back to article Europe signs off on €10.6B IRIS² satellite broadband deal

A competitor for Elon Musk's Starlink satellite broadband constellation is on the way after Eurocrats signed the concession contract for the Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS²). The earmarked budget for IRIS² is €10.6 billion, with €6.5 billion coming from public funding ( …

  1. beast666 Silver badge

    Epic EU fail

    1. IGotOut Silver badge

      I'm came to say the comrade will say the EU is no good, but he beat me to it

      I'm surprised he has time, as I thought he'd be to busy sending NK troops to be slaughtered.

    2. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Yes, but not for the reasons you're thinking of

      Space thinking at government level is still predicated on expensive launches - and they're no longer expensive

      More effort needs to be expended on the issue of space junk and orbital cleaning - which at the moment is ALSO predicated on expensive launches and concentrates on things we can see/avoid anyway, rather than the actual dangerous stuff

      OK, yes, there's value in deorbiting dead boosters, etc, but the large stuff is 0.1% of what's whizzing about, in the overall scheme of things. A much bigger problem is that space flotsam/jetsam is "owned" rather than "open" and deorbiting a piece of XYZ country's junk without explicit permission can be taken as an act of war on that country. This simply doesn't scale down to the clouds of crud resulting from smaller collisions but acts as a handbrake on developing groundbased cleanup systems such as Laser Brooms

      New treaties are needed to define dead or abandoned items or create a "neutral" agency which can start bringing down garbage

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Space thinking at government level is still predicated on expensive launches - and they're no longer expensive

        Europe does not yet have guaranteed access to cheap launches, which you need for a "strategic and reliable" communications infrastructure.

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      There's nothing like a reasoned argument and ....

      1. Justthefacts Silver badge

        Ok. It’s an epic EU fail because:

        #1 Starlink was considered initially commercially viable because they get to launch at super low cost, due to Falcon9, and soon Starship. This allows Starlink to price within shouting distance of consumer broadband prices, rather than at traditional satphone pricing. Iris2 doesn’t have that, it’s nailed to Ariane6 launch costs, so the pricing will be just like traditional satphone pricing. And *we already know that market*. At that price, it’s a niche market, tens of thousands of customers at best, but not a volume market, and certainly nothing to justify a large rollout like Iris2.

        #1A We know the rough price of Iris2 satellites, about $1M each, based on O3B. Starlink are $200k each at the same capability or $800k at x8 capability. You cannot compete against somebody whose internal costs are less than one-quarter of yours.

        #2 Starlink got “lucky” because their home market (USA) is both wealthy, and millions of square kilometers of under-served land. Europe does not have that. How many times have you seen people on this forum saying “Starlink makes no sense, why would I pay $200pm for broadband”? But that’s *cheap* for over a million USA citizen earning more than 10x the EU median salary.

        #3 I hesitate to put a technical point here, but “by utilizing both orbits, the constellation will benefit from LEO's low latency and MEO's wider coverage.” is logical gibberish. Starlink isn’t LEO to get low latency, that’s a useful side-effect. Nor is the 48ms light-flight-time additional latency you get from MEO, really a deal-breaker for very much at all. LEO vs MEO is purely determined by the density of users on the ground, frequency reuse, and how much bandwidth you need. Iris2 have gone for both, because *EU don’t know the target market, so they’re riding both horses*. It makes no technical sense whatever, they’ve just doubled their costs. They should have done their market research……except they don’t want to because they know it would show there isn’t a market

        #4 Have you seen how long this is going to take? Originally, it was supposed to be ready by 2027. Then 2030. Now 2031. My money is on 2036. What is the point of a launching a Ford Model T, to compete head-on against a Toyota Corolla? When you are 15 years behind, and in a hole, you *stop digging*. You don’t try to fill the hole with cash.

        #5 I remember when I was at Matra Marconi (now Airbus) ooh thirty years ago, we internally proposed building a similar system. Senior management dicked us around for over three years, we had so many meetings my eyes bled ( not a metaphor). Eventually they got cold feet and decided they were better just being paid govt grants, and they weren’t interested in ever actually trying to make a business of it. Exactly like Airbus repeated a couple months back, pulling out of Iris2 lead role. Thirty years ago, we had a fifteen year head start on Starlink. And by the way I know for absolute certain my equivalents at Thales went through exactly the same waste-of-breath shitstorm.

        *This* is the real reason why it is stupid. *None* of these companies actually want to run a real ( customer-facing) business. They want to get paid for doing contracts on 5% margin. But they *don’t* want to make stuff for customers to buy, which they might make 3x on their original investment, and anyway would have no clue how to run such a business if they accidentally started one.

