[geertj]

> But so is launching satellites

Starship is trying to get launch cost down to $10 per kilogram to low earth orbit. At that cost it is not clear to me that cables are better except for short distance point to point backbones. One other issue with cables is regulation or monopoly.

[hajile]

There are two different questions. Are cables cheaper and is Starlink profitable in the long term?

Launching a starlink satellite costs $1.5-2M per satellite for the current design. Each satellite lasts around 5 years and they need 42k of them.

Do the math and you get $13B to $17B per year ignoring inflation and ignoring the massive ground infrastructure that is also needed (costing billions more per year).

Residential plans range from $55-175/month and will make up almost all subscriptions. Most people will get the $85 middle plan, but we'll round up to $100/mo or $1200/yr.

Breaking even with no profit requires 10-15 million subscribers.

As starlink claims to have around 12k subscribers and just 10.5k satellites, I'd guess the system is profitable.

The cable question is still compelling though. Rural fiber costs around $25k per mile. This means that an average $15B/yr buys 600,000 miles of installed fiber every single year.

My conclusion is that the ideal solution would be Starlink keeping total satellites closer to the current 10k number ($4-5B per year) and spending the other $10B/yr running fiber to new areas.

Their subscriber base would drop as new fiber got installed in rural areas overlooked as "not profitable enough", but stabilize at still profitable enough from travelers and truly inaccessible places.

[eagleal]

There's a limit to orbit at your desired location similar to what real estate is. At some point it becomes scarse and consolidation will happen.

At a time when state actors are becoming increasingly non-cooperative, it may not be wise to put all your eggs in someone else's basket.