Telecommunications Revolution
by Doorman (doorman38@protonmail.com)
I know, that's a mighty statement/intro. But if you read through this article, you might start to see some of the same patterns I've come across as well (and maybe they aren't as far-fetched as most would think at first glance). Also, if 2600 published this (which if reading this means they have obviously), that means they think this isn't out of the realm of possibility either.
Please remember guys, nobody can predict the future, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying to you or outright insane (and usually a combination of both). I'm merely stating this as a possibility, nothing more. It actually took me months to put all these "pieces together in this puzzle," not to mention realizing the ramifications that could potentially come from this if indeed it does play out this way. Honestly, there's "good" and "bad" with all of this. I truly see a bunch of potential for greatness and also a bunch of potential for evil as well (assuming I'm correct).
Before anything though, one thing I'd like to make crystal clear to everyone (a "disclaimer" if you will) - I have absolutely zero affiliation, sponsorship, "insider friends," agenda, or any other type of ulterior motive with any company or website I'm about to write about here. None whatsoever. I have absolutely nothing to gain by writing this article other than (hopefully) enlightening some readers of this amazing magazine. Cool, now that we have that out of the way, let's get down to it, shall we?
I'm sure you all have heard of SpaceX's Starlink service/division (from now on, I'll just refer to it as Starlink to save space). But have no doubt about it - Starlink is entirely owned and run by SpaceX. If you haven't heard of it before, I can summarize it up for you fairly easily, don't worry.
Starlink is just a satellite-based Internet Service Provider (ISP). So instead of your typical Internet connection coming via a coax, copper, or fiber optic cable from the street to your home, it would be coming via a wireless satellite connection on your rooftop. Just like any other ISP, you'd need the appropriate equipment (in this case, that would be one of Starlink's phased dish arrays) and of course you'd need to pay for their service (usually paid monthly like most other ISPs). Nothing new here, this is the same setup we're already used to with our current ISPs. Even satellite Internet isn't a new concept in itself either. There's actually several companies that offer satellite Internet service (OneWeb, HughesNet, Viasat, etc.), and they've done so for decades as well. So what is Starlink doing that's so different (and potentially revolutionary)? I'll explain if you can bear with me a tad longer because there is a lot to be "peeled back from this onion."
See, there is something totally new and "game-changing" with Starlink's design/setup. It's not that they are providing an Internet connection via satellite or even the equipment provided to you by them (as I previously mentioned, that's been done for literally decades now). It's where they've put their satellites in orbit around the Earth.
Starlink satellites are put into what's called Very Low Earth Orbit (VLEO). In a nutshell, it's the lowest (closest) orbit you can be in space without starting to reenter the Earth's atmosphere (an altitude roughly around 500 kilometers). Even in VLEO, they constantly have to give little "thrusts" to keep them where they should be. Otherwise they would eventually reenter the Earth's atmosphere and burn up (and be destroyed). Again, remember they are at the very lower limit of space. Because of this, these satellites orbit the earth many times a day, and do so at very high speeds as well. So they do many orbits (or "revolutions" if you will) around the Earth. To give you an example, you can only "see" (you'd need a telescope honestly) any of their satellites for a maximum of about 90 minutes (and that's assuming it crossed directly above you and across your entire visible sky as well). That's how fast (and how low) their orbit is.
The most common satellite orbit traditionally is what's known as the "geostationary orbit," which is a specific altitude/distance from the Earth (an altitude around 36,000 kilometers) where it will always be "right above" the exact same place/spot on Earth. Now there's a very good and useful reason for this type of orbit (as I'm sure you can already figure out). In this orbit, a satellite is moving at the exact same speed as the Earth, which means (relative to us) it never moves in the sky and is always at a fixed point in the sky.
In reality, everything is always moving in the universe. We just happen to be moving in the same direction and speed, so it appears to never move in the sky, that's all. Putting a satellite in this type of orbit has a lot of advantages, though. You never have to track it in the sky because it never moves (again, relative to us), so if you can align a dish to link with it today, that means it'll be at the same spot in the sky a decade from now as well. Anyone who's ever used a satellite TV service (such as DirecTV or DISH Network) already understands this concept. Just for the record, I'm totally not a fan of DirecTV (or DISH Network, for that matter), I'm merely using them as common examples that most people have experience with. But I won't waste precious space in this magazine talking about those companies/services and my opinions on them. Moving right along then...
