08.10.26
Posted in Broadband, D2D, Operators, Services, SpaceX, T-Mobile at 9:47 am by timfarrar
As I pointed out in a Wednesday interview on TITV, the most startling claim in last week’s SpaceX results call was Elon Musk’s assertion that “probably a year from now, we will be doing at least 1 flight a day [of Starship], possibly more”. A smart Bloomberg piece by Liam Denning on Thursday highlighted that “Musk is on an accelerating treadmill of prediction” and while “moon factories may be taken seriously-not-literally by investors”, both robotaxis and Starship launches are “quantified and verifiable” so “Musk is on the hook to deliver ever more and, crucially, ever more quickly”.
To date, daily (or even hourly!) Starship launches have been most easily been explained by the supposedly unlimited demand for orbital data centers. But those are dependent on two things: 1) a Starship launchpad suitable for sun-synchronous orbits (for which land is now being acquired in Louisiana) and 2) new chips made at Terafab that are suitable for operating at much higher temperatures (this is in order to maximize radiative cooling in space, since increasing the operating temperature by 100°C will shrink the required radiator size by ~70%). However, neither the launchpad nor the new Terafab chips will be ready until 2030 or beyond, so they won’t contribute to Starship demand next year.
That leaves Starlink as the only realistic source of demand for frequent Starship launches next year and so Musk has been on a rant for much of the weekend on X, seeking to justify demand for 100K+ Starlink V3 satellites (since 365 launches of 60 Starlink satellites each year, times a five year lifetime would be ~110K satellites on orbit) as opposed to Gwynne Shotwell’s far more rational forecast in March that “I don’t think we’ll have more than 15 or 20,000 Starlink satellites” (she instead leaned on the FCC application for “up to a million AI satellites” as the primary driver of Starship demand). Musk has been egged on by cheerleaders such as ARK and Mach33 fawning over the supposed 100x increase in bandwidth (although the latter are at least aware enough to acknowledge that the space industry is now “replete with grifters”).
But remember that current Starlink V2 mini satellites can each serve around 2000 consumers globally, and even if the provisioning rate is doubled, each Starlink V3 satellite should be able to serve 10,000 consumers. So 15K-20K V3 satellites would be enough for 150M-200M customers (fewer if some satellites are devoted to D2D), whereas 100K V3 satellites would only be justified by Starlink acquiring a billion fixed broadband customers, which is more than the total available worldwide market (today there are about 1.6B fixed broadband users, but nearly half of those are in China and Russia).
This problem has forced Elon Musk to make ever wilder claims about demand coming from an “orders of magnitude” increase in demand from “AI and robotics” and subsequently that “AI agentic Internet traffic will obviously VASTLY exceed human usage”, not to mention that “All cars will have Starlink in the future”. First he started with “I would expect Starlink to reach at least 25% market share outside of China…It’s not out of the question that Starlink carries more than 50% of Internet traffic long-term, which would probably be over a trillion/year”, then moved on to “Future versions of our satellites may exceed 50X the throughput of a V2″ and by late Sunday night he was claiming that “It’s possible that Starlink may end up doing >90% of IP traffic, even if competitors 10X their bandwidth”. All I can say is, don’t do drugs kids!
Of course this is total nonsense: except for a very few outliers (such as military users) high bandwidth customers use fiber today and the cost of increased provisioning once fiber is already installed is minimal, in the US the extra IP transit bandwidth if residential customers used 10 times more bandwidth (say 5Tbytes per month instead of 500Gbytes per month) would be about $1-$2 per subscriber per month. Where available, residential fiber users can already get symmetric 10Gbps connections for as little as $50 per month (this example is from Sonic). For comparison, Starlink’s existing community gateways, capable of the same throughput, were reportedly priced at $75,000 per Gbps per month.
Starlink’s fixed broadband service is and will remain inferior to fiber, not least because of constraints on uplink speed, and unlike fiber, Starlink will need to invest huge sums of money in these new satellites if customer usage increases by an order of magnitude in peak demand areas like the US. SpaceX’s S-1 indicates that there has been reduction in manufacturing cost per Gbps of satellite capacity of 3 times from V1 to V2 mini and the expected reduction is 9 times from V1 to V3, but this implies that the V3 satellites will cost around $2M each, to which the cost of launch needs to be added. Thus, even taking an optimistic view of Starship launch costs, 100K Starlink V3 satellites will require a capital investment of well over $200B and most likely $300B+.
Musk also fails to distinguish between fixed and mobile use cases: yes you may want to access AI via your phone, but Starlink Mobile’s D2D (i.e. satellite) service will be far inferior to terrestrial cellular networks in urban and suburban areas (especially indoors), which SpaceX acknowledged by asserting that they now intend to build out a terrestrial small cell network in the US because AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile have refused to offer an MVNO deal. Ironically, one of the triggers that prompted Musk to make his litany of exaggerated claims this weekend may have been the FT’s interview with T-Mobile’s CEO, which claimed that “The threat posed to mobile operators from satellite companies such as Starlink has been exaggerated”, as the fight over pricing with T-Mobile becomes ever more tense (I expect Starlink’s next moves may include a deal with the cable companies and an acquisition of EchoStar’s CBRS spectrum).
So where does that leave us? Most likely we will never need to find out if there is demand for daily Starship launches next year, because SpaceX won’t actually achieve that goal: a launch every 1-2 weeks by mid year is plausible, but many of those launches will need to be devoted to Starlink Mobile not V3 broadband.
