OneWeb bags another $1.25 billion for global satellite mission

London-based satellite company OneWeb has announced it has secured an additional $1.25 billion in new capital, taking the total funds raised to $3.4 billion.

Having launched it first assets into the skies on February 27, the funds will be greatly welcomed considering the scale of ambitions here. In its mission to deliver high speed, low latency, seamless broadband access everywhere on Earth, from Q4 the team will begin monthly launches of 30 satellites to create an initial constellation of 650 satellites. OneWeb certainly has big ambitions.

“This latest funding round, our largest to date, makes OneWeb’s service inevitable and is a vote of confidence from our core investor base in our business model and the OneWeb value proposition,” said Adrian Steckel, CEO of OneWeb.

“With the recent successful launch of our first six satellites, near-completion of our innovative satellite manufacturing facility with our partner Airbus, progress towards fully securing our ITU priority spectrum position, and the signing of our first customer contracts, OneWeb is moving from the planning and development stage to deployment of our full constellation.”

While the images and PR story on the company’s website would leave some to believe this is a philanthropic mission to connect the unconnected, such good will would not attract weighty investments from the likes of Softbank, Grupo Salinas and Qualcomm. The addressable niches are quite broadly spread and certainly profitable.

“OneWeb has extended its first-mover advantage and is on track to become the world’s largest and first truly global communications network,” said Marcelo Claure, CEO of Softbank International.

“At SoftBank, our aim is to invest in transformative companies at the leading edge of technology disruption. OneWeb’s potential is undeniable as the growth in data from 5G, IoT, autonomous driving and other new technologies drives demand for capacity above and beyond the limits of the existing infrastructure.”

OneWeb has stated it will begin to offer commercial services from 2020, providing a neutral Internet access service, allowing any MNO or ISP to extend their services over OneWeb IP connectivity. The team is also pitching the constellation as a ‘5G Ready Network’.

OneWeb’s priority rights to a large block of globally harmonized spectrum and its Low Earth Orbit (LEO) constellation design will aim to create what it describes as a ‘truly global service’, addressing the connectivity needs of the autonomous vehicles, maritime logistics, offshore oil rigs and drill-ships, as well mobile backhaul in some of the more challenging geographical environments.

Although the concept of satellite connectivity has become relatively unfashionable in recent years, the demands of ubiquitous connectivity are creating a resurgence of interest. The perception of satellite might not be the most attractive, but it is quickly becoming a critical component of the connectivity mesh.

Nanosatellites could be the answer to mobile not-spots

Start-up UbiquitiLink reckons it’s cracked the challenge of affordable satellite connectivity to regular handsets through the use of nanosatellites.

You can’t use traditional geostationary satellites to fill regular cellular coverage gaps because they’re too expensive and are positioned 35,000 km above the surface of the earth, which is way further than cellular signals are designed to go and introduces excessive lag to the signal. An obvious solution is to use satellites at a much lower orbit, but until now that hasn’t been economically viable.

UbiquitiLink reckons it has the answer to this conundrum and went to MWC last week to tell everyone all about it. We spoke to CEO Charles Miller to hear directly what’s so different about what his company’s doing, compared to the traditional satellite connectivity business.

A key development seems to be the evolution of the satellite business, of which Miller is a veteran. It’s apparently a lot cheaper to build a satellite these days, using off-the-shelf components and assembly lines. This makes the production of large numbers of smaller satellites – nanosatellites – relatively affordable for the first time.

The ideal altitude for a cellular satellite is around 500 km, it seems – 70 times closer to earth than a geostationary one. But at that height the area covered is much smaller, hence the need for more of them. The cost of launching these into space is apparently coming down rapidly too, thanks to billionaire entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

One more challenge is the fact that mobile phone protocol apparently never expects to have to transmit further than 35 km from a terrestrial base station thanks to the curvature of the earth. In order to be able to use regular protocols and spectrum, Miller said his company has developed some kind of hack that prevents your phone freaking out when it has to deal with much more lag than it’s expecting (although imperceptible to us mere humans, we’re told).