So why would you not put satellites in geostationary orbit? On top of that, why would you put them in VLEO orbit (which is the most difficult/dangerous orbit) as well? There's a great reason, obviously. It's called latency. To put it in "layman's terms," that orbit is much closer to us than any other orbit is. You don't need a PhD to understand how being closer to something makes communications with that object much faster to send a packet of data (and get a response back). As any gamer/video streamer/VoIP user knows, this is actually a really big deal.
Latency is the amount of time it takes for a packet of data to reach its destination and then to arrive back to you (most activities online are two-way communication, don't forget). The reason it takes more time (so higher latency) to "talk" with a server/website across the world from you (as compared to a server/website in your same city) actually comes down to the speed of light. Yes, we all know (hopefully, at least!) that the fastest speed possible in the universe is the speed of light (roughly 300,000 kilometers a second or 186,000 miles a second), but even then it still takes some amount of time to travel. As fast as the speed of light is, it's still a real number and absolutely not "instant."
Now we're talking milliseconds (ms) here, but there are many applications/uses where even having a faction of a second delay would render it virtually useless (again, think of online gaming or a real time 4K video conference call). Please don't confuse latency with download/upload speeds. They are totally different things, people. You could have a 10 Gb/s Internet connection, yet if it had a 1000 ms (or one second) latency, it would be utterly useless for many applications. So latency is extremely important actually, way more than most realize, if I may be so bold to say.
Now I know what you're probably thinking: why am I getting a lesson on latency? And better yet, how does routing data packets out into space and then back down again travel faster than fiber optic cable laid on the Earth's surface/ seabed?
Because light (and therefore data when converted into binary - or "zeroes and ones") can't travel at its "full" speed here on Earth through a fiber optic cable (or any cable, for that matter). Trust me on this one (or better still, look it up yourself), so I don't have to get into an astrophysics lesson here about all of this.
Bottom line, there's a "limit" on how fast (or how low of a latency) sending/receiving data from one point on the earth to another (the closer you are, the quicker it is, obviously). So right now, if you open up Terminal (or Command Prompt for those that refuse to accept that Windows is bad for your sanity and health!) and type ping 2600.com you're going to see exactly how long it takes those packets of data to reach 2600's web server and then get back to you.
For me personally, it's around 40-50 ms, but remember that completely depends on where you are (along with other variables, such as how your home network is set up, what equipment you're using, if you're using a VPN or not, and, not to mention of course, your ISP connection). Now do that test again, but this time change the website to one where you know where that web server is actually physically located (geographically).
Look at the latency (in ms) times for whichever site you chose. Go ahead and try that with a couple of other sites that are very far away from you now and then some others that are very close to you. It shouldn't take you very long to see what I'm talking about here. Now try doing this test one last time and ping something that's in your local/private home network (like your router or another computer for example).
Most likely, you'll have to use the private IP address to do that (typically 192.168.1.1 or 192.168.0.1). You should see extremely low latency times now. That's because there's very little distance for data to travel and get back to you in that final test.
To give some very practical (or "real life") examples, you need to have a latency of around 50 ms (or less) in order to play any of the popular/common First-Person Shooter (FPS) video games online. Above 100 ms and it's not even worth trying - it's unplayable basically. As far as video conferencing, Zoom (which has the worst quality, in my opinion) can tolerate up to about a 130 ms latency (or lower), whereas Google Meet and Microsoft Teams require roughly half that, so around 65 ms latency (or lower) in order to feel like you're speaking in "real time" and not have everything all "chopped up" (which we know all too well how frustrating that is).
Therefore, a satellite Internet connection (especially one in VLEO orbit) can have latency speeds (in theory, at least) that drop down to single digit numbers of milliseconds (ms). Please understand that's essentially unheard of by any ISP ever before. It's almost like an "urban legend," because by the very laws of physics, it can't be done with any type of terrestrial connection. Sure, you can create a big Local Area Network (or LAN/Intranet) within a limited geographical distance (exactly like what most of us have set up inside of our homes, but on a bigger level), but it's not hard to understand how you can only extend that so far.
What that means is that Starlink can offer something no other (terrestrial or satellite) ISP in the world can offer - those extremely low latency speeds, which in some instances is a really big deal (as previous mentioned). And all other satellite ISPs have their satellites in orbits much higher up (therefore meaning there's more latency or, in other words, they are "slower").