However, a key signpost will be how much manufacturing capacity SpaceX builds out for Starlink terminals: the plan is to double capacity in Bastrop TX this year (while apparently closing down production in El Segundo CA), implying that SpaceX will make around 12M-13M terminals this year and have a run rate of around 300K terminals per week by the end of the year. Unless production increases further, that’s only enough to add about 2M customers per quarter, after allowing for churn. But even to believe claims that Starlink could launch as many as 4000 V3 satellites next year (enough for ~40M net adds but only 2 launches a week on average), Starlink would have to increase production to about 1M terminals per week over the course of next year.
Permalink
07.23.26
Posted in Broadband, D2D, Financials, Operators, SpaceX, Spectrum at 1:53 pm by timfarrar
I just released my new 100+ page Starlink profile and forecasts, which you can order here. It contains detailed forecasts through 2030 of the consumer, enterprise, government and D2D businesses as well as analysis of Starlink’s technology and regulatory progress.
It has been interesting to compare my numbers with those published by various Wall St analysts, and understand the reasons for these differences. The range of forecasts for the connectivity segment in the reports I’ve seen is pretty wide, but all are a lot higher than my projection of $48B total revs and 46M consumer subs in 2030, with total connectivity revenues and consumer subs as follows:
Deutsche Bank: $72B revs, 82M subs
Moffett Nathanson: $73B revs, 70M subs
RBC: $101B revs, 100M+ subs
Morgan Stanley: $121B, 116M subs.
Unsurprisingly, the most similar forecast to mine is the one from Moffett Nathanson, as Craig Moffett and I share many of the same views about Starlink’s D2D market constraints, and used very similar methods to forecast the consumer market opportunity. The main discrepancy is in the enterprise and government sector, where I’ve broken down the revenue by enterprise, maritime, aviation and government in more detail based on Starlink’s disclosures about pricing and penetration. Deutsche Bank takes a more optimistic view of Starlink’s ability to expand consumer penetration in developing countries via aggressive reductions in ARPU, while also being much more optimistic about enterprise, government and mobility demand. And then RBC and Morgan Stanley take even more optimistic views about demand in all three parts of Starlink’s connectivity business.
One area seemingly missing from most analyst reports is an assessment of how terminal revenues and costs limit the scope for revenue growth (equipment generated $1.5B in revenue last year but is a one-off not a recurring revenue source) and price reductions for end customers (terminals cost an average of over $300 to produce last year). So I end up with higher consumer ARPUs (and slower growth) than many other forecasts, because the need for terminal subsidies (and higher ARPUs to compensate) will constrain demand in developing countries.
The biggest debate is what comes next in mobility. As I’ve noted before, Starlink Mobile’s wholesale ARPUs are far lower than most analysts expect, i.e. tens of cents rather than multiple dollars per customer (of whom less than 10% are active), with partner access fees (effectively minimum commitments) bridging the gap to last year’s reported revenues.
There’s still an opportunity to gain several billion dollars of annual revenue from the Starlink Mobile V2 constellation, if Starlink continues to offer wholesale service to MNOs at a low price (I estimate the effective wholesale capacity price could be under $2 per Gbyte on V2). But that won’t provide a return on $20B of spectrum purchased from EchoStar. And the JV between the US MNOs will try to drive a hard bargain on price by playing off the satellite D2D providers against one another (though AST and Amazon’s offerings are unlikely to match up to what Starlink Mobile V2 will deliver in 2028).
So with MNOs wisely refusing to give Starlink an MVNO deal (thereby retaining their competitive advantage in bundled fixed and mobile services), what is SpaceX going to do? It looks like a small cell plan might be part of the answer: Starlink could copy Charlie Ergen’s plan for Clearwire back in 2013, which involved adding small cells to rooftop satellite (TV) dishes, and speculation is now mounting about perhaps even adding small cells to Cybercabs. I’ve also heard rumors that Samsung might even be building a phone that could carry the Starlink Mobile brand.
One potential source of spectrum for a terrestrial network would be to buy EchoStar’s CBRS spectrum, which is a lot more usable than upper C-band spectrum that won’t be available until 2031 (and isn’t compatible with current phones). And perhaps a deal with one or more cable companies that already use CBRS could be on the table: Starlink broadband could then potentially provide an out of footprint competitive solution that is analogous to FWA for the telcos. However, it remains to be seen how Starlink could address the in-building terrestrial network advantages that AT&T was so keen to highlight “in the stadium…in the hospital…in the high-rise building”.
I pointed out in a recent paper for WIA that D2D complements terrestrial wireless coverage rather than replacing it, and will mostly be just a fallback option for remote and emergency use. So I don’t believe that Starlink can realistically hope to capture a sizeable part of the US wireless market with a D2D-led service, even if this was coupled with small cell coverage, unless it gained access to a terrestrial wireless network with a national footprint. And at the end of the day, while rattling the cage of the telcos may keep analysts and investors on the edge of their seats, SpaceX is all about access to space and the company’s prospects will ride (or die) on Starship.
Permalink
06.04.26
Posted in Amazon, Broadband, Financials, SpaceX at 1:10 pm by timfarrar
One of the biggest uncertainties in the SpaceX IPO relates to the potential future growth of Starlink’s consumer business, which we discussed in detail in our 65 page report released on Tuesday this week. The most attention-grabbing claim from ARK Invest is that Starlink represents “a business without precedent” because even the early Starship launches of V3 satellites will produce twice as much revenue each year as it costs to manufacture and launch the satellites and acquire customers to fill them.
