DOCSLIB.ORG

Internet Access and Backbone Technology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

3/30/15 AIS 2015 1 Internet access and backbone technology Henning Schulzrinne Columbia University COMS 6181 – Spring 2015 03/30/2015 3/30/15 AIS 2015 2 Key objectives • How do DSL and cable modems work? • How do fiber networks differ? • How do satellites work? • What is spectrum and its characteristics? • What is the difference between Wi-Fi and cellular? 3/30/15 AIS 2015 3 Broadband Access Technologies FBWA or 4G FTTHome BPL FTTCurb DSL 4G Fiber PON HFC Digital Fiber -- Passive Fixed Broadband 4G/LTE Subscriber Line Optical Network Wireless Access • Cellular operators • Telco or ILEC • Telco or ILEC • Wireless ISP • 5-10 Mbps (100 kph) • 10s of Mbps • ~75 Mb/s • WiMAX or LTE: • Entertainment, data, voice • Futureproof? -10s of Mbps • Satellite: few Mbps Hybrid Fiber Coax Broadband Power Line • CableCo (MSO) • PowerCo • Entertainment, data, voice • Data, voice • 10s of Mbps • ~few Mbps Paul Henry (AT&T), FCC 2009 3/30/15 AIS 2015 4 FTTx options Alcatel-Lucent 3/30/15 AIS 2015 5 Available access speeds 100 Mb/s marginal 20 Mb/s VOIP 10 Mb/s 5 Mb/s 1 Mb/s avg. sustained throughput 20% 80% 90% 97%100% of households (availability) 3/30/15 AIS 2015 6 Maximum Theoretical Broadband Download Speeds Multiple Sources: Webopedia, bandwidthplace.com, PC Magazine, service providers, ISPs, Paul Garnett, CTIA, June 2007 Phonescoop.com, etc. 3/30/15 AIS 2015 7 Access costs • Fiber à GPON 200 Mb/s both directions • $200-400 for gear • Verizon FiOS < $700/home passed -- dropping • $20K/mile to run fiber • Wireless LTE/WiMAX • 4-10 Mb/s typical • 95% of U.S. population 2013 (McAdam, VZ) • Shared 30-120 Mb/s, so heavy HD TV use a problem 3/30/15 AIS 2015 8 Residential access: DSL • Uses single copper pair • shared with analog phone service • but “bonding” proposed since most residences have 2 pairs • businesses may have 40-pair bundles • capacity depends on frequency range • ADSL = asymmetric digital subscriber line • “web browsing” • but: sending photos, video conferencing • Also need in-building technology: • coax: MoCA (100 MHz in 500-1650 MHz; 400-800 Mb/s) • Wi-Fi • copper: HomePlug AV (1.8 – 30 MHz; 200 Mb/s) • AV2 measured: ~60 Mb/s (99% of connections) 3/30/15 AIS 2015 9 Functional scheme of a DSLAM •DSLAM: Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer POTS/ISDN POTS/ISDN POTS ADSL + POTS/ISDN ADSL POTS ISDN modem ISDN LT Split. Copper access line Split. STM-1 ATM network ATM cells NT DSLAM 3/30/15 AIS 2015 10 ADSL standards (current) Standard name Common name Downstream Upstream rate rate ITU G.992.1 ADSL (G.DMT) 8 Mbit/s 1.0 Mbit/s ITU G.992.2 ADSL Lite (G.Lite) 1.5 Mbit/s 0.5 Mbit/s ITU G.992.3/4 ADSL2 12 Mbit/s 1.0 Mbit/s ITU G.992.3/4 Annex J ADSL2 12 Mbit/s 3.5 Mbit/s ITU G.992.3/4 Annex L RE-ADSL2 5 Mbit/s 0.8 Mbit/s ITU G.992.5 ADSL2+ 24 Mbit/s 1.0 Mbit/s ITU G.992.5 Annex L RE-ADSL2+ 24 Mbit/s 1.0 Mbit/s ITU G.992.5 Annex M ADSL2+ 28 Mbit/s 3.5 Mbit/s Michal, Angel, Igor 3/30/15 AIS 2015 11 DSL frequencies ITU-T G.993.2 (2005) Wikipedia 3/30/15 AIS 2015 12 VDSL and G.Fast May 19, 2011 3/30/15 AIS 2015 13 Craig Moffett (Senior Analyst) • [email protected] • +1-212-969-6758 Exhibit 37 CopperExhibit loop 38 lengths Population Density by Country (per square mile) DSL Loop Length Distribution by Country 700 100% 660 5% >3-7km 12% 90% 593 25% 15% 600 30% < 3 km 80% ) 18% e 518 l i m s 70% 60% 500 p e r o a o 10% u L 25% q L 60% s S r e 400 50% D < 2 km p f ( o 50% 40% y t e i g 30% s a n n e 300 40% e D c 236 r 30% n e o i P 30% 20% t high-speed DSL a l 200 u p o 20% P 10% 30% 30% 30% 83 < 1 km 100 10% 20% 10% 0% 0 US UK Germany Spain Italy US Spain Italy Germany UK Source: ECTA, Ofcom, Company Reports, Bernstein Estimates Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ISTAT, Eurostat DSL loop lengths The second major factor predicting the vulnerability of the copper network is cable ubiquity. The HFC (hybrid-fiber-coax) plant of the cable operators can deliver vastly superior speeds than the copper network. (Recall in Exhibit 15 the FCC's findingCopper that average loops realized à cablelarge-scale speeds are currentlydata competition ~5.5 Mbps, versus (“unbundled network elements”) DSL at 2Mbps; moreover, enhancements like DOCSIS 3.0 deliver theoretical download speeds of up to 160 Mbps). But cable isn’t available everywhere… at least it