[oceanplexian]

Starlink accounted for 69% of SpaceX revenue pre-merger and is speculated to be already profitable including launch costs.

And this is all before they launch a phone or something, or replace global fiber interconnect with a lower latency space-based alternative, replace all forms of space based telecommunications (TV, Satellite Radio, etc). Starlink is a $1T+ business without even getting creative.

[nwah1]

For context, that revenue was $18.67 billion in 2025, with a net loss of $4.94 billion.

And we must remember that 6G is in the final stages of development, which has peak speeds of 1 Tbps.

[zdragnar]

6G will have worse physical penetration than 5G, which makes it worthless in rural areas where 5G is already severely inhibited by tree leaves.

[KeplerBoy]

It's not that simple. Yes, newer standards push for higher frequencies to get more bandwidth, but 5G for example also uses the old sub GHz bands with excellent range and penetration.

[markdown]

> in rural areas where 5G is already severely inhibited by tree leaves.

This is not a problem in Africa and India.

[ben_w]

You need an /s or a /jk or people will take you seriously.

https://www.google.de/maps/place/Nairobi,+Kenya/@-1.2745409,...

[markdown]

I didn't mean to say there were no trees or leaves in those places, because of course they have massive tropical and subtropical forests.

In most of the world, if a some leaves are in the way, it's quite simple to remove the leaves.

[mlindner]

Starlink by itself does not have a net loss.

[Cyberdog]

Will sending bits to space and back really be faster than fiber? How?

[davrosthedalek]

Lightspeed in air is close to c_vacuum. Light speed in fiber is roughly 2/3 c_vacuum. So for transatlantic it might be faster.

[pferde]

Unless you're trying to do something like high frequency stock trading, this does not really matter. Most of the added latency is added in the hops themselves, as packets are being classified and routed. Your generic Internet user won't be able to see any difference.

[snickerbockers]

You need to take error into account, too. Can atmospheric conditions corrupt the transmission (this is not a rhetorical question, I actually don't know)? If so then your latency and bandwidth will both suffer.

EDIT: also, in the very likely case that the packet is not addressed to the satellite itself, routing comes into play. In the best-case scenario where the satellite is somehow able to transmit the packet directly to its destination the distance it travels is actually doubled. If the packet instead gets transmitted from the satellite to a base-station which then routes it through fiber-optics then there's no point in trying to argue that the satellite connection is the faster of the two even if that is true.

[db48x]

Often the bigger difference is just that fiber never goes in a straight line, even if it’s going to the right city. All that pesky geography gets in the way and makes the path longer.

[dizhn]

As far as I can tell it almost exclusively follows the existing roads in Europe. Probably an easier way to secure rights in one go like rails used to be for telco lines.

[bigfatkitten]

And because getting heavy plant up through a mountain range to dig trenches etc is a pain in the arse. It’s easier to do it along a main road.

[db48x]

If you were smart about it then you wouldn’t go up in the mountains in the first place. To get the lowest possible latency you want a straight shot, so obviously you should just bore your way through at the level of the plains on either side.

[db48x]

Geography and property lines, twin banes of every infrastructure builder.

[inemesitaffia]

Pipelines, Sewer systems, rail too.

[rckclmbr]

Let’s see if we can bring the cost of hollow core fiber down, it would be faster transatlantic even

[ozim]

It will definitely be faster when someone drops an anchor on the undersea cable.

[Cyberdog]

Given the size of the ocean (ie, there's so many other places that a ship can drop anchor other than right on a cable), I would assume this would be intentional sabotage any time it happens.

[ozim]

Exactly…lately they were dragging anchor by „accident” with a ship „totally not associated” with the country that was accused.

[bamboozled]

With positive thinking and maximum upside ?

[laughing_man]

Starlink made a $4 bn profit last year, and is apparently growing 30% YoY.

[ben_w]

Starlink isn't billed for the cost of launches.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/06/29/spacex-secret-laun...

[laughing_man]

Interesting. I didn't realize that.

[inemesitaffia]

It's not true.

It's billed at cost. Not at price.

[yesplorer]

From Space X prospectus:

For launches of our Starlink satellites, the Company does not recognize any inter-segment revenue, rather those launch costs are capitalized in satellites in Property, plant, and equipment, net. We allocate a significant amount of launch capacity to our Connectivity segment, and expect to allocate a significant amount to our AI segment in the future. Our Space segment revenue only reflects our customer launches and customer activities.

For launches dedicated to deploying our Starlink satellites, we capitalize the associated costs within our Connectivity segment and depreciate them over time, and we do not recognize revenue for those launches in our Space segment.

[inemesitaffia]

There's no dispute there with what I said.

The launch cost for Starlink is in the connectivity segment. It has to go somewhere on your balance sheet and you can't magic it away.

If you manufacture cement and you also sell premixed concrete in another division it's a similar thing. Or any other company that sells both raw material and finished product.

Here they are saying it's in the connectivity segment costs instead of them buying it at retail. That's all there is.

That's how analysts can estimate launch costs ~$20MM and $600k for satellites as opposed to the idea that launch is $0 for Starlink and the cost is hidden in the space segment.

[Lomlioto]

Yeah but it doesn't become a Trillion dollar business if they don't solve the Starlink Satelite v3 issue.

They need Starship to be able to send v3 up, without v3 it doesn't scale well enough.

Starship still hasn't proven it can actually bring up the relevant payload high enough and they need it to be reusable otherwise costs will increase.

And they already exist and only have 10 Million customers. They need to get countries on their side like India but these countries are not stupid. Elon Musk showed them very clearly what he can do like his statements he did when Ukraine war started.