Those assertions (endorsed by Elon Musk) have led other analysts to predict that “SpaceX will disrupt [the] $1.6 trillion US communications industry” and justify a downgrade of AT&T, while Goldman Sachs is predicting that Starlink will generate $144B in revenue in 2030.
Starlink undoubtedly has a strong platform for growth, although you have to wonder why SpaceX suddenly decided to raise prices in the wake of a disappointing set of Q1 results, where ARPU dropped sharply, and incremental revenue per new subscriber was unsustainably low. That’s not the action of a company that’s looking to compete aggressively against terrestrial telcos and cable companies where multi-year “price lock” guarantees are all the rage.
Some have tried to explain away the price rises, as being “put in place because Starlink was having trouble coping with recent subscriber demand that was driven by price cuts”. But that doesn’t make much sense when Starlink net adds were lower in 2026Q1 (1.4M) than in 2025Q4 (~1.6M) and overall network performance improved continuously throughout 2025. Even potential terminal manufacturing constraints that were pointed out back in February will have been eased by the combination of fewer subscriber adds and increased production (which went from 170K per week at the end of 2025 to 200K per week as reported in the S-1).
[EDIT] And now Starlink has just announced it reached the 12M customer milestone, 111 days after the 10M milestone in February, which is a slightly slower growth rate than the 52 days from 9M to 10M and the 48 days from 8M to 9M customers.
Returning to the mad claims made by ARK, there are multiple errors in the assumptions, including that Starship will be able to launch 60 satellites right away when the roadshow presentation points out that will only be achieved “over time” and most importantly a dramatic underestimate of terminal costs, which at present are multiples of ARK’s assumed $100.
In their recent investor briefing, ST Microelectronics, who make the key chipsets for Starlink, said that “When you look at Ku band user terminal, I think that actually we’re going to soon reach a plateau” in the cost of their chips (which alone cost “a few tens of dollars” before the rest of the manufacturing takes place). At the end of the day, the cost of Starlink terminals is the key barrier to competing with terrestrial, not the cost of bandwidth.
Most egregious of all are ARK’s estimates of revenue per Tbps. If you look at Starlink’s $11.4B of revenues in 2025 and adjust for product revenues and Starshield/Starlink Mobile revenues that aren’t related to Starlink’s broadband business, then you get broadband service revenue in 2025 of about $15M per Tbps. With each extra Starlink V2 mini satellite adding capacity for ~2000 subs around the world, that’s about $62 of revenue per subscriber per month.
But Starlink’s current bandwidth provisioning will have to at least double if it is to compete fully for terrestrial subscribers. If we take the 10x increase in capacity per satellite on V3, but assume that provisioning doubles, that means each V3 satellite will add enough bandwidth to serve 10,000 new subscribers. At the same $62 per sub per month then that’s only $7.5M per Tbps launched. And if you want to compete with terrestrial then the incremental revenue per sub might only be $40 or so (under $5M per Tbps).
In contrast, ARK assumes that the initial Starship launches will generate $17M per Tbps (with a doubling of total system capacity) and $13M per Tbps if 10 times the current capacity is added, i.e. Starlink adds 6000Tbps, which would equate to winning another 100M subscribers with each generating an average of $65/month. That’s just not remotely credible (and incidentally explains why Musk’s daily or hourly launch tempo for Starship simply can’t be achieved based solely on Starlink demand).
Of course once you fix ARK’s underestimated costs and vastly inflated revenue assumptions then Starlink still looks like a very good business, with potential gross margins of around 60%. And Starlink should be able to capture a meaningful number of customers from terrestrial telcos in developed countries (about 100K per month in the US at the moment) if it does decide to price more aggressively at some point in the future. But don’t take these ridiculous assessments, which are being thrown out there to justify an IPO valuation of $1.75T, as saying anything about the reality of Starlink’s business potential and its impact on terrestrial telcos and cable companies. And ask yourself whether you believe Starlink’s next move will be to increase or decrease the price that customers are paying, especially when the prospect of competition from Amazon just moved even further into the future…
Permalink
06.02.26
Posted in Amazon, Broadband, Financials, Operators, SpaceX at 3:06 pm by timfarrar
I’ve been writing a lot about Starlink’s financials since the SpaceX S-1 came out almost two weeks ago and now I’ve just released my new 65 page report forecasting the opportunity for Starlink’s consumer business. The report pulls together the first detailed breakdown of how Starlink’s customers are distributed around the world, based on weekly monitoring of active terminals, and projects how the reported subscriber base and revenues will grow in the coming quarters and years by country and region.
The report analyzes Starlink capacity density and terminal production and how these factors have constrained growth in recent years. It also discusses the limitations to future growth and how successfully Starlink will be able to compete with terrestrial alternatives in different countries. And the report compares the technology of Starlink and Amazon Leo to assess whether there is any realistic prospect of Amazon making significant inroads into Starlink’s subscriber base in the coming years.
Do you know the top 10 Starlink country markets (United States, Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Australia, Mexico, UK, Chile, France, Germany) and how many subscribers are in each country? Do you want to understand how Starlink’s growth in each country has changed since the price cuts in January, and why the price increases last month were so significant for Starlink’s future growth trajectory? You can even see why the various online estimates either significantly overestimate the subscriber base or get the regional distribution dramatically wrong.
This report will be followed up with a detailed set of projections for Starlink’s other business lines later this week, updating our previous company profile, and you can get both reports together at a discount. Or subscribe to the full research service and access our other reports from last year covering the D2D and professional satellite markets that Starlink competes in, plus all of our regular notes on key breaking news in the satellite sector for the next 12 months.