isn’t available everywhere outside the U.S. Cable’s overlap in the U.S. is higher than in any developed nation. In areas where the TelCos have built out fiber, they have a product which offers similar (or, in some cases, superior) broadband service versus the cable operators, so they can compete on reasonably similar footing. Currently, roughly 43 million households (or ~37-38% household penetration) are covered by Telco fiber in s the U.S., with that percentage reaching and largely leveling out at ~40% by the end of 2012. However, in n o the remaining 60% of U.S. households not covered by Telco fiber, DSL faces the formidable threat of i t irrelevance – especially when taking into account the fact that households not covered by Telco fiber also a likely have higher than average loop lengths, given that the Telcos determined that building fiber out to c i these homes did not pose attractive economics. Taking this one step further, this implies that DSL n performance is likely below average in these areas, making cable an even more attractive alternative. (By u the same token, in the areas that cable has not deployed facilities, it is usually because the area is too rural... m in which case the distances would be too great for telco DSL to take advantage of the absence). m Arguably, the differences between the U.S. and Europe are a matter of degree rather than kind, and that the o obsolescence of the TelCo network is a matter of when rather than if in even the best markets. Still, the c combination of high cable overlap and long copper loops is a double-whammy that makes the U.S. copper e l network uniquely ill-suited for the challenges of the next decade. In contrast, this dynamic is much less e problematic for carriers in many European countries, where the cable infrastructure is far less built out – T countries such as Germany (where only 58% of households are covered with cable), France (28%) and Italy . (a mere 1%). S . U 25 ADSL Range • Range for DSL without a repeater: 5.5 km • As distance decreases toward the telephone company office, the data rate increases Data Rate Wire gauge Wire size Distance 1.5 or 2 Mbps 24 AWG 0.5 mm 5.5 km 1.5 or 2 Mbps 26 AWG 0.4 mm 4.6 km 6.1 Mbps 24 AWG 0.5 mm 3.7 km 1.5 or 2 Mbps 26 AWG 0.4 mm 2.7 km 3/30/15 AIS 2015 14 3/30/15 AIS 2015 15 Residential access: cable modems • HFC: hybrid fiber coax • asymmetric: up to 10 Mb/s upstream, 1 Mb/s downstream • network of cable and fiber attaches homes to ISP router • shared access to router among home • issues: congestion, dimensioning • deployment: available via cable companies Kurose/Ross 3/30/15 AIS 2015 16 Residential access: cable modems Diagram: http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/cmic/diagram.html 3/30/15 AIS 2015 17 Cable network architecture Typically 500 to 5,000 homes cable headend home cable distribution network (simplified) 3/30/15 AIS 2015 18 Cable network architecture cable headend home cable distribution network (simplified) 3/30/15 AIS 2015 19 Cable network architecture server(s) cable headend home cable distribution network 3/30/15 AIS 2015 20 Cable network architecture FDM: C O V V V V V V N I I I I I I D D T D D D D D D A A R E E E E E E T T O O O O O O O A A L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Channels cable headend home cable distribution network 3/30/15 AIS 2015 21 Simplified access network diagram Jason Livingood (Comcast) FCC 2009 3/30/15 AIS 2015 22 DOCSIS 3.0 Channel Bonding DOCSIS 3.0 is the next generation of the DOCSIS standard Logical Channel Bonding Technology 152 Mbps 38 Mbps 38 Mbps 38 Mbps 38 Mbps 6 MHz 6 MHz 6 MHz 6 MHz • DOCSIS 2.0 is limited to single channel’s capacity • DOCSIS 3.0 employs packet bonding across multiple channels • Initially will bond 4 channels • 8 channel-capable silicon coming soon • Upstream bonding in 2010 • Increased speeds 100Mbps+ 3/30/15 AIS 2015 23 Network cost • Electronic and electro-optic costs are dropping rapidly • GigE switch : 2001 - $15K 2003 - $1.2K 2009 - $600 (12 port) • GigE transceivers 2001 - $750 2003 - $180 • CWDM transceivers $400-800 for 50-100km reach! • Direct fiber cost is relatively low • $60/fiber-km in 80-fiber bundle • But – fiber installation cost is still tall pole • Europe: >$20/m (or any populous wide-area) • U.S.: >$10m (in simplest desert environment) A.
Recommended publications
  • The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2013