    4. Casca Silver badge

      Sure muppet. Fuck off to twitter

  2. Chloe Cresswell Silver badge

    ' "As global satellite connectivity is rapidly becoming a strategic asset for security, safety and resilience, the EU needs to urgently act in order to ensure guaranteed access in an unrestricted manner without third-party dependencies." ' In other words, "we don't want starlink/musk deciding who of our members can talk to who, and when, with out someone turning it off. Sounds a valid concern.

    1. IGotOut Silver badge

      I'd add in any US military equipment, as seen by the US crippling the help Europe wanted to send to Ukraine.

      Trump wants European NATO countries to spend more. No problem, France, Finland, Sweden, Poland and South Korea all make very good kit that we could by and use as and when we see fit, not when daddy says we can.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Yep, with Trump 2.0 the EU no longer sees the US as someone they should rely on for defense - either to come to their aid or to be the one in charge of making it. That would have the nice side effect for them of creating jobs in the EU rather than in the US.

        When Trump figures out what they are doing and how it is hurting the US defense industry he's going to be pissed, but there isn't much he can do other than try to pull the US out of NATO. Fortunately regardless of what happens with Ukraine once Trump takes over, Russia has been revealed as having a far weaker and more incompetently run military than anyone in the west previously believed so the EU won't be worried if Trump dumps them in a huff and blames them for the job losses that result.

        1. John Hawkins

          Lots of people in Europe and elsewhere seem to think that they can rely on the yanks to save them, but said yanks weren't very keen on helping in 1914 or in 1939 or so - 'America First' - so nothing new there.

          You got to own your own protection.

        2. katrinab Silver badge
          Alert

          I'm guessing Trump will take the USA out of NATO and join ОДКБ (successor to the Warsaw Pact)?

      2. prh99

        You could have been doing that before, creating EU jobs with defense contractors. Instead, spent 25 years of decreasing military budgets until Russia's wake up call. EU defense contractors are unwilling to invest without procurement contracts. Of course Merkel just had to jump in bed with Russia for cheap gas

        https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/survival-online/2023/06/the-guns-of-europe-defence-industrial-challenges-in-a-time-of-war/

        Yeah, I don't understand relying so much on one nation to swoop in and help either. As for Ukraine, Trump will basically gets his way cause the EU is unprepared and will have a hard time filling the void if he ends support.

      3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Trump doesn't really care if they countries do spend more, he's just using a simple argument ("they don't pay enough") as a stick to get concessions, either on weapons purchasing or market access.

        NATO was designed to be dependent upon an American superpower. The whole principle of the dollar- rules-based order is that no other country is able to compete with the US. Oil markets went into a tizzy when Saddam Hussain offered to trade oil in Euros.

        Fortunately, Europe is not in a position to provide something like NATO on its own. Not that it can't defend itself, which is another thing, it just can't project power in the same way.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          @Charlie Clark

          "Trump doesn't really care if they countries do spend more"

          Are you sure? The US spends vast amounts to protect Europe. He upset Germany by suggesting the US pull out of that country because they refused to fund their military... and as recent events kicked them into gear he was right. We expect the US to step in under NATO so what is wrong with Trump insisting Europe participates in its protection?

        2. DS999 Silver badge

          NATO was designed to be dependent upon an American superpower

          Europe was in ruins at the time, there was no choice.

          If Europe didn't want to be dependent once they regained their footing they could have taken a more active role in preparing for their defense. But the USSR was a superpower, until it wasn't, then too many people thought after the cold war that there was no longer a threat and they'd rather spend the "peace dividend" on other stuff.

          If Europe was dependent on the US it wasn't because that's how NATO was designed, its because Europe figured they could cut corners on spending for their own defense since they had a big brother ready to beat up anyone who tried to take their lunch money.

    2. StrangerHereMyself Silver badge

      Read: "We will duplicate everything the U.S.A. does, so we can claim we are 'on par' with the Americans."

      Unfortunately that didn't work out in the internet and tech sector, which is why Europe is lagging far behind both economically and technologically. There are some bright spots, like ASML, but they're not sufficient to buoy the entire European continent.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        @StrangerHereMyself

        Read: "We will duplicate everything the U.S.A. does, so we can claim we are 'on par' with the Americans."

        That is pretty much the EU in a nut shell. An attempt at imitation but not willing to do the hard work to get to the success.

      2. Tubz Silver badge

        The EU can always ban the sale of ASML outside of the EU, forcing companies to develop their own tech or open up manufacturing plants in the EU, just as the USA are forcing companies to do now.