Permalink
02.08.26
Posted in Broadband, Financials, Operators, Regulatory, SpaceX at 2:29 pm by timfarrar
On Friday, redacted versions of two SpaceX financial forecasts, one from 2021 and the other from 2023, were disclosed in the Delaware litigation between SpaceX shareholders.
While only very limited numbers in the financial projections remain unredacted (beyond the expectation in the 2021 forecast that “government” revenue for Starlink would grow to $5B by 2027), there is enough that can be extracted to determine that Starlink has exceeded the 2021 revenue forecast, but Starship has fallen dramatically behind expectations even in 2023. The 2021 forecast helpfully used redactions matched to the number of characters, showing that Starlink was first expected to exceed $10B in revenues in 2026, while in actual fact Starlink passed $10B in 2025.
The projected valuations on the last page of this document also make it possible to back into the total company revenues forecast in 2021 and 2027: the $102.8B valuation was 25x revenues, implying a revenue forecast of $4113M for 2021. By 2027 this valuation was expected to have increased 4.9x, to around $500B, which was said to be 20x revenues, implying a revenue forecast of ~$25B for 2027. That again is slightly less than SpaceX’s likely total revenues in 2027, even if you remain skeptical about SpaceX’s ability to meet the current published 2026 forecast of $22B-$24B.
However, the 2023 forecast shows how SpaceX was expecting Starship to start launching Starlink satellites to orbit in 2024, with Falcon 9 phased out for Starlink launches in 2026. Now even on Musk’s optimistic timeline from December 2025, Starlink V3 launches on Starship aren’t expected “at scale” until “around Q4″ of this year. So Starship launches of usable payloads have now consistently remained 12 months out for nearly three years.
It’s also fascinating to me how the ongoing debate about orbital data centers tends to ignore launch constraints. SpaceX is just beginning to scale up to develop these “AI satellites”, but until now the emphasis for Starship has been on getting it ready to launch Starlink V3 in volume. That’s meant building extensive launch pad infrastructure in Florida and seeking permission for a high launch tempo there.
Florida is ideal for Starlink launches to 40 and 50 degree inclinations, which will be much more difficult in Boca Chica. However, Florida is a terrible location for sun synchronous launches, which is where these orbital data centers are supposed to go, to utilize maximum sunlight. Back in 2020, SpaceX conducted the first sun synchronous launch from Florida in more than 50 years, and has continued to launch some Transporter rideshare missions to sun synchronous orbits since then, but this requires a very fuel inefficient “dog leg” maneuver and so is only suitable for light payloads, not bulk launches of AI satellites.
Similarly, undertaking sun synchronous launches from Boca Chica would be extremely challenging (and potentially cause an international dispute), as these rockets would need to fly completely across Mexico, not over the open ocean. That’s why Vandenberg is typically used for sun synchronous missions, but SpaceX hasn’t even begun building a Starship pad there, and a high launch tempo is likely to be very politically controversial in California. So how exactly does SpaceX intend to get these AI satellites to the desired orbit?
Permalink
01.03.26
Posted in Broadband, D2D, Financials, Operators, Services, SpaceX at 11:52 am by timfarrar
The reactions to my comments last month on The Information’s TITV program about SpaceX needing a new story for its planned $1.5T IPO were fascinating, mainly because no one actually disagreed with the fact that SpaceX has consistently missed its targeted revenue growth over the last three years. Back in July 2023 SpaceX originally estimated revenues for the year would double to around $8B, before this whisper number was raised in November 2023 to $9B, with a forecast of $15B in 2024. That caused analysts such as Payload Space to come up with a figure of $8.7B for 2023, which is still often repeated as the actual figure, despite the NY Times finally confirming in August 2025 that SpaceX’s 2023 revenue was only $7.4B (with Starlink generating “roughly $8 billion” in revenue during 2024, implying a companywide total of ~$11B).
In 2025, SpaceX once again appears to have missed the revenue prediction of $15.5B that Musk stated publicly back in June, with Bloomberg reporting in its IPO coverage that “the company is expected to produce around $15 billion in revenue in 2025, increasing to between $22 billion and $24 billion in 2026.” That’s despite surging broadband subscriber numbers, which reached 9.2M by the end of the year as SpaceX dramatically cut the price of its terminals and reduced US residential service pricing to stimulate demand. Of course Starlink’s revenue growth is incredibly impressive, as is the speed with which it has come to dominate the satellite industry, but justifying an $800B current valuation (let alone a $1.5T IPO valuation), usually requires outperforming revenue guidance, not missing it.
Even so, it seems likely that SpaceX’s revenue target for 2026 will once again prove too optimistic, because ARPUs on those millions of customers are much lower than most analysts think (especially now there’s a $5 per month service option for suspended terminals). And the next generation D2D/DTC system won’t start launching in volume until “around Q4″ 2026 (at best since that depends on rapid progress with Starship), while SpaceX can’t access EchoStar’s AWS-4 spectrum until November 2027, so it can’t start offering a Band 70 DTC solution in the US with existing handsets until then.
It’s also undeniable that SpaceX needs more than just Starlink to justify a $1.5T valuation, given that even its expected lead investment bank, Morgan Stanley, only thinks Starlink revenues will get to $126B in 2040. So its understandable that the proposal for space-based data centers took center stage in last month’s reports of IPO preparations.