    The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2013

    Federal Aviation Administration The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2013 February 2014 About FAA \ NOTICE ###i# £\£\ ###ii# Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. 1 YEAR AT A GLANCE ..............................................2 COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION 2013 YEAR IN REVIEW ........5 7 ORBITAL LAUNCH VEHICLES .....................................21 3 SUBORBITAL REUSABLE VEHICLES ...............................47 33 ON-ORBIT VEHICLES AND PLATFORMS ............................57 LAUNCH SITES .................................................65 COMMERCIAL VENTURES BEYOND EARTH ORBIT ...................79 44 REGULATION AND POLICY .......................................83 3 5 3 53 3 8599: : : ;55: 9 < 5; < 2013 COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION FORECASTS ..........89 4 3 4 : ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...............................186 2013 WORLDWIDE ORBITAL LAUNCH EVENTS .....................192 DEFINITIONS ..................................................196 ###iii# £\£\ LIST OF FIGURES COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION YEAR IN REVIEW = =999 =99 = =3> =:9;> LAUNCH SITES = :< 2013 COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION FORECASTS =944 =4 =?4;9 =99493 =3 =:5= =< =;=9 =95;@3 =A =;=9 A 3 =994?: =9999 ? =54 =359 =:5 3 =<999= ? =99=5 ?3 =;>>99: =99 ? 3 ==9 ? 3: =3 =>3 =?: =3?: =:? : ###iv# LIST OF TABLES COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION YEAR IN REVIEW 99 : 3< :9=99< <99 ORBITAL LAUNCH VEHICLES 99 99 59595 593 SUBORBITAL REUSABLE VEHICLES 3 :5933 ON-ORBIT VEHICLES
  • → Space for Europe European Space Agency

