Comment by panick21_
6 months ago
Well if you make the argument that it will replace terrestrial networks and that's why its worth X trillion $ then yes, you do actually need to cover the 1% of earth surface where the waste majority of people actually spend most of their time.
The question is not if its a good business, the question if its a 2 trillion $ business, and if you only cover the 95% of earth without coverage. That more like a couple 100 billion $ business at best.
I never said it would replace terrestrial networks... you invented that claim yourself and are responding to a strawman.
Starlink mobile is for rural areas, and the other 90% of the planet that's not well served by traditional terrestrial networks.
And 40% of earth's population live in rural areas, so there is a large market for this kind of service.
If its a big market, SpaceX will have to share this sooner than later as plenty of others are working on this.
Nonetheless even in rural areas there is A LOT of coverage.
And starlink has one sig issue: its bandwidth.
For them to increase bandwdith they need to scale which is expensive and they have to reinvest every 5 years in replacing these satelites.
A fiber layed down can work for a lot longer and can be replaced a lot easier.
In regions like Nigeria or the Philippines, Starlink costs over 100% of the average monthly income. The individual addressable rural market really is closer to 1% than 40%.
Starlink Mobile != Starlink
You're talking about the wrong product.
I am talking about Starlink mobile, their direct-to-cellphone mobile data offering, not Starlink internet...
1 reply →
[dead]