Curiously, however, data centers didn’t even rate a mention in Starlink’s end of year progress report, which focused instead on talking up the Starlink V3 satellites and the DTC constellation in particular as the key payload for Starship. And interestingly, in this progress report Starlink also modified the company’s September 2025 comments that “in most environments, [DTC] will enable full 5G cellular connectivity with a comparable experience to current terrestrial LTE service,” to instead promise that “in most environments [DTC] will enable full 5G cellular connectivity with a comparable experience to current terrestrial service.”
In many ways, Musk’s plan for space-based data centers offers a Rorschach test for potential SpaceX investors, just like Optimus does for Tesla investors. Both allow for near term demonstrations that look impressive but aren’t meaningfully revenue-generating, while allowing Musk to make long term projections of “infinite” revenues that can be (nearly) infinitely postponed.
In the case of Optimus, he’s claimed “humanoid robots will be the biggest product ever. Because everyone is gonna want one, or more than one,” while for space-based data centers, he’s claimed that “satellites with localized AI compute, where just the results are beamed back from low-latency, sun-synchronous orbit, will be the lowest cost way to generate AI bitstreams in <3 years. And by far the fastest way to scale within 4 years, because easy sources of electrical power are already hard to find on Earth."
Or put another way “Optimus and space data centers are two sides of the same coin…Optimus promises to provide all needed physical labor (and even better than a human!), while space data centers promise to provide all needed mental labor (and even better than a human!).”
But if you read yesterday’s WSJ piece on Optimus and think that Musk is simply lying again because “in public appearances, the robot is often remotely operated by human engineers” then you’ll believe the same is likely true of his plans for SpaceX’s space-based data centers. Conversely if you read that article and think that Tesla is making continued progress in opening up an untapped market opportunity where Adam Jonas “predicts that by 2050, humanoids will bring in $7.5 trillion in annual revenue across the industry globally,” you’ll probably have the same reaction about space-based data centers. And of course the latter are the investors that SpaceX actually wants for any IPO.
This is not to say that the market for either is non-existent: just like many companies are working on robots (with or without legs!), there is plenty of interest in space-based data centers. Both will also be particularly useful to the DoD, and especially in the space market the US government is seen as the best source of new revenue by many players right now.
And SpaceX has substantial advantages both in access to cheap launch, and in the ability to build a distributed network of data centers based on the Starlink V3 bus (which is a much better solution than a handful of extremely large space-based data centers several km in diameter, not least because achieving low latency requires the data center to be in view). However, that’s very different to saying revenue will be “infinite” or that this market can justify a $1.5T valuation for SpaceX.
But to return to my original interview, its particularly amusing to note the CEO of Starcloud suggesting in a subsequent TITV interview that this was “the dumbest thing I’d heard in a quite a long time”, because the dumbest thing I’ve heard in quite a long time is Starcloud’s business plan, which (if you take their story about launching huge arrays into space at face value) is essentially totally dependent on gaining access to Starship launches at cost.
Of course that means sucking up to Elon Musk is a necessity, but when one of SpaceX’s key competitive advantages for Starlink (and a key source of value in any IPO) lies in exploiting the huge difference between the cost and price of Falcon 9 launches, there’s no reason to believe that the same wouldn’t be true for Starship. In other words, SpaceX will be able to launch its own space-based data centers at a much lower cost, compared to the price of Starship launches for third parties, allowing SpaceX to gain far more scale than any other player at much lower cost, just as it has done with Starlink. In fact, I understand that all Starcloud has is some interesting in-space cooling technology, which only becomes valuable in extremely large arrays, and that’s unlikely to be useful if SpaceX’s distributed space-based data center architecture proves more cost effective.
Permalink
07.23.25
Posted in Broadband, Operators, Regulatory, Services, SpaceX at 12:12 pm by timfarrar
Last week, the Washington Post published an article about Starlink’s supposed capacity limitations, based on a paper from X-Lab. This is part of the larger fight over the future of BEAD funding and how much should be redirected from fiber to satellite, with a rival ITIF paper suggesting the opposite, that it’s a myth that “LEOs Don’t Belong in BEAD”.
SpaceX has also been lobbying hard on this topic, publishing a network update that notes speeds and latency have both been improving in the US, even with more than 2M active users, and regulatory chief Dave Goldman highlighting his conversations with the FCC, NTIA and others “about how Starlink will make gigabit speeds available to people across the country”. Countering that, several articles have been published suggesting that Starship might never succeed, which would mean SpaceX being unable to launch the larger V3 satellites that the company is “targeting to begin launching…in the first half of 2026″
As one might expect, the lobbyists take an extreme position and the reality is somewhere in the middle: fundamentally there must be some limit to how much it is worth spending on fiber deployment to the most rural and remote locations, when Starlink (and in the future hopefully Kuiper) can provide an high quality, cost-effective residential broadband service. But on the other hand, putting fiber in the ground is a long term investment and it is comparing apples and oranges to equate that to the cost of a Starlink user terminal that the company expects to have a useful life of three years.
The X-Lab paper suggests that Starlink shouldn’t be funded by BEAD in areas where the population density is more than 6.7 Broadband Service Locations (BSLs) per square mile (which corresponds to limiting the addressable market to just over 3M homes around the country). However, when Starlink had waitlists in parts of the US such as the Pacific Northwest in January this year (since replaced by “congestion charges”), these were in regions with an average of about 4-5 customers per square mile, based on Starlink’s estimated US subscriber base in the area deemed “sold out”.