      3. Charlie Clark Silver badge
        Stop

        There are lots of very successful European tech companies. What there aren't are lots of very large tech companies. Europe's fractured markets means the rules are different but the Brussels effect is real and one of the reasons why, for example, European standards in mobile communications went on to dominate the world, though things have, of course, moved on from then.

    3. Cliffwilliams44 Silver badge

      Is it? I'd much more trust a corporation, who's motivation is profit then the collective consciousness of the EU who motivation of late is the overall control of the masses.

      1. Chloe Cresswell Silver badge

        "I'd much more trust a corporation, who have already shown their boss is happy to shut down access to a system on a whim" Fixed that for you.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          No evidence access has been shut down at a whim

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        In order to profit a corporation would need at least one customer willing to fork out for their product. Surely you're not that customer with sufficiently deep pockets? If not, who do you think might be?

  3. ComputerSays_noAbsolutelyNo Silver badge

    "As for why existing constellations, such as Starlink, could not be used, ..."

    Well, Musk lets you use Starlink until he doesn't.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      The same could be said for Globalstar (GPS) - and was one of the compelling reasons for EU/China/India/Japan/Russia to develop their own GNSS systems

      At which point the USA started threatening to shoot down navigation satellites if countries didn't disable GNSS services when it demanded they be disabled

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        BTW what happened to that Brexit GPS system that didn't depend on those untrustworthy EU satellites? I haven't heard anything about it for ages?

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          BTW what happened to that Brexit GPS system that didn't depend on those untrustworthy EU satellites?

          OneWeb's satellites have clocks..

          I haven't heard anything about it for ages?

          And then there's SkyNet. Or there's just enough assorted satellites already broadcasting from orbit, and cheap chips that can pick up signals from most of them to get a decent enough fix. I suspect it's only a problem if a bunch of those satellites have stopped beeping, but then that's a situation where the ability to aim a missile up either the left or right nostril becomes a bit moot.

    2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Well, Musk lets you use Starlink until he doesn't.

      And the EU lets Starlink operate Earth stations in EU countries, until they don't. So scope for some mutually assured destruction, sanctions etc if Starlink doesn't play nicely with others. Then as for security, laser brooms probably aren't the solution to space junk, that's more likely plasma or gamma ray brooms.

      Personally, I think it would be an excellent idea if EUrocrats like von der Liar or Rutte were lobbed into MEO, and left there. Especially after Rutte's comments that we should be spending less on health, education and social spending and more on weapons. If we increased spending on education, we might need less bombs because we'd have more intelligent politicians.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Education does not mean intelligent. There are a lot of highly - and expensively - educated idiots about. some of them are also politicians of various colours.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      >Well, Musk lets you use Starlink until he doesn't.

      Didn't happen, sorry. Read your link

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Infrastructure for Resilience, Interconnectivity and Security by Satellite (IRIS²)

    It might be IRIS² and not IRISS but I'm still going to pronounce it IRISssss in the style of Hannibal Lecter.

  5. Joe Dietz

    Its obviously a govt project... but

    ... how exactly how do you spend $10B if you are going to use 'already existing' assets to build it?

    1. MrGreen

      Re: Its obviously a govt project... but

      ….. because those dishing out the money have already purchased massive share allocations in the companies involved and $10B will pump the share price significantly.

      Check the net worth of any politician or bureaucrat and it’s many times more than their lifetime earnings.

      You don’t become an MP to help your citizens, you become an MP so you get insider knowledge of which companies your citizens tax is going to.

  6. StrangerHereMyself Silver badge

    French take

    IRIS2 is basically the 27 European member states financing the French aerospace industry for which they get little in return.

    Countries like Italy and Spain seem less and less inclined to do so and supporting their own launcher companies. Italy has recently decided to market the Vega-C themselves as they were concerned ArianeSpace was holding them back to further French interests.

  7. Mishak Silver badge

    €6.5 billion coming from public funding

    I though these sort of services were seen as "commercially viable" else where?

    1. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: €6.5 billion coming from public funding

      The"commercially" viable with massive tax breaks and huge military spending?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: €6.5 billion coming from public funding

        What product do you refer to here?

  8. Peter Galbavy

    The trough is deep and wide on this one.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It's an okay product at a reasonable price. Only thing suspect are the terminals

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is more of a Starshield competitor.

    The LEO part is more or less OneWeb Gen2 (check current monthly rates).

    I've consistently noticed a lack of talk about terminals.

    Cheapest phased array I've seen in Ku Band is ~$9000

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like