    → Space for Europe European Space Agency

    number 153 | February 2013 bulletin → space for europe European Space Agency The European Space Agency was formed out of, and took over the rights and The ESA headquarters are in Paris. obligations of, the two earlier European space organisations – the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO) and the European Launcher Development The major establishments of ESA are: Organisation (ELDO). The Member States are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands. Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Canada is a Cooperating State. ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany. In the words of its Convention: the purpose of the Agency shall be to provide for ESRIN, Frascati, Italy. and to promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation among European States in space research and technology and their space applications, with a view ESAC, Madrid, Spain. to their being used for scientific purposes and for operational space applications systems: Chairman of the Council: D. Williams (to Dec 2012) → by elaborating and implementing a long-term European space policy, by recommending space objectives to the Member States, and by concerting the Director General: J.-J. Dordain policies of the Member States with respect to other national and international organisations and institutions; → by elaborating and implementing activities and programmes in the space field; → by coordinating the European space programme and national programmes, and by integrating the latter progressively and as completely as possible into the European space programme, in particular as regards the development of applications satellites; → by elaborating and implementing the industrial policy appropriate to its programme and by recommending a coherent industrial policy to the Member States.
  • Year in Review—2013

    Year in Review—2013

    MSM DEC 2013 cover SATCOM For Net-Centric Warfare December 2013 MilsatMagazine YEARYEAR ININ REVIEW—2013REVIEW—2013 MilsatMagazineDecember 2013 Publishing Operations Senior Contributors Silvano Payne, Publisher + Writer Mike Antonovich, ATEME Hartley G. Lesser, Editorial Director Bert Sadtler, Boxwood Executive Search Pattie Waldt, Executive Editor Richard Dutchik Jill Durfee, Sales Director, Editorial Assistant Tony Bardo, Hughes Simon Payne, Development Director Chris Forrester, Broadgate Publications Donald McGee, Production Manager Karl Fuchs, iDirect Government Services Dan Makinster, Technical Advisor Bob Gough, Carrick Communications Jos Heyman, TIROS Space Information David Leichner, Gilat Satellite Networks This Issue’s Authors Giles Peeters, Track24 Defence Mark A Baird, Colonel, USAF Ian Canning Hartley Lesser Jose Lujano, III, Corporal, USMC Michael Mantz Rafael Martie, Petty Officer, 1st Class, USN Susan Miller Elliot Holokauahi Pulham John Ratigan Scott Scheimreif Pattie Waldt Amy Walker Published 11 times a year by SatNews Publishers 800 Siesta Way Sonoma, CA 95476 USA Phone: (707) 939-9306 Fax: (707) 838-9235 © 2013 SatNews Publishers We reserve the right to edit all submitted materials to meet our content guidelines, as well as for grammar or to move articles to an alternative issue to accommodate publication space requirements, or Cover and Table of masthead Image... removed due to space restrictions. Submission of content does not Staff Sgt. Shelby Johnson, a squad leader with the 4th Brigade constitute acceptance of said material by SatNews Publishers. Edited Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), observes the materials may, or may not, be returned to author and/or company area around Forward Operating Base Torkham, Afghanistan, while for review prior to publication.
  • Year in Review 2013

    Year in Review 2013

    SM_Dec_2013 cover Worldwide Satellite Magazine December 2013 SatMagazine 2013 YEAR IN REVIEW SatMagazine December 2013—Year In Review Publishing Operations Senior Contributors This Issue’s Authors Silvano Payne, Publisher + Writer Mike Antonovich, ATEME Mike Antonovich Robert Kubbernus Hartley G. Lesser, Editorial Director Tony Bardo, Hughes Eran Avni Dr. Ajey Lele Richard Dutchik Dave Bettinger Tom Leech Pattie Waldt, Executive Editor Chris Forrester, Broadgate Publications Don Buchman Hartley Lesser Jill Durfee, Sales Director, Editorial Assistant Karl Fuchs, iDirect Government Services Eyal Copitt Timothy Logue Simon Payne, Development Director Bob Gough, 21 Carrick Communications Rich Currier Jay Monroe Jos Heyman, TIROS Space Information Tommy Konkol Dybvad Tore Morten Olsen Donald McGee, Production Manager David Leichner, Gilat Satellite Networks Chris Forrester Kurt Peterhans Dan Makinster, Technical Advisor Giles Peeters, Track24 Defence Sima Fishman Jorge Potti Bert Sadtler, Boxwood Executive Search Simen K. Frostad Sally-Anne Ray David Gelerman Susan Sadaat Samer Halawi Bert Sadtler Jos Heyman Patrick Shay Jack Jacobs Mike Towner Casper Jensen Serge Van Herck Alexandre Joint Pattie Waldt Pradman Kaul Ali Zarkesh Published 11 times a year by SatNews Publishers 800 Siesta Way Sonoma, CA 95476 USA Phone: (707) 939-9306 Fax: (707) 838-9235 © 2013 SatNews Publishers We reserve the right to edit all submitted materials to meet our content guidelines, as well as for grammar or to move articles to an alternative issue to accommodate publication space requirements, or removed due to space restrictions. Submission of content does not constitute acceptance of said material by SatNews Publishers. Edited materials may, or may not, be returned to author and/or company for review prior to publication.
  • Starttabelle 2013 2013-01A 2013-01B 2013-01C 2013-02A 2013-02B 2013-03A 2013-04A NOA-01 2013-05A 2013-05B 2013-05C 2013-05D 2013-05E 2013-05F 2013-06A 2013-06B