Since not all households would be expected to actually subscribe to internet service, this suggests that Starlink has already seen plenty of demand in areas at or above the proposed 6.7 BSL per square mile density limit, and those customers certainly found it worth paying for, even if the uplink speeds often fell short of the BEAD benchmark. Regardless of when/if Starlink actually gets to orbit, even the current Falcon 9 launch tempo is allowing the capacity of the Starlink service to improve significantly over time, so this proposed cutoff seems too low in limiting where Starlink can usefully provide service.
More to the point, the calculations in the paper simply don’t match the actual constraints on the Starlink service. The assumption is that only one satellite can serve a given cell, but a Starlink user would realize that’s not how it works in practice because if you set up a portable Starlink terminal and take it down each evening, one day you may be told (by the app) to point it say northeast, and the next day you may be told to point it west. That’s because the system is load balancing across the multiple satellites serving a given cell.
At the moment, the primary constraint on the downlink is the FCC’s limit on spectrum re-use (known technically as Nco=1) which means Starlink can only serve a single cell once with a given channel across Starlink’s 2GHz of downlink spectrum (10.7-12.7GHz). While the efficiency of spectrum use varies (for example it’s lower for a Starlink mini than a regular terminal), a reasonable estimate is ~3-4bps/Hz. So 2GHz of spectrum would equate to a maximum of ~7Gbps in a cell, which isn’t too different to the 6Gbps assumed in the paper. However, the FCC has allowed Starlink’s Gen1 and Gen2 satellites to be counted separately for the purposes of the re-use limit, and so the current theoretical maximum downlink speed in a cell is actually twice this level. And now the FCC is consulting on loosening these limits further.
The X-Lab paper focuses more on the uplink capacity as the key density constraint and it is certainly the case that the amount of spectrum available to Starlink is more limited there, because only 500MHz of Ku-band spectrum is allocated to uplink (14.0-14.5GHz) compared to 2GHz for downlink. However, the primary determinant of uplink capacity for Starlink end users is the number of timeslots allocated to uplink transmission, because the network uses Time Division Duplex (TDD) and was originally only configured to support transmission up to 10% of the time. That was intended to ensure that the terminal cannot produce enough radiation to heat up the head of someone standing in front of it (what the FCC refers to as SAR limits). Over time SpaceX has been able to improve this percentage (now 15.5% of the time for uncontrolled use) and professionally installed terminals can go even higher. So there’s no reason to conclude that the supposed 0.4Gbps per beam assumed in the paper is a hard limit.
On the other side of the lobbying effort, the ITIF paper ignores the fact that the BEAD funding mechanisms are extremely poorly suited to fund satellite deployments, as I discussed in this thread on X/Twitter. BEAD has been set up so you bid for money to deploy infrastructure in a particular geographical area, regardless of how many customers actually sign up. That makes sense when funding fiber or even wireless infrastructure: if you build a tower or lay a fiber line, the only way to make a return is to sell service within that coverage area. However, if you fund a satellite operator to build more LEO satellites, then those satellites will spend only a tiny fraction of 1% of the time over that area as they go around the Earth, and can devote 99%+ of the orbit to earning money from more valuable customers. So there is no real incentive for a satellite operator to actually sell service to the unserved customers.
The best way to square this circle would be to provide affordability instead of deployment incentives (i.e. a subsidy for terminals and/or monthly service), so that the satellite operator only earns money when end users in these unserved areas actually sign up, which was how the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) was structured. Otherwise the satellite operator is getting paid for something they are already doing: Starlink has over 7000 satellites in orbit already and is launching dozens every week, why pay them to launch a few hundred more? One possibility is to structure reimbursement payments “based on the number of subscribers the provider serves and/or enrolls” rather than “in equal installments throughout the period of performance”.
And when it comes to bidding, why wouldn’t any satellite operator bid a very low amount for the right to deploy service in unserved areas? If they can prevent terrestrial broadband technologies like fiber and wireless from getting subsidies for deployment, then they have a captive market to themselves. Certainly if both Starlink and Kuiper are bidding against one another, and these reimbursements are independent of the number of customers served, it would be logical for their deployment bids to be particularly low, since the cost of simply making service available is essentially zero. We saw in the RDOF auction (when Starlink didn’t face any meaningful competition from other satellite operators) that SpaceX was able to undercut terrestrial technologies, but the fight over whether or not they actually were going to receive their $885M in winning bids, made absolutely no difference to the number of satellites that the company put into orbit.
So in conclusion, satellite has a great opportunity to enhance broadband service in rural areas, potentially in more places than the very lowest density parts of the country. But unless the BEAD payments are linked to the number of customers served, the program will not do a good job of helping consumers realize those benefits.
Permalink
07.14.25
Posted in Broadband, Financials, KVH, Maritime, Operators, SpaceX at 4:29 pm by timfarrar
As I told the Wall St Journal last week, the revenue growth reported in the newly filed accounts for Starlink’s international operations is amazing, in the context of a satellite industry that does not grow fast. In fact, Starlink’s near $2B of international broadband service revenues reported in 2024 compares to about $3B for all other satellite operators combined, a roughly 40% market share that has been obtained in only the third full year of Starlink’s operations.
However, that alone represents a warning sign: in order to grow further and faster, Starlink now needs to focus heavily on expanding the market beyond traditional satellite users, not just winning customers from other satellite operators (though of course they will do that too). And terminal prices are already getting lower and lower: Starlink’s consumer terminal revenues in these international markets averaged only about $230 per new terminal manufactured in 2024, so terminal subsidies in 2025 (with 5M terminals manufactured in the last 11 months) may end up being as high as $1B.
