from the build-it-and-they-will-come-or-we-will-force-it-into-their-agreements-anyway dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Two out of five mobile phone subscribers are unwilling to pay any extra for direct-to-cell satellite services, which may give operators pause for thought as they continue to pump cash into scaling the infrastructure.
Much has been written about the race to enable satellite connectivity for mobile phones, typically to provide coverage in places such as rural or remote areas of the US where there may be no cell networks nearby.
The GSM Association (GSMA), an industry body representing the interests of mobile network operators worldwide, asked 1,000 respondents in ten countries how much additional spend they'd consider adding to their mobile tariff if satellite connectivity was included.
Some 40 percent said they wouldn't pay more for this capability. Of the remainder, 32 percent would only be willing to pay up to 5 percent extra; 17 percent said they'd be willing to pay up to 10 percent extra, and only 4 percent were prepared to add 20 percent to their tariff.
The GSMA put a positive spin on this, saying the figures indicate that 60 percent of people, on average, are willing to pay more on top of their existing bills.
Even 5 percent extra on tariffs would be a meaningful boost to the average revenue per user, the trade body claimed, "when spread across the applicable customer base of the mobile operators most likely to take satellite, whether in an existing tariff or as a separate offer."
It added: "in short, if it's built, they are likely to come."
The GSMA also noted that inclination to pay is "part science and part art," and consumer attitudes must be "taken with a grain of salt, compared to actual purchases."
Another key factor in whether people will be interested in having satellite services available as a supplement is - unsurprisingly - the quality of mobile network coverage in their area.
[...] Many of these alliances are for space-borne services that are not yet operational, of course, such as the tie-ups between US networks Verizon and AT&T to use the satellite network that AST SpaceMobile is in the process of building.
Most of the telcos with satellite tie-ups are in the Asia-Pacific region, double those found in the next largest region, which is Sub-Saharan Africa. Europe is listed as having 10, and North America six, with Latin America at 14, Middle East and North Africa at eight, and Eurasia four.
Of the satellite operators, Starlink remains the leader in deployments, the GSM said, with more than 6,300 in orbit as of August 2024. However, it is estimated that only around one hundred of these are currently units supporting direct-to-cell capability.
Eutelsat OneWeb had the next highest number of deployments, with approximately 650 units in orbit, while Amazon's Project Kuiper and AST SpaceMobile are set to join the party soon.
China also has plans to loft thousands of satellites in the near future, and the GSMA notes that these are part of a broader strategy to support defense and economic objectives and largely for domestic use, in contrast to other network operators such as Starlink.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday October 07, @10:48AM (5 children)
I guess the flip side is what are the relative costs and capacity of satellite mobile network i.e. how much does it cost to run a bunch of satellites in space (clean environment but no repair ability and high outlay) compared to a ground network (messy environment and line of sight issues; but repair is possible).
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Monday October 07, @12:58PM (1 child)
And don't forget that if the underlying technology improves in some crucial way, the entire network has to be launched to space again.
Right now, the clusterfuck that is starlink has huge up-front costs that investors plan on amortizing over the lifetimes of the satellites. If one performance improvement that us dumbass consumers suddenly realize we can't live without comes in 5 years, congrats you now have a 50 billion dollar collection of space junk that you owe interest on.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Monday October 07, @03:12PM
The tech has been around for 50 years [youtube.com] and those satellites are still in use, albeit expensive.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 07, @01:02PM (2 children)
>repair is possible
Tech and society in general have been moving to the "replace" rather than "repair" model for some time now. The way they are sprinkling satellites into orbit like salt from a sack lately, just please please please have an auto-deorbit feature when the satellite loses functionality and "crunch all you want, we'll make more."
As for relative costs, ground leases are still pretty cheap as compared to launch fees. Then there's the relative utility: how many people actually need coverage that isn't provided by the terrestrial networks? If you don't need the more expensive service, why would you pay for it? Some people do need it, some people will buy it as a status symbol, but most people will only pay for what they can use.
When the satellite network starts providing more capacity than the market will pay for at current rates, rates are likely to drop - eventually. Just look at DeBeers as the business model for the near term, though.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday October 07, @04:47PM (1 child)
My head is wondering when/whether it is cheaper to put a few satellites in space than to put a few hundred cell phone towers on the ground (especially to cover rural networks). Cost to the consumer in that case is irrelevant, what matters is cost to the provider.