UbiquitiLink has already launched a bunch of these nanosatellites 500 km into space and is now ready fill those not-spots. Its business model is to sign roaming deals directly with MNOs, who will then offer the service to their punters when regular connectivity isn’t an option. At first it will just offer messaging, but move into data when things ramp up.

This seems like a pretty major undertaking that will need to generate a lot of business before it sees significant ROI. But we’re not aware of anyone else claiming to have cracked the satellite cellular connectivity market so Ubiquitilink seems to have first mover advantage and the total available market would appear to be pretty big. Here’s a diagram illustrating its proposition.

Ubiquitilink graphic cropped

Security discussion needs to be bigger than Huawei – Vodafone UK CTO

Huawei is an obvious risk when you are assessing the vendor landscape, but to ensure supply chain resilience and integrity, focusing too narrowly on one company poses a bigger risk, according to Vodafone.

It might be easy to point the finger at China, but according to Vodafone UK CTO Scott Petty, this is a dangerous position to take. Despite a lack of evidence to suggest backdoors are being built into Huawei products, the world is determined to find one, but in reality, there isn’t a single company in the vendor ecosystem which can justifiably state they are 100% secure. This is the world we are living in; risk is everywhere.

“The discussion about Huawei is all managing the risk appropriately,” Petty said at a briefing in Central London.

Risk is a big topic at Vodafone UK right now, and this is clear when you look at how the vendor ecosystem is being managed.

On the radio side of the network, of the 18,000 base stations Vodafone has around the country, Huawei equipment accounts for 32% of them, Nokia 12% and Ericsson taking the remainder. Interestingly enough, Nokia equipment is being phased out in favour of Ericsson. For transmission, this is split between Juniper, Cisco and Ciena, while Cisco is responsible for the core. With this blend of vendors, and appropriate security gateways between each layer of the network, Petty feels Vodafone is managing the risk very appropriately.

And while some might suggest having this much exposure to Huawei might be a negative, Petty argues radio is such low risk it shouldn’t dictate play. You have to take into consideration the risk/benefit equation.

When assessing risk, Vodafone (working with the National Cyber Security Centre) considers two possible scenarios. Firstly, what is the risk of a nefarious actor leaching data from the network, and secondly, taking down the network. On the radio side of things, the exposure is very low.

Firstly, Vodafone has 18,000 base stations throughout the UK. Should one of these base stations be compromised, only the traffic going through that base station would be at risk. This will be a fraction of the total, devices will be handed off to other base stations as people move around, while the clear majority of internet traffic is encrypted nowadays. The likelihood of a nefarious actor trying to bleed valuable insight in this manner is low.

Secondly, even if one of these base stations is taken down by the external wrong-doer, this is only one of 18,000 base stations. To have a material impact on Vodafone’s network, hundreds or even thousands would have to be impacted simultaneously. This is not inconceivable, but highly unlikely. As Petty mentioned, its all about evaluating and minimizing risk.

This is where the discussion becomes incredibly complicated. Huawei is one of the leading names (if not the leader) in the radio segment, ignoring such a vendor is a difficult decision to make as a technologist; you always want to use best in class.

For transmission, another area Huawei would be considered a leading name, the risk has been identified as medium. You would still need a lot of compute power to crack the encryption software, but Vodafone have decided to steer clear of Chinese vendors here.

Finally, onto the core, the most important part of the network. Petty pointed to O2’s issues last year, where a suspect Ericsson node effectively killed the entire network for a day, to demonstrate the importance of this component. Cisco is the vendor here, but this leads us onto the dangers of a such a narrow focus on security.

When looking for signs of a telco vendor assisting a government for intelligence activities, there is arguably only one piece of concrete evidence to support such claims. Edward Snowden produced this evidence, proving Cisco was aiding the NSA for its own spying agenda. This is the reason we suspect the US is so convinced China is spying on the rest of the world; the US government is doing the same thing and therefore knows it is technologically possible.