These accounts don’t represent the whole of Starlink’s business, they exclude direct US sales to individuals, businesses and the government, which account for more than half of Starlink’s revenues. We’ve just published a note giving a more detailed breakdown of these accounts by customer type and geography, as well as an assessment of the changes to our 100+ page Starlink profile that was published last October. Get in touch if you’re interested in subscribing to our research.
One additional area of interest in Starlink’s financial reporting is the large prepayments that the company has received, which have gone a long way to shoring up its cash position and allowing the company to claim it has $3B of cash on hand (at least before the company handed over $2B of that to xAI). At the end of last year Starlink’s international business had booked over $600M of deferred revenue from one or more counterparties and I’m sure there will be lots of speculation about the source of those payments.
One example of how (much smaller) prepayments work is given by KVH, which as a public company helpfully discloses this information, with enough granularity to allow all of the details to be worked out. We published a profile of KVH last November which discusses all of this, but as shown below, KVH entered into a purchase of 15PB of data for a total of $16.95M in June 2024 (i.e. a price of $1.13 per Gbyte), with the data to be consumed over 15 months (according to KVH’s 2025Q1 call, the “follow-on pool” will be renegotiated “at some point later this year”).
However, according to KVH’s Q1 results, the company is far short of this goal, only having consumed 30% of the total after 9 months, and even being generous in terms of future growth in KVH’s Starlink business, it will likely take until early 2026 for the data pool to be used up. So the question is what will Starlink and KVH do at the end of Q3? Roll the additional data into a new larger pool? Or forfeit perhaps $5M of prepaid capacity?
This highlights one of the challenges for Starlink distributors that commit to prepurchase large amounts of data at an attractive rate. Each time a distributor renews their capacity pool, they may end up more and more dependent on Starlink continuing to supply them with capacity, and less and less able to divert spending to other LEO systems, even if they want to be “network-agnostic.”
And what then for other competing LEO providers who are seeking distributors to sell their services? Which distributors will actually have any spare budget to divert to these other sources of capacity? And what about the risk that Starlink might someday decide not to rollover millions of dollars of unused capacity if a distributor looks elsewhere? That’s likely to add to fears that Starlink will dominate the satellite industry, as I discussed in an NPR podcast a few weeks ago.
Permalink
09.08.22
Posted in Broadband, Financials, Operators, SpaceX, Spectrum at 10:06 am by timfarrar
Up until 2020, I was very skeptical about the LEO broadband opportunity, and whether any of the planned systems would be able to raise enough money and build out a constellation that could deliver a service that is competitive with existing GEO operators. That skepticism seemed entirely justified after the failure of LeoSat in late 2019 and OneWeb’s spiral towards a bankruptcy filing in March 2020. SpaceX had also given wildly over-ambitious forecasts for Starlink’s revenue and timing, with projections for $6B of revenue in 2021, rising to over $30B in 2025.
But over the last two years, Starlink has launched a consumer broadband service that has upended the industry by providing vastly more capacity per subscriber than Viasat and Hughes, with a simple, easy to install terminal, and as of June 2022 already served over 400K users. Successfully developing such a system is an extraordinary technical feat when so many previous broadband constellation plans have failed. And after raising over $6B in the last 2.5 years at ever increasing valuations, SpaceX has been able to launch thousands of Starlink satellites and build scale that competitors will struggle to match.
I didn’t think that SpaceX would pull this off, but they did, and today too many people in the industry, who are rightly skeptical of Elon Musk’s litany of unfulfilled promises, remain far too complacent and are continuing to dismiss Starlink as just a consumer service that won’t threaten other parts of the satellite market, or are even suggesting that the network remains economically unviable and is doomed to failure.
However, the dam is starting to break for acceptance of Starlink amongst professional users, with Royal Caribbean’s recent move to deploy Starlink representing just the start of disruption in traditional satellite verticals. And SpaceX’s latest $2B in equity funding should see the company through to late 2023, by which time I expect Starlink to have captured around 1M users and have reached cash flow breakeven (even accounting for ongoing satellite replenishment costs).
That doesn’t mean Starlink (or SpaceX more broadly) will offer a positive return to those recent investors at the ludicrous valuation of $127B, because satellite will remain a last resort solution compared to terrestrial fiber, cable modem and even 5G fixed wireless options, but it does mean that there’s no reason to suppose that Starlink will cease to be an enormous competitive threat to the satellite industry in the foreseeable future.
One largely unrecognized issue in the LEO market is that there are significant benefits to scale, due to the virtuous circle that comes from adding more satellites to a constellation, as shown in the diagram below.
With more satellites in the sky, the user terminal antennas don’t have to scan as far to find a satellite to connect to, so they can be cheaper, with fewer antenna elements. And the altitude of the constellation can be lower, improving the link margin and capacity, and allowing the user terminal to operate at lower power. Capacity provisioning also becomes more uniform, as traffic loading can be averaged across multiple satellites, improving the quality of service. Starlink has been designed from the ground up to minimize the cost of the terminal, unlike traditional satellite systems (even recent designs like Telesat’s Lightspeed), which optimize the satellite and treat the terminal as an afterthought. Cheaper terminals and more capacity attract more users and generate more revenue, which can be fed back into building yet more satellites, making it ever harder for competitors to catch up.
