Categories
The Industry

An Update on Satellite Broadband

Ookla recently published a blog that looks at the speed performance of satellite broadband, focusing mostly on Starlink. I haven’t looked at this broadband sector for a while and thought it was time for an update.

Starlink has had a busy year. At the end of November, the company had 5,500 satellites in orbit, up from over 3,200 at the end of 2022. The first constellation is still slated to reach almost 12,000 satellites, and the company has tentative permission from the FCC to extend to 42,000. We’re about to start seeing the balancing act of launching new satellites while replacing older ones, as some of the original satellites are being decommissioned and are falling from orbit. The company has upgraded its satellites, and the newest ones weigh three times more than the original fleet.

Customers are obviously liking the bandwidth, and Starlink passed 2 million worldwide customers in September 2023. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that the company has started to make a small monthly profit, an important step in long-term viability. The FCC recently, in response to a challenge by the company, reiterated that it will not be giving Starlink any of the $900 million the company won in the RDOF reverse auction at the end of 2020.

Ookla provides interesting statistics.

  • Starlink’s median download speed in the third quarter of 2023 in North America was 64.5 Mbps. That is a significant improvement over 2022 where the median speed was 53 Mbps. This is still significantly lower than what the company had promised in its original RDOF filing where the company said it could easily provide speeds to everybody of at least 100 Mbps.
  • Ookla noted that the speeds reported on speed tests had a relatively narrow variance, which distinguishes the technology from DSL and fixed wireless, which are both dependent on the distance between a customer and the network transmitter.
  • Ookla noted that 60% of Starlink speed tests were coming from urban areas. They can’t know the relative penetration rates of urban versus rural due to Starlink selling so many roaming units that can be installed on the roof of a camper or moved from place to place.

High-orbit geosynchronous satellites are not performing as well as Starlink. The median speed test in the third quarter for HughesNet was 15.87 Mbps, and Viasat was 34.72 Mbps. The real differentiator between these companies and Starlink is the latency, with the high-orbit satellites having a median latency well above 500 milliseconds, while Starlink performance is similar to cable companies.

The biggest problem that I hear from Starlink users is the price, with a base price of $110 per month, but many people are paying $120 since they live in regions that have a lot of Starlink subscribers. I also know several folks who tried the technology and abandoned it – all lived in heavy woods and were never able to find a configuration that would deliver reliable broadband. I’ve also been seeing reports during the year on surveys where customers say the broadband suffers during rainy weather.

An interesting new player will soon enter the market – Project Kuiper, backed by Jeff Bezos. After multiple delays, the company finally launched its first two test satellites in 2023. The company is still optimistic about selling broadband in two or three years and has reserved numerous launch windows with rocket companies. The company has been moot on broadband pricing, but it wouldn’t be surprising to see the company come up with interesting bundling packages that include Amazon.

The biggest threat to U.S. satellite broadband is still a few year away. Much of the rural areas that the satellite ISPs do well in will see new broadband networks constructed with BEAD and other broadband grants. It’s going to be hard to keep customers priced at $110 per month when faster alternatives will be available for less. Of course, the rural U.S. is only a tiny portion of the worldwide market for Starlink and other satellite providers, and in the long run it probably doesn’t matter how they do here. We live in a world where several billion people still don’t have any access to broadband – so the growth potential is gigantic.

Categories
The Industry

Do the Big Companies Even Want to Get it Right?

The latest Consumer Reports rankings are out for telecom providers, and the results are much the same as in past years. There are many different groups that rate companies and we often hear of reports that put the cable companies at the bottom of all companies in terms of customer service.

But the Consumer Reports ranking is more comprehensive. It looks at a lot of factors such as the perceived value that customers see with the provide, reliability, speeds, and support both in the home and over the phone. And they compare all of the major telecom companies and don’t compare to other industries.

Not surprisingly, HughesNet and their satellite broadband ranks the lowest. I’ve never heard anybody talk nicely about their product since it’s slow, costly and also has a lot of latency and delays. Many people say it is barely better than dial-up. It will be interesting to see how satellite ranks now that Exede is in the market with a faster product. As I reported a few weeks ago, the issue with Exede is the low total data caps, but at least the 12 mbps download is a huge improvement.

Ranked next to satellite is MediaCom which always comes in dead last among cable and telcos. Ranked next at the bottom are the various DSL providers, with Frontier, Fairpoint, Windstream and AT&T DSL. For the most part the customers on these services have older DSL technology that is only delivering a few Mbps download speeds. There is faster DSL technology available today and better ways to deploy it by bringing the DSLAMs closer to customers, but the companies listed are for the most part not pumping much money into DSL. The exception is Frontier who has gotten a pile of federal subsidy money from the new USF fund to upgrade and expand its DSL footprint.

But right next to this old DSL technology is Comcast, followed closely by Verizon DSL and then Time Warner. Verizon barely even advertises that it has DSL anymore and it is a surprise to see it more favorable with customers than Comcast.

At the top of the list and doing the best job are the smaller cable companies and fiber providers. At the top of the list are WOW and Wave (Astound) followed by Verizon FiOS.

It just amazes me to see these large companies like Comcast and Time Warner do so poorly with their customer service. They have been at the bottom of these kinds of rankings for well over a decade now and it’s obvious that they are willing to live with giving poor service. When you look at the rankings and see that Comcast is viewed by customers to be doing a worse job than Verizon and CenturyLink DSL you just have to shake your head.

It’s very obvious that they don’t care to become better because by spending some money they could do much better. Doing customer service well is not some unreachable mountain of a task. Thousands of companies do it well. If WOW and Astound can do it well, so can Comcast and Time Warner. It’s a matter of investing in the right systems, the right training and the right management of the process. Being big is not an excuse for being crappy, and if it is a valid excuse, then this alone ought to stop the Comcast / Time Warner merger.

I would think that the management of these companies would hate seeing themselves at the bottom of these lists. But they obviously like profits more than they hate doing a poor job. And that is what I don’t get. These companies have lost millions of customers due to dissatisfaction with their service and their best growth strategy is to lure back customers in their existing markets by doing a better job.

Exit mobile version