We are of course not accusing Cisco of aiding the US government in this manner at this moment, but such is the sophistication and technological capabilities of those on the dark web, no company should consider themselves 100% secure. They have their own supply chains which could be vulnerable at some point. The complexities of this ecosystem mean nothing is 100% secure, therefore it comes down to risk assessment, and also the mitigation of risk through layers of security, gateways and encryption.

For Petty, the establishment of Huawei’s European cyber-security centre is a step in the right direction, though he would want the European Union to play an active role in its operations and for the net to be cast wider, considering all vendors. As mentioned before, too much of a narrow focus on one area heightens the risk in others.

However, the talk of a Huawei ban would be a disaster for everyone involved.

“We don’t think a complete Huawei ban would be a proportionate response,” said Helen Lamprell, Vodafone UK’s General Counsel & External Affairs Director.

If risk is appropriately managed and mitigated, business can continue as usual. Policy decision makers have to realise there is no such thing as 100% secure. A broad-sweeping ban on Huawei would be disastrous not only for Vodafone UK, but everyone in the connected economy.

Firstly, you have to think of the cost of removing all Huawei equipment. This would cost hundreds of millions and take a considerable amount of time. This would delay the introduction of 5G and fundamentally undermine the business case for ROI. It could set 5G back years in the UK, not only for Vodafone but the whole industry.

The supply chain review is currently working its way through the red maze of UK government, and while the certainty needs to arrive sooner rather than later, getting the review right is better than speed.

The message from Vodafone this morning was relatively clear and simple; the Huawei risk can be managed, but an outright ban would be disastrous.

Don’t let satellite get lost in the 5G buzz – Intelsat`

With 5G plastered on every wall, floor and door in the Fira, it can be easy to forget there are other important components in the connectivity mix.

Speaking to Jean-Philippe Gillet, GM of Intelsat’s network business, the message is relatively straight-forward; don’t forget about us, don’t forget about satellites.

“Does satellite play a prominent role in the developed markets? No,” said Gillet. “But it is important in the developing markets. We are trying to show people success in developing markets can be translated into the developed one.”

With all the euphoria surrounding 5G at this years’ event, and more generally across the last couple of years, satellite is often seen as a fall-back option, not necessarily a useful component of the connectivity mix. This is the perception which Gillet and Intelsat is attempting to change.

The idea of tomorrows digital society is one which is defined by 5G and fibre. Few other conversations are given a suitable amount of attention with these two bully boys grabbing the headlines, but satellite needs to be a consideration.

“It’s about creating a hybrid connectivity model which positions the right medium for the right application,” said Gillet.

While Gillet suggests there are eager listeners for anyone who is facing the connectivity conundrum, there are sceptics. There is somewhat of a lazy stereotype that satellite’s function should be limited to the developing markets, but Gillet is working to change this perception.

Alongside the incremental but promising progress in terms of satellite technology, the team has recently launched its next generation of satellites, EPIC. These six assets offer worldwide coverage, and the team have already signed up two prominent Asian telcos as customers, as well as one in the US. The next generation of satellites will be software defined, allowing Intelsat to move around capacity, while the company is now a fully-fledged member of the GSMA.

“We want to be sat at the table to help make connectivity decisions,” said Gillet.

Justifying the inclusion of satellite as a genuine component of the hybrid connectivity mix might be an uphill battle but considering the demands which are being placed on telcos to bridge the digital divide, there is hope.

Competition is a problem, removing Huawei could be disastrous – Vodafone CEO

With all eyes in directed towards Mobile World Congress this week, Vodafone CEO Nick Read took the opportunity to vent his frustrations.

Competition is unhealthy, accusations are factually suspect, protectionism is too aggressive, the trust with customers has been broken, collaboration is almost non-existent. From Read’s perspective, there are plenty of reasons the 5G era will be just of much of a struggle for the telcos as the 4G one.

And of course, it wouldn’t be a telco press conference if there wasn’t a reference to Huawei.

“I would like a new contract for the industry, I want to go out and build trust with consumers and businesses,” said Read. “This will require us to engage government and build the vision of a digital society together.”