    Starttabelle 2013 2013-01A 2013-01B 2013-01C 2013-02A 2013-02B 2013-03A 2013-04A NOA-01 2013-05A 2013-05B 2013-05C 2013-05D 2013-05E 2013-05F 2013-06A 2013-06B

    Raumfahrer.net Starttabelle 2013 Bahnnähe Bahnferne Inklination LandLandLand bzw.bzw.bzw. WiederWieder---- COSPAR Satellit StartStartStart (GMT) Trägerrakete Startort Umläuft Bemerkungen Bemannt (km)(km)(km) (km)(km)(km) (Grad) Organisation eintritt 2013-01A Kosmos 2482 15.01.2013 Rokot Plesezk 1.484 1.523 82,504 Erde Russland - Militärischer Datenrelais- Nein (Strela-3M 4) 16.25 satellit 2013-01B Kosmos 2483 15.01.2013 Rokot Plesezk 1.485 1.510 82,505 Erde Russland - Militärischer Datenrelais- Nein (Strela-3M 5) 16.25 satellit 2013-01C Kosmos 2484 15.01.2013 Rokot Plesezk 1.484 1.523 82,504 Erde Russland - Militärischer Datenrelais- Nein (Strela-3M 6) 16.25 satellit 2013-02A IGS-Radar 4 27.01.2013 H2-A Tanegashima 480 500 97 Erde Japan - Radar-Aufklärungssatellit Nein 4.40 2013-02B IGS-Optik 5V 27.01.2013 H2-A Tanegashima 480 500 97 Erde Japan - Optischer Aufklärungs- Nein 4.40 satellit 2013-03A STSat 2C 30.01.2013 Naro 1 Naro-Raumfahrt- 304 1.509 80,275 Erde Südkorea - Forschungs- und Technolo- Nein 7.00 zentrum giesatellit; ca. 100 kg 2013-04A TDRS K 31.01.2013 Atlas 5 Cape Canaveral 35.744 35.845 6,998 Erde USA - Bahnverfolgungs- und Nein 1.48 Datenrelaissatellit; 3.454 kg NOA-01 Intelsat 27 01.02.2013 Zenit 3 Sea-Launch-Plattform - - - - USA - Fehlfunktion der ersten Nein 7.56 Stufe und Absturz 2013-05A Globalstar M78 06.02.3013 Sojus 2 Baikonur 1.420 1.421 52,004 Erde USA - Sprach- und Datenkommu- Nein 16.04 nikationssatellit; 700 kg 2013-05B Globalstar M93 06.02.3013 Sojus 2 Baikonur 1.420 1.421 51,980 Erde USA - Sprach- und Datenkommu-
  • 59864 Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 185/Wednesday, September 23

    59864 Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 185/Wednesday, September 23