So now we’re in a position where Starlink has clearly won the race for LEO broadband (at least for the next 4-5 years, since Amazon’s Kuiper won’t be completed before 2026-27), and is likely to become the largest satellite operator by revenue within that timeframe. Our new report on LEO broadband and the future of the satellite industry forecasts what this means for industrywide growth in revenue and traffic, and analyzes how satellite operators, distributors and equipment suppliers are likely to respond to what for many will represent an existential threat. The outcomes will include an acceleration of industry consolidation, decisions to exit, and even bankruptcies. The report also complements our June 2022 Starlink profile, which analyzes Starlink’s technology and forecasts Starlink’s revenue growth by segment. You can order one or both reports using the form here, or contact us to discuss subscription options for all of our industry analysis.
Permalink
04.05.20
Posted in Broadband, Financials, Operators, Regulatory, Services, SpaceX at 11:41 am by timfarrar
Eight and a half years ago, I wrote a blog post that got a lot of attention inside the FCC, comparing LightSquared’s request for a license that would give it a $10B windfall to the relatively small beer of the $535M Solyndra loan scandal. Despite knowing that LightSquared’s promise of an integrated satellite-terrestrial network was nonsense (not least because LightSquared had already told the FCC in November 2010 that the wholesale cost of its satellite data would be $10 per Mbyte), the FCC and White House offered strong backing for LightSquared right up until summer 2011 when political pressures became too great and their support was withdrawn.
Now it appears that the FCC’s LightSquared debacle could be exceeded by an even greater debacle in the satellite sector, because SpaceX is seeking to participate in the upcoming Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction later this year, which will offer up to $16B of funding over 10 years to service providers that commit to offer voice and broadband services to fixed locations in eligible unserved high-cost census blocks. While the Wall St Journal highlighted competitors’ complaints a few weeks ago, SpaceX has now upped its demands even further, suggesting in a March 27 letter to the FCC that “the laws of physics” dictate that SpaceX should be allowed to bid in the highest performance tiers (which carry the most money per potential customer) because “far from [being] untested or hypothetical, SpaceX has already launched over 360 satellites and demonstrated that its network is capable of offering high-speed, low-latency service”.
That of course is complete nonsense, because the laws of physics aren’t the only factor determining the latency of a LEO constellation, especially one that is (or apparently was in SpaceX’s case) supposed to have onboard processing and crosslinks. For example, Iridium’s latency on voice calls is not actually much better than a GEO satellite network and certainly exceeds “the Commission’s 100-millisecond threshold for low-latency services” (this paper estimated it at “between 270-390 milliseconds”). In fact one should regard claims of extremely low (and improved) latency for Starlink’s current satellites as indicating that in reality some of the most important design features, such as onboard processing, have likely been discarded.
To date SpaceX has certainly not demonstrated anything whatsoever about the performance of its planned commercial voice and broadband services for consumers. Notably SpaceX has still not published details of its terminals (except to advise that the antennas will need mechanical steering, raising the cost significantly), and last year’s testing by the US Air Force onboard a plane did not even use a SpaceX antenna. Moreover, that test did not involve most of the operational elements needed to offer a scalable commercial service, such as provisioning and sharing of capacity between multiple users, because SpaceX simply dedicated an entire satellite to one user terminal.
In particular, SpaceX makes great sounding (but carefully worded) claims in its submission to the FCC that “SpaceX also specifically designed Starlink to provide high-speed broadband service, using advanced phased-array antennas that allow the system to automatically optimize service to certain locations and dynamically adjust its throughput per user” when in fact many features of the supposed “design” have not actually been implemented in practice. While some of those discarded design features, such as crosslinks, are well known, I’m told that to date the satellites also don’t have any ability to dynamically reallocate capacity between beams, because that was apparently “too hard”. Perhaps that’s not surprising, when SpaceX is writing the software itself, rather than looking to companies with actual experience in designing scalable satellite broadband networks, like Hughes and Viasat.
But what is truly outrageous in SpaceX’s submission is the suggestion that the FCC should now let SpaceX participate in an auction to win $16B of ratepayers’ money without ever providing service to a single consumer, because SpaceX has now pushed back the launch date until after the FCC’s planned October 2020 auction date. The latest letter states simply that (even if you are foolish enough to take Elon Musk’s ever-optimistic timelines at face value) “SpaceX will now begin to offer its Starlink broadband service for consumers—first in the United States and Canada—by the end of 2020″. Of course now that Starlink’s primary competitor, OneWeb, has gone into bankruptcy, the urgency of pushing Starlink forward as quickly as possible has diminished (not to mention SpaceX being short of money itself), and why would SpaceX now want to risk consumers experiencing a service that in the early days may not work very well, if at all, before the FCC auction takes place?
But as I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, bidders are not required to actually provide service to any specific number of customers at all in order to receive the RDOF funding, and instead are simply expected to use the funding to subsidize their buildout and make it available. So SpaceX could then take the FCC’s money, never provide service to a single customer that the money was meant to help, and reallocate its capacity to serve other users like the DoD anywhere within the country or even the rest of the world.
Perhaps the FCC and Congress, like the rest of us, are pre-occupied with the coronavirus, and think this issue should not be at the forefront of our concerns right now. But when Elon Musk has convinced many gullible people that Starlink will “catalyze enormous positive change, bringing, for the first time, billions of humans into our future global cybernetic collective” and so it would be “stupid to put one more federal dime into rural broadband when Starlink could solve the whole problem by later this year” it remains possible that SpaceX will be able to get away with this nonsense and walk away with billions of dollars of funding that were intended to help close the homework gap while we are all distracted.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