Read has reiterated his point from the last quarterly earnings call, there needs to be more of a fact-based conversation around the Huawei saga. There is too much rhetoric, too much emotion, and perhaps, too much political influence.

Huawei is the punching bag right now, but any ban or heavy-handed response to US calls for aggressive action would be a consequence for everyone.

As Read points out, Huawei is a significant player in almost everyone’s supply chain, controlling roughly 28% of mobile infrastructure, while Nokia and Ericsson also have market share in the 20s. Removing one of these players from the market will further compound a problem which plagues the industry today; the supply chain is too concentrated around a small number of vendors.

There simply isn’t enough diversity to consider removing a key cog to European operations.

Of course, you have to consider the status quo. The US is happy to ban Huawei as it has never been a significant contributor to its infrastructure. Should the same ban be enforced in Europe, negotiations would be de-railed, and operations disrupted. Read suggests this would set 5G plans back by two years across the bloc.

The issue here is of confidence to invest. Why would telcos enter into deep negotiations when future conditions have not been set in stone. This is already evident in Vodafone’s decision to pause work on the core with Huawei; delaying these important initiatives could push Europe further behind global 5G leaders. Telcos need confidence, certainty and answers. The longer reviews go on, the more precarious the situation becomes.

This is one of the many challenges the industry is facing. There is an ‘us versus them’ mentality when it comes to telcos. Read is referencing the relationship with regulators and government, suggesting a lack of collaboration which is negatively impacting the ability to operate, but it is also evident in the relationship with the consumer and competitors. Collaboration is a key word here.

One example of collaboration is in the UK where the National Cybersecurity Centre effectively monitors Huawei equipment. This model could be rolled out across Europe, though Read’s stressed the point that there would have to be a harmonised approach. Fragmentation is the enemy here, and it would stifle progress. If there is a European level of monitoring, or even if it is taken down to nation states, it doesn’t actually matter as long as it is consistent.

The Huawei ban is set to become one of the talking points of this years’ MWC, that is not necessarily an idea anyone will be surprised about, but what we are not sure about is the disruption. Will it slow 5G development? Has the uncertainty already slowed 5G development? Will the anti-China rhetoric, dilly-dallying and confusion kill Europe’s ambitions in the global digital economy?

Europe sailing towards conflict over China 5G

Germany is drafting rules to allow Chinese companies to participate in the 5G bonanza, while the European Commission is thinking of banning them. Something’s got to give.

In terms of collective political influence and economic power, the European Union could consider itself more or less on par with the US and China. Considering the Union represents the societal, political and economic interests of 28 nations, more than 500 million people and roughly $23 trillion in GDP, it is certainly a powerful concept. But the China issue is just one example of how its neatly stitched patchwork could unravel very quickly.

China is a very tricky equation to balance right now. On side, you have an incredibly powerful economy, a massive and increasingly wealthy population and technological advancements which could benefit almost every society. However, to access these riches you have to deal with a government which ideologically conflicts with a lot of what Europe stands for.

But this is where a potentially significant conflict lies. The European Commission is reportedly looking at how it could create a de facto ban for Chinese technology and kit in communications infrastructure, conflicting with some of its member states positions. The Commission is supposed to represent the interests of all its member states, creating a common framework which sits above national policies, but if these policies are a contradiction of opinions of some member states the perfect storm could be brewing on the horizon.

Germany is not talking the anti-China rhetoric

The most recent reports echoing out of Berlin will not have the US government jumping for joy. Local newspaper Handelsblatt is suggesting the German government is doing everything it can to write security protections into new regulation, however, the rules will be written in a manner which will not exclude Chinese companies.

The reports have not been confirmed by any official government spokespeople as of yet, though this does follow on from the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) made in December.

“For such serious decisions like a ban, you need proof,” said Arne Schoenbohm, President of BSI.

The US will not be happy about developments here, a delegation is currently undertaking a European lobby tour to turn officials against China, though neither will the European Commission. There are several instances which indicate the European Commission is taking a similar stance against China, suggesting a bloc-wide ban could be on the cards before too long.