    59864 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Rules and Regulations FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS C. Congressional Review Act II. Report and Order COMMISSION 2. The Commission has determined, A. Allocating FTEs 47 CFR Part 1 and the Administrator of the Office of 5. In the FY 2020 NPRM, the Information and Regulatory Affairs, Commission proposed that non-auctions [MD Docket No. 20–105; FCC 20–120; FRS Office of Management and Budget, funded FTEs will be classified as direct 17050] concurs that these rules are non-major only if in one of the four core bureaus, under the Congressional Review Act, 5 i.e., in the Wireline Competition Assessment and Collection of U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will Bureau, the Wireless Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2020 send a copy of this Report & Order to Telecommunications Bureau, the Media Congress and the Government Bureau, or the International Bureau. The AGENCY: Federal Communications indirect FTEs are from the following Commission. Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). bureaus and offices: Enforcement ACTION: Final rule. Bureau, Consumer and Governmental 3. In this Report and Order, we adopt Affairs Bureau, Public Safety and SUMMARY: In this document, the a schedule to collect the $339,000,000 Homeland Security Bureau, Chairman Commission revises its Schedule of in congressionally required regulatory and Commissioners’ offices, Office of Regulatory Fees to recover an amount of fees for fiscal year (FY) 2020. The the Managing Director, Office of General $339,000,000 that Congress has required regulatory fees for all payors are due in Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, the Commission to collect for fiscal year September 2020.
  • PRFP-11) & Interconnectivity Workshop 26-30 November 2019, Apia, SAMOA

    PRFP-11) & Interconnectivity Workshop 26-30 November 2019, Apia, SAMOA

    11th APT Policy and Regulation Forum for Pacific (PRFP-11) & Interconnectivity Workshop 26-30 November 2019, Apia, SAMOA Workshop Topic ENABLERS FOR A BETTER CONNECTED PACIFIC - New Satellite Technologies and Services (MSS, ESIM and LEOs) Dr Bob Horton Consultant Satellite Industry ENABLERS FOR A BETTER CONNECTED PACIFIC - New Satellite Technologies and Services (MSS and LEOs) CONTENTS • Examples of progress : MSS, ESIM – Inmarsat LEOs – OneWeb • Pacific Needs - understanding and participating in the regional/global environment - the Pacific : a “Collection of Islands” or an “Island Collective”? - opportunities overdue in APAC Inmarsat use of spectrum L band Ka band User links: 1626.5-1660.5 MHz ↑, 1525-1559 Feeder link ↑ : 27.5 – 30.0 GHz MHz↓ Feeder link↓ : 17.7 – 20.2 GHz Extended L-band: User link ↑ : 29.0 – 30.0 GHz User link↓ : 19.2 – 20.2 GHz User links: 1668-1675 MHz ↑, 1518 MHz-1525 MHz ↓ Used by Inmarsat Global Express satellites S band Used by Inmarsat-4 satellites and Alphasat Feeder link ↑ : 27.5 – 29.5 GHz Feeder link↓ : 17.7 – 19.7 GHz User link ↑ 1980-2010MHz Q/V band User link↓ : 2170-2200MHz C band 37.5-42.5 GHz ↓ Used by Europasat Feeder links for L-band satellites operate in 47.2-50.2 GHz + 50.4-51.4 GHz ↑ the bands 3550 – 3700 MHz and 6425 – - Planned for future satellites to free 6575 MHz through more than 20 Land Earth Stations up Ka-band for user terminals TT&C operated in standard C-band on most - Developmental payload on Alphasat Inmarsat satellites Inmarsat and Extended L-band Extended L-band will be available
  • EXTRAORDINARY AMAZING EVERYWHERE ANNUAL REPORT 2019 2 SES ANNUAL REPORT 2019 COMPANY OUR 1 for Allourstakeholders

    EXTRAORDINARY AMAZING EVERYWHERE ANNUAL REPORT 2019 2 SES ANNUAL REPORT 2019 COMPANY OUR 1 for Allourstakeholders