In fact, the latency times with most other satellite ISPs are actually quite horrible, way worse than Earth-based connections even. Now since those satellites are further away, that means more of the Earth can see (connect to) them, meaning they don't need as many satellites in space. So there's an obvious advantage in placing your satellites further away - you need less of them to cover a certain region of the planet. But at the cost of latency. That's the "catch."
O.K., so cool. Those who have read up to this point are probably asking themselves, "Awesome bro, I pretty much knew all this already, what's your damn point and why did 2600 publish this crap?" Don't worry, I'd be doing the same myself. Let's get into how all of this (potentially) could completely revolutionize the entire telecommunications industry (and in a very short period of time as well).
What "piqued my curiosity" about SpaceX's Starlink network was the moment when I realized just how many satellites they have up already, and even more curious than that - how many they plan to have up very soon (in just a few years). As of the time of writing this article, Starlink has roughly about 4,500 satellites up in space (in VLEO orbit) and fully operational. That's a lot, in case you're wondering. And here's where it starts to get really weird. They plan on putting up at least five times that amount in the next two to three years. These are not "hopes and dreams" or a "marketing ploy." These are facts, and it's happening right now. Once again, please fact check all of this.
I'd like you to go to the following website - satellitemap.space (remember I'm not affiliated with this site - or any other, for that matter). Check out all the Starlink satellites currently up. Quite impressive, isn't it? On the exact same website, you can change it so you can see all the OneWeb satellites up (that's Starlink's closest competition, and they are very far behind clearly).
You'll notice OneWeb has way less satellites and that they are set to a higher orbit (to be precise, their satellites are in LEO orbit - and yes, you guessed it, that stands for "low Earth orbit"). Also, if you check out their (OneWeb) website, you can clearly tell they are geared for high-end maritime, aviation, and/or government based clientele. So "rich people," put in layman's terms. They aren't really interested in any of us (as private individuals for a home or even business Internet connection), that's for sure. Well, unless you happen to be a billionaire. But I'm going to go on the assumption that you're not (and don't worry, I'm far from being one either!).
On the same website, you can also change the settings once again to see all the GPS satellites that are up there (yes, the very satellites we all use each and every day for navigation via apps like Google Maps/Google Earth and such). You'll immediately notice something, however - just how far away they are from the Earth compared to Starlink's (or OneWeb's) satellites. And drastically as well, somewhere to the order of around 70 to 80 times the distance/altitude of Starlink's satellites, to be specific. That site doesn't show every single satellite that's up there that doesn't fall into one of those three categories, but go ahead and search and you'll quickly realize the satellites shown on this website are definitely the vast majority of satellites up there (and even then, almost all of the other satellites up there are still set at much higher orbits than VLEO orbit).
Now, let me get back to how Starlink is putting satellites up there at an unprecedented rate. Does that make sense to anyone? Why the hell are they doing that? Doesn't this strike anyone as a tad "odd?" We all know that's costing SpaceX a literal fortune to do all this, right? They say they are doing this to be able to provide service to anyone who wants it (and regardless of where they are located on the planet). When you first hear that, it seems to make sense. It even sounds like a nice thing, altruistic even. But here's the thing that doesn't "add up" in my book - they already have enough satellites up right now to cover the entire planet (minus the North and South Poles), and easily too (again, check that website above and see for yourself).
Now, more customers means they'll need more satellites. O.K., obviously I get that. But just how many Internet connections are they planning to provide exactly? Finally! Now we've arrived at the entire point of this article. My personal opinion? The answer to that is a truly massive amount of connections. Want me to go even further/crazier? How about pretty much everyone on this planet? What would you say to that? When you do the math (and apply some common sense), that starts to make a bit more sense as to why they are putting up satellites like madmen and spending a literal fortune in doing so. They're preparing a "coup" of the entire telecommunications market essentially.
To me that looks like they are preparing for the entire world to be using them for their Internet connection. It makes no sense otherwise from my humble perspective. Either that or they just enjoy burning through money sending up satellites that would be total overkill for just "another random ISP." As of this moment, they can support around 300 million connections. When they have their entire "fleet" of satellites up as planned, they will be able to support a couple of billion Internet connections easily. And it's not like they couldn't put more up if they needed to, right? Clearly, they've gotten really good at that as we've all seen already.