Aside from recent reports the European Commission is rewriting cybersecurity rules to effectively ban Chinese companies from providing technology for communications infrastructure, one of its Commissioners has also fuelled the anti-China rhetoric.

“I think we have to be worried about these companies,” Commissioner for Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip told reporters in December. Ansip was referring to companies such as Huawei and ZTE, while this statement implies the Commission believes there are strong ties between multi-national corporations and the Chinese government.

The United States of Europe argument emerging again?

With Germany seemingly working to ensure collaboration with Chinese companies remains possible, the UK creating monitoring mechanisms to enable Huawei’s work and Italy denying reports it is considering its own ban, the European Commission appears to be working in direct contradiction to some of its largest member states.

To be fair, the role of the European Commission is to serve all the states not just the big ones, but the point of the bureaucracy is to create a common framework which all agree on, not rules which are forced onto member states. Cynics of the Commission and Union in general will suggest this is perhaps more evidence of Juncker and co. attempting to create a United States of Europe, where the desires of the member states are secondary to that of the ruling party.

Although many of these conspiracy theories are generally relegated to the comment boards of the Daily Mail, the Commission might well be heading towards a monumental conflict. Any rules which are written at European Commission level would potentially render national regulations redundant, a scenario those member states would not be happy with.

Considering the shoddy state of affairs Brexit has been creating, perhaps the European Commission should attempt to create an image of co-operation and collaboration. Antagonising leading member states is not a sensible idea, while a ‘state v. Europe’ conflict over security is not something which will reflect favourably on the agency.

Is politics anything more than arguing with shiny teeth?

Caught on the fringes of this conflict and the constant political seesawing are the telcos. Governments often tell the telco industry they are there to help and enable innovation, but it seems most of the time politicians are nothing but a hindrance attempting to score PR points by pandering to buzzwords and public opinion.

With governments aiming to ban Huawei and ZTE from connectivity plans, several telcos have stepped into the fray to give their own opinion. The message seems to be relatively consistent; heighten security requirements if you must but banning a vendor in an incredibly top-heavy market will not be a good idea.

“Clearly, if there were a complete ban at radio level, then it would be a huge issue for us, but it would be a huge issue for the whole European telco sector,” Vodafone CEO Nick Read said during the latest earnings call. “Huawei probably has 35% of the market share through the whole of Europe.”

Deutsche Telekom is another who foresees any Huawei ban being nothing but problematic. The German telco has previously stated a ban on Huawei would set its 5G ambitions back two years. Several telcos are considering scaling back work with Huawei, but this is perhaps directed more towards the uncertain political climate than any outright worry regarding the security credentials of Huawei equipment.

European telcos are not dependent on Huawei equipment to function effectively, but they are somewhat reliant on it. There aren’t enough suppliers, or good-enough suppliers, to strike Huawei out of the mix. US telcos are not having to deal with this headache as their operations adapted to a lack of Huawei and ZTE years ago, Europe is struggling with the political seesawing and story of uncertainty. Any business leader will tell you, a consolidated, cohesive and concrete regulatory landscape is critical for success.

Huawei stuck between a rock and a hard place

Huawei is a company which now has no control over its own fate.

With the US parading around political offices spreading its anti-China message without the burden of evidence, Huawei can’t do anything. Numerous governments are asking the vendor to prove its security credentials, but this will mean little is there is still suspicion. The case against Huawei is not based on evidence, but one which is based on a political and economic power struggle.

With a lack of evidence to substantiate any accusations against the firm, Huawei is being asked to do something which has been accepted as almost impossible; prove a negative. All of the questions and queries being directed at the firm have a single aim, to demonstrate there are no ties between the organization and the Chinese government, as well as its intelligence agencies.

It’s an almost impossible task, especially when you take into account the powerful influence of the US and the fact most of these decisions are being made on hearsay, circumstantial evidence and emotion. Whatever Huawei says, however much evidence is put on the table, we suspect opinions have already been made.

