everybody using their existing terrestrial coverage and would need to use the satellites only to fill in the gaps.
> Starlink themselves might lose a few customers to AT&T but not as much as the profit on the launch contract, so why do they want to stop it?
Theoretically they could try to keep competing satellite operators out of the direct-to-cell market for as long as possible. Being able to set the price for that for all operators in a country as the only seller sounds extremely beneficial in the short term.
But that would inevitably attract both space launch competitors and antitrust regulators around the globe, which might ultimately be worse for SpaceX.