What I can't understand is how all the "big name" ISPs out there haven't figured this out yet. Or at least haven't entertained this possibility. Has this truly never occurred to any of them (that they'll potentially be completely out of business in a few years)? You would think they'd pay attention to a threat of that magnitude (and to their financial "bottom lines" - which we all know is what they truly care about). But they haven't done anything as far as I can tell. I think one of the reasons why is because Starlink has (and very intelligently, I might add) gone about this very subtly and extremely "under the radar."
See, they've made themselves out to be like just one more "satellite ISP" (that's highly expensive/exclusive so therefore not for your average "John Doe" Internet user/consumer - like OneWeb, for example). As of right now to get Starlink service, you have to put down almost a thousand dollars (just for their equipment) and their service is over $100 a month for their cheapest monthly plan. And for the speed packages currently offered, most people have way better options. For your typical home/business user (unless they live in the middle of nowhere or have some other type of rare situation), that's not appealing at all. And rightfully so.
Let's continue into the hypothetical for a bit, if you don't mind. Now, let's say one fine day Starlink/SpaceX makes their equipment free of charge for anyone who signs up for a year of service. Let's also say they were to cut that monthly subscription price down to... let's say $50 a month. Or what about $30 a month? What if they'd also be offering a 1 Gb/s connection without data limits for that price? What about 2 Gb/s for $50 a month? Let's go absolutely crazy and throw out a 10 Gb/s connection for something around $100 a month. What now? And don't forget you'd be getting the very best (lowest) latency connection available (by far, too) by using their service as well.
Please note, I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air - I just want to make that super clear. But tell me - if these hypothetical examples I just mentioned actually came to be reality, would that be appealing to you? I'd bet it would. I'd bet there'd be very few people to whom it wouldn't be appealing, actually. And the only thing that's needed is for you to be able to see the sky (doesn't matter where on the planet you are either). See what I'm getting at here? It would be the most perfect telecommunications "takeover" we've ever seen. And once that "snowball" got some major traction, they could even offer higher speed packages at even lower pricing (as they could very easily gain a complete monopoly - one that covers the entire planet as well).
Now if this hasn't raised any alarm bells yet, I'll mention something else that definitely should. So everything I've been writing about above has to do with Internet connections (a.k.a. ISPs). At least there will always be terrestrial cellular providers, right? Well, maybe not. SpaceX has another division called Swarm. Swarm chips are designed to connect to the SpaceX satellite network using a chip that can easily fit in a cell phone (and can connect without a perfect view of the sky either). I have one, and they are quite impressive, let me tell you.
Now once again, as of right now they are expensive and only designed to be used for remote Internet of Things (IoT) applications - as bandwidth is pretty expensive as of writing this. But just as I theorized above with Internet connections, they could do the exact same thing with all cellular connections too! What if they one day offered unlimited everything (data, text, etc.) cellular service plans at something around $19 a month with no restrictions? I don't know about you, but that would be highly appealing to me. Oh, and minor detail - it would work quite literally anywhere on the planet. So much for this thing called "roaming." How about that? And with the fastest speed packages (and lowest latency) achievable by any ISP (terrestrial or satellite).
Makes you think, doesn't it? Maybe SpaceX isn't just "throwing away" money by putting up an unbelievable amount of satellites, and maybe they actually have a fantastic reason (and plan) after all? Talk about a revolution, right? Could you imagine all telecommunications going through one company (which would be SpaceX/Starlink of course)? Weird and kinda scary at the same time, isn't it? Would that even be a good thing? I guess we'll find out soon enough...
You don't have to be a genius to know what can happen when a single company/entity has a monopoly on an entire industry. We all know that can be (and almost always is) highly abused. Also, let's not forget that there would be one single (privately owned) entity that all the world's Internet traffic would be traveling through. Who's to say that couldn't be monitored or "watched?"
Again, I'm not saying this will happen. I'm merely stating what could happen. Just use our own history as a species to predict what normally occurs in these types of situations. I'll give you a hint: typically, humans don't tend to be the most "altruistic" when given absolute power. That's all I'm stating.
I really do hope you've been able to extract something useful out of this article! And, as always, do your own research and come up with your own damn conclusions! Don't even take anything I've written here as fact or true! Most of the time, we can barely manage to think for ourselves, so why in the world would you let someone else think for you as well?