Subscribe
Amazon is planning to finance the launch of a new global satellite internet service, powered by a fleet of more than 3,000 low Earth-orbiting satellites that will deliver high-speed internet service to rural underserved and unserved communities, opening up the possibility of millions of potential new Amazon.com customers.
Known as Project Kuiper, named after a famous Dutch-American astronomer, the project is enthusiastically backed by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, and will require billions of dollars in investment. The proposal claims Amazon will launch 3,236 small satellites into space in about a decade, which experts claim is plenty of time for the ambitious project to either flourish, be changed, or scrapped under pressure from Wall Street.
“Project Kuiper is a new initiative to launch a constellation of low Earth orbit satellites that will provide low-latency, high-speed broadband connectivity to unserved and underserved communities around the world,” an Amazon spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “This is a long-term project that envisions serving tens of millions of people who lack basic access to broadband internet. We look forward to partnering on this initiative with companies that share this common vision.”
Although the marketing focus of the project will be on reaching rural and unserved areas, the satellite broadband network would deliver data coverage anywhere within a range of 56 degrees north to 56 degrees south latitude, which would cover virtually every continent, except extreme South America, Antarctica, parts of far northern Russia, Alaska, and Canada. About 95 percent of the world’s population would be reached by Amazon’s satellite project. Most similar ventures promise much faster and more responsive service than traditional satellite internet service, at a much lower cost.
Kuiper
But CNBC reported the road to the next generation of satellite internet access “is littered with companies that tried, and failed, to pull off a coup in space-based internet.”
- 2015: Facebook scrapped plants to spend up to $1 billion on satellite internet access for Africa and other under-covered continents.
- 2002: Teledesic closed its doors after spending $9 billion on a similar low Earth-orbiting satellite project backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
Amazon could have competition if any of the projects still in progress actually begin offering service.
- Elon Musk’s SpaceX launched two test satellites for its “Starlink” network last year, the first step toward its goal of a constellation of 4,425 satellites.
- In March 2019, Softbank-backed OneWeb launched the first six satellites of its network, which plans to begin with a constellation of 650 interconnected satellites.
- Boeing and Canadian satellite operator Telesat have their own plans for a satellite internet project.
Amazon has very deep pockets and has the financial capacity to fully fund the project, but not without likely protests from investors concerned about the cost and history of earlier flopped ventures. Additional details can be found in these three sets of filings made with the International Telecommunications Union last month by the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of the Amazon-backed venture.
Wait till Moffet tells Wall Street this is too expensive and recommends everyone go back to using rotary phones.
This is pretty nice to see competition finally heating up in the US. While I don’t necessarily think all the satellites in space will be healthy for planet (because of space junk), I do however believe in more competition and more companies in the internet sector. I figured Amazon would eventually get into the internet business (considering how big they are and how many business there in already). But we definitely need it because right now a lot of the areas in the US lack decent competition because of laws created and monopolies by the cable companies.
A few companies seem able to deflect criticism from people like Craig Moffett and Amazon is one of them.
Amazon has long put a lot of money back into the business and accepted lower margins in the short term on some things to gain market share. So far they have gotten away with it.
Responding to Dylan: In regards to space junk, these new satellites are designed to de-orbit and burn-up in the atmosphere, once they’ve reached their useful service life. Once that occurs, a replacement satellite will be maneuvered into it’s orbital position, without any service interruptions.
Amazon’s upcoming satellite internet service is only worth it, only, if there are no data caps meaning by providing unlimited data that should come with each plan. If data caps are enforced just like Hughes and Viasat/exede, then there’s no sense in subscribing to it.
I mean, if it’s a fair data cap like a terabyte or a few, then I believe that’s fine. Of course, unlimited is the best but that’s not always going to be the case with more bandwidth constricted services such as satellite. But if it’s not like current satellite providers doing like 50 gigs for extraordinary prices, then that would be great! Since it’s Amazon and considering how big they are, then it would make sense a more sensible rate is possible considering how much money they currently make. Amazon might even be able to do unlimited considering how many… Read more »
This won’t likely be totally unlimited but I doubt there will be a crippling cap either.
Amazon, OneWeb, Telesat, & SpaceX means what 25,000 sats providing internet access? Plus isn’t Viasat upgrading somehow for faster speeds?
I lived in Alaska for some time and would have welcomed an alternative to GCI, speeds were decent but the cap was crippling.
I would have to disagree. Even a terabyte is too small. It’s better if no data caps are enforced. There’s no sense in launching satellite internet if it can only handle limited bandwidth. There’s no point for companies like Comcast or AT&T to limit us how much we surf the web. It’s just wrong. It’s better to stick with a wired connection. Municipal broadband is always the best way to go.
Very few people has access to municipal broadband. Less than very few.
FIOS has no caps. In states where cable co’s comcast and cox – compete with FIOS – they have no caps. AT&T’s gig service has no caps. Centurylink’s fiber product has no cap. Verizon’s fixed wireless has no caps. Fixed wireless providers like Starry have no caps.
Believe me in Alaska I would have died for 1 TB of usage.
Very few people has access to municipal broadband. Less than very few. That may change in the future as more and more cities and communities are fighting for municipal broadband. If you look at Colorado, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire more and more cities are fighting for municipal broadband. It maybe okay to have a cable TV monopoly but it’s not okay to have an internet monopoly since it should be considered a utility not a luxury. FIOS has no caps. In states where cable co’s comcast and cox – compete with FIOS – they have no caps That’s only true… Read more »
That may change in the future as more and more cities and communities are fighting for municipal broadband It’s completely unrealistic to believe there will ever be anything other than an infinitesimally small number of muni broadband projects. It’ll be along the same lines as muni electric companies. That’s only true for Comcast since they have no cap in the northeast side of the US. That may change as they are thinking bringing data cap to the entire northeast so that they have a cap nationwide just like what Cox is doing. Cox does have cap nationwide including the northeast… Read more »
It’s completely unrealistic to believe there will ever be anything other than an infinitesimally small number of muni broadband projects. It’ll be along the same lines as muni electric companies. If municipal broadband was unrealistic, nobody would have started it in the first place. Then cable tv/phone companies would be are only choice of internet providers we have which is a monopoly and no competition. They have voted to block states by enacting such laws to prevent them in building their own ISP. They spend millions of dollars to their political campaigns to fight them. They don’t want muni networks… Read more »
Cox doesn’t provide service in Massachusetts and Verizon doesn’t provide service in Connecticut so now you’re just making things up.
There’s no need for me to be in a debate with someone who just outright lies.
Yes Cox does provide service in Massachussetts.
https://broadbandnow.com/Massachusetts/Holland
And Verizon does provide service in Connecticut.
https://broadbandnow.com/Connecticut/Greenwich
You need to do research before you start calling me a liar.