> have an auto-deorbit feature when the satellite loses functionality
I think it is known as "the atmosphere" (i.e. Low Earth Orbit)
> If you don't need the more expensive service, why would you pay for it?
This is not a cost argument but a value argument.
> When the satellite network starts providing more capacity than the market will pay for at current rates, rates are likely to drop
I was talking about cost to the provider, not cost to the consumer.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 07, @11:12PM
It's really all about the bandwidth: how many cell calls per kg of launch mass?
LEO is nice for deorbit, but I would rather have 50+ year MTBF on the orbiters and as little "dead time" as possible after failure. Remember, we are just past 50 years post Apollo, and there will be a LOT of orbiters required to serve 8B+ handsets.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 07, @11:59AM (4 children)
Five years ago, I would have contemplated paying extra for satellite capability. Ten years ago, definitely. With infrastructure being built out (at last) the idea isn't worth so much. My cell service hasn't improved at my house in the last five or ten years, but I now have fast internet and WIFI calling. This idea should have been floated ten or more years before Musk started tossing satellites in orbit. A lot of people would have paid for satellite service when cell service was horribly patchy.
There is also the fact that most people are paying already extravagant fees for their cell service. If your monthly bill is already over $200, a ten percent premium looks like a lot. I'll twist an old adage to fit the situation - a day late, and a dollar too much.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 07, @01:03PM (3 children)
>If your monthly bill is already over $200
Then you have a problem with comparison shopping.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Monday October 07, @02:43PM (2 children)
Are you sure about that?
I need unlimited data and use-my-phone-as-a-hotspot service. I buy phones outright, so the phone cost isn't a factor. The price on the tin is 50.99 per line for each of my three lines and my wireless service, all up, is $185.56. When I had two kids living at home it was almost $250. Who would you have me switch to?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 07, @03:56PM
Well, three lines of unlimited data can run around $200 per month... I was thinking of a single line of service.
Hypothetically, I've got an office with 25 salespeople all over town using unlimited data - the total bill for their service is much more than $200 per month.
For our family use case: Google Fi is pretty good. We do two lines for us, and one line for our son on a separate plan - so our max data cost is lower. $35/month base for us, after we hit 10GB shared between the two it caps at $100 for data - the next 5GB is free and after that they throttle. We generally stay well under 10GB, but on a heavy month we might hit 12 or 13. Our son's plan is $20 per month base, and his data stops costing after 6GB with throttling at 15GB.
So, our typical month runs $55+taxes for 3 lines, and usually another $50 for data, If we max out both accounts on data it will be $215+taxes, but that happens maybe one month in 12 or less. If you really want more than 15GB per line, you can also opt out of throttling and continue to pay per $0.01 MB when you need it - we've never gone there.
It just all depends on how you use it. When we're on the road 2+ weeks in the month, an unlimited data plan would be a tiny bit cheaper for us, but for the rest of the time, we're paying around half or less of what that would cost.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 07, @10:11PM
If you haven't already looked at them, check out US Mobile. I have a grandfathered plan, but I think the "new" plans are comparable. Unlimited everything, for twenty bucks a month. I can add all the lines I care to add, at the same price. If there's a gimmick or a trick to the plan, I haven't discovered it, nor have I heard anyone else saying so. The hotspot service might cast another couple dollars. I'm not a salesman, nor am I trying to sign you up through their "share with a freind" program - but go look at it. Hopefully you can cut your bill by 50 or 60, maybe 70%.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Monday October 07, @02:01PM
An alternative way to interpret this data is "Two out of five mobile phone subscribers never leave a high quality service area and/or don't trust their providers to automatically roam them to $$$ satellite service."
The former is obvious. The latter is a big issue. If you're near a border it's easy to get absolutely cornholed by your carrier auto-roaming you onto international service. Satellite service would extend this "feature" everywhere.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by datapharmer on Monday October 07, @06:59PM
So consumers don't want to pay, but I'll bet some 3 letter agencies love the idea of access to phone telemetry with no dead zones...
(Score: 2) by corey on Monday October 07, @11:47PM
I guess they didn’t really survey people in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc for those I’d say would value unhindered satellite comms. But I guess the service may be provided by those respective governments anyway.