An issue of consistency and contradiction

In a single signature, the European Commission could throw the bloc into disarray. If the rumours evolve into reality, the European Commission could impose its own rules, contradicting the hopes and ambitions of some member states. Such a scenario would question how much control the member states have over their own society, undermining the concept of sovereignty.

Any fundamental changes would certainly have to be greenlit by all member states, but the European approach to China on the whole, and Huawei specifically, has not been entirely consistent. One question which might be worth considering is whether the European Commission is overstepping its remit.

We are almost certain Germany will not be happy being told to ban Huawei considering it seemingly wants to ensure Chinese participation in the upcoming 5G bonanza. Conflict is on the horizon, potentially pitting the European Commission against the biggest financial contributor to the bloc.

40 execs sign a pledge to make the internet a nice place

Industry lobby group the GSMA has launched its ‘digital declaration’, signed by executives from 40 technology firms and telcos, aiming to make the digital economy a safer place, accessible to all.

With the likes of Bharti Airtel, China Mobile, Sharp, SK Telecom and Vodafone signing the deal, the GSMA is embracing its hippy calling of peace, love and digitisation. The declaration pins the hopes and dreams of the industry onto several different principles, which theoretically should lead to a warm and embracing internet.

“Social, technological, political and economic currents are combining to create a perfect storm of disruption across all industries,” said Mats Granryd, Director General of the GSMA. “A new form of responsible leadership is needed to successfully navigate this era.

“We are on the cusp of the 5G era, which will spark exciting new possibilities for consumers and promises to transform the shape of virtually every business. In the face of this disruption, those that embrace the principles of the Digital Declaration will strive for business success in ways that seek a better future for their consumers and societies. Those that do not change can expect to suffer increasing scrutiny from shareholders, regulators and consumers.”

Looking at the principles themselves, they are relatively simple. Respect the privacy of digital citizens; handle personal data securely and transparently; take meaningful steps to mitigate cyber threats; and ensure everyone can participate in the digital economy as it develops whilst combatting online harassment. Its broad enough to allow wiggle room, but accurate enough to ensure all the right buzzwords are ticked off the list. You can have a look at the full declaration here.

While it is certainly a step in the right direction to get these organizations to sign a document recognising the importance of often ignored concepts such as inclusion and security, perhaps the next step should be to engage governments and regulators.

The CEOs of these technology and telco giants will certainly play an influential role in the success of the internet, though these are companies which will be playing within the rules set by higher powers. Policy, regulation, legislation and public funding will play an incredibly powerful part, though with such varied political regimes across the world, getting them to at least acknowledge these constant principles should be a priority.

Another interesting omission from the list are the powerful and influential internet players. The likes of Google, Amazon and Facebook will perhaps play a more significant role than the telcos and technology vendors who have already signed the document as they slip into the grey areas of regulation. The OTTs have been effectively doing what they like to date, such is the difficulty in matching regulation with the pace of change in this segment, and while such a document is little more than a PR ploy, it would at least demonstrate some accountability.

Even Google can get hacked… maybe

For those security staff who feel insecure or embarrassed about getting hacked, news that Google may have been disrupted by an external irritant will come as some comfort.

On November 12 for approximately 30 minutes as some services became unavailable after traffic was being rerouted through other networks. The company has not disclosed the specific nature of the disturbance, though it also hasn’t ruled out nefarious individuals.

“The issue with Google Cloud IP addresses being erroneously advertised by internet service providers other than Google has been resolved for all affected users as of 14:35 US/Pacific,” the company stated.

“Throughout the duration of this issue Google services were operating as expected and we believe the root cause of the issue was external to Google. We will conduct an internal investigation of this issue and make appropriate improvements to our systems to help prevent or minimize future recurrence.”

Network intelligence company ThousandEyes reported problems with its own G-Suite services, noting internet traffic from its own San Francisco office was traversing through China and Russia on its way back to Google, sparking some concerns. Unfortunately for ThousandEyes, this wasn’t a problem limited to the San Francisco office and was affecting all locations around the world.