    EXTRAORDINARY AMAZING EVERYWHERE ANNUAL REPORT 2019 1 2 3 4 5 OUR OPERATIONAL CONSOLIDATED SES S.A. ANNUAL ADDITIONAL COMPANY AND STRATEGIC FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS INFORMATION REPORT STATEMENTS OUR PURPOSE OUR AMBITIONS We believe in content and WE DO THE connectivity everywhere We provide Cloud-enabled, EXTRAORDINARY satellite-based intelligent IN SPACE connectivity We are future-proof, powered by TO DELIVER sustained growth and innovation AMAZING We are passionate about customer experience and focused on customer EXPERIENCES success EVERYWHERE SES is a great place to work We are here to make a ON EARTH difference We are part of something bigger and what we do makes a difference. Our purpose and ambitions reflect what we at SES want to achieve and the value that we seek to create for all our stakeholders. ANNUAL REPORT 2019 REPORT ANNUAL SES 2 1 2 3 4 5 OUR OPERATIONAL CONSOLIDATED SES S.A. ANNUAL ADDITIONAL COMPANY AND STRATEGIC FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS INFORMATION REPORT STATEMENTS 1 OUR COMPANY 4 Leader in global content connectivity solutions 6 Significant demand for global content connectivity solutions 8 Doing the extraordinary in space 10 Delivering amazing experiences everywhere on Earth 12 Making a difference to billions all around the world 14 Our talented people are at the heart of everything we do 16 Generating sustained growth 18 A long history of innovation ANNUAL REPORT 2019 REPORT ANNUAL SES 3 1 2 3 4 5 OUR OPERATIONAL CONSOLIDATED SES S.A. ANNUAL ADDITIONAL COMPANY AND STRATEGIC FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS INFORMATION REPORT STATEMENTS LEADER IN GLOBAL CONTENT CONNECTIVITY SOLUTIONS “ At SES, we believe you should have the freedom to take your story wherever you want it to go—unlimited by geography, technology, or even gravity.” Steve Collar, SES CEO ANNUAL REPORT 2019 REPORT ANNUAL SES 4 1 2 3 4 5 OUR OPERATIONAL CONSOLIDATED SES S.A.
  • Space Business Review

    Space Business Review

    December 2010 - SPECIAL EDITION: THE TOP-10 SPACE BUSINESS STORIES OF 2010 – #1 – ECAs Take Center Stage #6 – Satellite Broadband Market Grows Export credit agencies played a major role in The FCC’s National Broadband Plan space financings in 2010. COFACE of stimulated wireless broadband applications France backed a $1.8b credit facility for by proposing terrestrial use of certain Iridium Communications Inc. for its licensed MSS S- and L-band spectrum while Iridium NEXT constellation, a $1.2b facility the Ka-band satellite broadband market for O3b Networks Limited and a $115m continued to grow with ViaSat reporting a loan for Hughes Network Systems, LLC. The 15% increase in subscribers and Hughes U.S. Ex-Im Bank loaned $215.6m to Avanti Communications surpassing 500,000 Communications Group plc, $171.5m to subscribers. Avanti Communications SES S.A. and $666m to Inmarsat plc for its launched the HYLAS 1 broadband satellite, Global Xpress™ program. LightSquared™ Inc. launched SkyTerra 1 #2 – Debt & Equity Markets Heat Up and Eutelsat launched KA-SAT. Markets end on a high note in 2010. SIRIUS #7 – Sea Launch Exits Ch. 11 XM Radio Inc. closed $910m in note offerings, Sea Launch Company successfully ViaSat, Inc. closed a public offering of 6.9m of completed its Chapter 11 reorganization its shares, Eutelsat S.A. refinanced €1.3b of process with Sea Launch S.a.r.l. as the debt, Inmarsat plc closed a debt facility of successor entity and Energia Overseas €225m, Avanti Communications raised Limited of Russia the new majority owner, approx. £70m in a share placement, Intelsat investing more than $140m in capital.
  • ESOG 120 Issue 8 – Rev

    ESOG 120 Issue 8 – Rev

    TYPE APPROVAL AND CHARACTERIZATION PROCEDURES ESOG 120 Issue 8 – Rev. 1, May 2021 Antennas and Transmissions Team Antenna and VSAT Type Approval/Characterization ESOG 120 – Issue 8 - Rev. 1 May 2021 Antennas and VSATs Type Approval / Characterization Table of Contents Forward .................................................................................................................................. v 1 Overview of the ESOG modules ...................................................................................... 6 1.1 Volume I: Eutelsat S.A. system management and policies ........................................................ 6 1.2 Volume II: Eutelsat S.A. system operations and procedures ..................................................... 6 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 About this document .................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Disclaimer ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Eutelsat certification .................................................................................................................. 7 2.3.1 Type Approval ........................................................................................................................ 8 2.3.2 Characterization ....................................................................................................................
  • Classification of Geosynchronous Objects

