The $71,175,908.30 Question

 On Dec 7, 2020, the FCC announced the results of a complex auction conducted nationally among potential providers of broadband internet services to unserved and underserved rural areas across America.  The $71M+ is Maine's share of $9.2 billion.  The funds will be provided to the following 4 internet providers over the next 10 years as they meet commitments to expand broadband service in areas designated as needing it:

                                                            Amount        Locations

Consolidated Communications       31,067,177        11,513
Pioneer Wireless                                3,543,142         1,638
Redzone Wireless                                 507,752            755
Space-X                                           34,057,837       13,849

Exactly how this is going to work is still not clear to me.  I intend to read the documentation for this important program at 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-auction-bring-broadband-over-10-million-rural-americans 

and offer further observations thereafter.  

Two preliminary observations:

1.  That Space-X was able to demonstrate the adequacy of its  emerging service to the satisfaction of the FCC is significant.  One would expect that the initial and ongoing costs about which I had substantial reservations in a previous past will be ameliorated for at least the 13,000+ underserved Mainers that are in the crosshairs for Space-X.

2.  The meaning of the maps ostensibly portraying unserved and underserved areas in Maine is not at all clear.  A cursory glance at my town, Northport, seems to be pretty inaccurate.  How these maps are to be used is a really important question, and one that requires at the least a more thorough reading of the program materials than I have had time for to this point.

How Much is Too Much for Broadband

 So if Starlink is too expensive at current rates ($99/month plus $500 for the hardware), what would be a more acceptable price?  

For folks in really difficult economic circumstances, nothing beats free.  Among inveterate bargain hunters, nothing beats a really, really low price.  But free only means someone else foots the bill, because there are real and substantial costs for the terminal hardware.  Oh, and the thousands of satellites that need to be launched, maintained, and over a 5-6 yr cycle replaced.  

That being said, I think the sweet spot in terms of consumer uptake would be at $50-70/month plus $100-200 for the terminal hardware.  

Space-X refers to the current service, just now starting public beta test, as a "better than nothing" service.  Maybe as the service evolves to better than "better than nothing" the costs be can reduced a bit with economies of scale.  Hope so.

Starlink: Performance Excitement, Pricing Disappointment

 Like many I have held out high hopes for Starlink, the low-earth-orbit satellite constellation launched by Space-X.  It seems a figurative and a literal "over the top" solution to poor and spotty broadband options in Maine.  The service is currently in limited public beta test in northern states from Washington to the upper midwest, with extension to Canada and the northern latitudes of the eastern U.S. in the offing in the next month or two.  

The good news is that early adopters report download speeds in the 100 to 175 Mbps range, with uploads somewhere in the 10 to 30 Mbps range.  These are early and unsystematic reports and reflect a service that is still being refined as engineers tweak the complex algorithms that balance traffic across the 800+ satellites, each of which is in constant motion around the planet.  

And that is just the beginning.  It is likely that, everything else being equal, as the number of satellites increases, and the techies learn how to optimize things to meet increasing numbers of subscribers, there is more potential performance upside than downside ahead.

But while Starlink is technologically made for Maine's geography and its numerous pockets of unserved and underserved rural residents, the pricing is a poor match for the economics of a great number of non-connected Mainers.  The service costs $99/mo.  The hardware to receive and send broadband data costs $500 up front.    So first year costs are roughly $1,700 -- a pretty high barrier for many Mainers.  

If this pricing structure remains in effect, I fear that Starlink will fall far short of serving the rural market toward which it is ostensibly targeted, at least here in low-income Maine.  Call this a cold shower for those of us that have gotten a bit over-heated with enthusiasm for the underlying technology, and sheer audaciousness of the Startlink project. 

I am not in a position to quibble about the justification for the pricing.  By all accounts the technology in the ground antenna probably costs considerably more than $500 per unit at this early stage of manufacturing.  My suspicion is that part of this hardware cost is built into the monthly charge.  

The reality, though, is that adoption is going to be limited to folks with substantial need who also have some financial means.  Which means that Maine's broadband deserts and broadband sinkholes will need to stay grounded, literally and figuratively, in seeking means to extend fiber and other local initiatives, mile by mile and neighborhood by neighborhood until/unless the economics of the Starlink model come more closely within economic range of our populace.  

There are efforts underway in many communities to do this.  Increased broadband funds have been promised by politicians and state and federal levels.  This year's Covid crisis has made clear the importance of broadband for work and for education like nothing else could have.  However, the economic toll for 2020 disruptions has not yet been totaled.  When it has, this may slow action of broadband.  Time will tell.

I am hopeful that economies of scale, plus a fine-tuning of the pricing model that goes along with the fine-tuning of the underlying technology, will result in lowered costs for Startlink as time goes by.  The bottom line, though, is that Starlink should not been seen as a near-term panacea, and that those moved to work toward improvements on the ground should know that such efforts are still worthwhile to improve the global connectivity of ourselves and our neighbors.