No company is immune to the shady corners of the internet, though some would assume an organization as savvy and powerful as Google would be safer than most. Although the disturbance only lasted for a short period of time, for 30 minutes traffic was traversing through some countries which have a history of monitoring communications lines.

While this would be a perfect opportunity to jump on the ‘China is evil’ bandwagon, what is worth noting is traffic would drop upon hitting the Great Firewall of China, according to ThousandEyes’ investigation. Therefore it is logical to assume the attack was either an internal glitch from Google, or an external attack from someone aside from China.

For those who are constantly battling against the dark forces of the internet to keep customers and employees safe from prying eyes, take some comfort that even Google can get rocked by hackers, potentially…

SpaceX hits the skies with the launch of another comms satellite

Elon Musk’s SpaceX completed another successful launch this weekend, delivering the 7,000 kg Telstar 19 Vantage satellite from Cape Canaveral to offer connectivity across the Americas.

The launch, which was partially under threat due to adverse weather conditions, took place on Sunday morning with the satellite deployed 32 minutes after lift-off. Following the separation, the Falcon 9 launch vehicle was successfully landed on the ‘Of Course I Still Love You’ drone ship, an autonomous vessel to allow for recovery of rocket assets, which is stationed in the Atlantic Ocean. The satellite will be owned and operated by Canadian satellite communications company Telesat.

Operating from Telesat’s prime orbital location of 63 degrees West, 22,250 miles above the earth, the Telstar 19 Vantage satellite has two high throughput payloads, one in Ku-band and the other in Ka-band, serving the South, Central and North American regions. In South America, Telesat’s customer Hughes Network Systems has invested to make use of the Ka-band capacity, while the Ka-band capacity over Northern Canada, the Caribbean and the North Atlantic Ocean will be utilised by several different customers including Bell Canada subsidiary Northwestel. In-orbit testing will now commence before services kick-off in the summer, with a 15-year design life.

While the satellite communications segment is certainly a more niche aspect of the overall sector, SpaceX is creating somewhat of a strangle hold on the launch industry with estimates putting Musk’s market share at more than 50%. The trick here seems to be SpaceX’s cash conscious attitude and drive to recycle as much of the assets as possible. While this is the first time this Falcon 9 asset hit the skies, SpaceX has recycled reusable rocket boosters on more than 20 occasions, with the team hoping recovered assets can each be used between 10 and 100 times.

SpaceX has a busy schedule over the next couple of months, with the next launches taking place on July 25 and August 2 for Iridium and Telkom Indonesia respectively.

Telstar 19 Vantage Launch

Example of Falcon 9 landing on recovery vessel

Coverage of Telstar 19 Vantage

Satellite Coverage

Facebook realises building aircraft is not a core competence

Social media giant Facebook has come to the conclusion that it might be better to leave the building of aircraft to aircraft-builders.

Facebook has been very active in exploring novel ways of bringing connectivity to people who don’t have it for a while. In 2016 it unveiled a few initiatives, including the Terragraph fixed wireless access project and the even more ambitious Aquila programme, focused on using huge, high-altitude drones to bring connectivity to remote locations.

At the time nobody was building the kind of drones Facebook needed to deliver the latter, so it decided to have a go at it itself, despite having zero experience in the matter. On one level that seemed like the kind of buccaneering, can-do approach we admire Silicon Valley companies for, but in hindsight it’s not clear Facebook fully thought it through.

So now we get the announcement that, despite having been apparently committed to Aquila a year ago, Facebook has decided get out of the aircraft-building game and close its UK facility. Facebook has been keen to stress that Aquila and its participation in the high-altitude platform station (HAPS) are still happening, it’s just letting companies like Airbus focus on the planes themselves, which seems fair enough.

The spin seems to be that all the stuff Facebook has done so far has seeded the market and provided the catalyst it apparently needed to take this sort of thing seriously. That may be true it seems unlikely that this was the plan from the start. But regardless, we shouldn’t pillory companies like Facebook for continuing to dare to fail fast, and welcome any contribution to the broader comms R&D effort.