    Classification of Geosynchronous Objects

    esoc European Space Operations Centre Robert-Bosch-Strasse 5 D-64293 Darmstadt Germany T +49 (0)6151 900 www.esa.int CLASSIFICATION OF GEOSYNCHRONOUS OBJECTS Produced with the DISCOS Database Prepared by T. Flohrer & S. Frey Reference GEN-DB-LOG-00195-OPS-GR Issue 18 Revision 0 Date of Issue 3 June 2016 Status ISSUED Document Type TN European Space Agency Agence spatiale europeenne´ Abstract This is a status report on geosynchronous objects as of 1 January 2016. Based on orbital data in ESA’s DISCOS database and on orbital data provided by KIAM the situation near the geostationary ring is analysed. From 1434 objects for which orbital data are available (of which 2 are outdated, i.e. the last available state dates back to 180 or more days before the reference date), 471 are actively controlled, 747 are drifting above, below or through GEO, 190 are in a libration orbit and 15 are in a highly inclined orbit. For 11 objects the status could not be determined. Furthermore, there are 50 uncontrolled objects without orbital data (of which 44 have not been cata- logued). Thus the total number of known objects in the geostationary region is 1484. In issue 18 the previously used definition of ”near the geostationary ring” has been slightly adapted. If you detect any error or if you have any comment or question please contact: Tim Flohrer, PhD European Space Agency European Space Operations Center Space Debris Office (OPS-GR) Robert-Bosch-Str. 5 64293 Darmstadt, Germany Tel.: +49-6151-903058 E-mail: tim.fl[email protected] Page 1 / 178 European Space Agency CLASSIFICATION OF GEOSYNCHRONOUS OBJECTS Agence spatiale europeenne´ Date 3 June 2016 Issue 18 Rev 0 Table of contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Sources 4 2.1 USSTRATCOM Two-Line Elements (TLEs) .
  • CSF Research and Education Fall 2014

    CSF Research and Education Fall 2014

    Subscribe Share Past Issues Translate Commercial Spaceflight Federation Newsletter View this email in your browser CSF REM Affiliates, I wanted to start by saying that I look forward to working closely with all of you in my new role as CSF President! I would like to schedule a REM Affiliates call next month which will be a great opportunity for me to get to know everyone further. Please fill out this doodle poll to let us know when you are available for the call: http://doodle.com/m92k5u7ipvz4k8ay. We held our semi-annual CSF Board and Members Meetings September 9-10 in Jacksonville, FL. A lot of great developments came out of the meetings that I believe will continue to move our organization in the right direction. The Board of Directors elected Frank DiBello, President and CEO of Space Florida, as the new CSF Chairman succeeding Stu Witt, the CEO of Mojave Air and Space Port. The Board also elected Mike Gold of Bigelow Aerospace and Sean Mahoney of Masten Space Systems to the Executive Committee. Additionally, October marked the beginning of a few staffing changes here at CSF. Tommy Sanford assumed the role of Director on October 1st. Additionally, Mike L-A has left CSF as of September 30th; we can't thank him enough for his service not just to the Federation, but to the industry as a whole. Please feel free to reach out to me by email at eric.stallmer@commercialspaceflight.org or by phone at 202-715-2925. I look forward to talking with you all soon! Sincerely, Eric EDUCATION NEWS AND CONTESTS NASA Space Technology Research Fellowships (NSTRF) – Fall 2015 Due: November 13, 2014 This call for graduate student fellowship applications solicits applications from individuals pursuing or planning to pursue master’s (e.g., M.S.) or doctoral (e.g., Ph.D.) degrees in relevant space technology disciplines at accredited U.S.