First They Frighten You About the Grid. Then They Sell Texas the Satellites.
Yesterday, I read one of those articles written to leave a little fear behind after you close the page.
The warning was that if the electrical grid collapses, the communications systems we depend on will collapse with it. Cell towers will stop working. Cable and fiber networks will fail. Texans could be cut off from one another just when they need information the most.
Then came the reassuring answer:
Satellites.
The satellites will still be circling above us. Therefore, satellite internet may be the only communications system capable of surviving a widespread blackout.
It sounds convincing until someone asks a simple question:
What powers the equipment on Earth?
A satellite may remain safely in orbit when the Texas grid goes down.
Your satellite dish does not run on starlight.
Neither does the Wi-Fi router inside your house. Neither does your computer. Neither does the phone you would use to call for help. And neither do the earth stations, gateways and terrestrial connections needed to move information between the satellites and the rest of the internet.
The satellites may still be alive above us while everyone below them is staring at dead equipment.
That is why the timing of the grid-collapse warning caught my attention.
Texas lawmakers are already questioning how the state’s Broadband Development Office decided where to send billions of dollars intended to provide internet service to unserved Texans. Their questions include allegations of favoritism toward low-Earth-orbit satellite companies, particularly Elon Musk’s Starlink.
An audit is now underway.
According to testimony reported by The Texas Tribune, broadband providers were originally expected to receive only 10 percent of their grant money upfront. The remainder would be distributed in stages based partly on the number of subscribers who actually used the service.
Then the state changed the payment schedule—but only for low-Earth-orbit satellite companies.
Bryant Clayton, director of the Texas Broadband Development Office, acknowledged that the change was made specifically for those companies. He also told lawmakers that it happened only one or two days before the grants were awarded.
When senators asked who wanted the payment structure reconsidered, Clayton said the request came from Gov. Greg Abbott’s office.
That does not prove corruption. It does not prove that the frightening grid article was coordinated with Starlink, the governor or anyone else.
But it gives us every reason to ask the dangerous question:
Are Texans being taught to fear the collapse of the electrical grid so satellite contracts will begin to look not merely useful, but unavoidable?
Texas’s approved $1.3 billion broadband proposal calls for about 123,000 unserved or underserved locations to receive fiber connections. Approximately 54,000 would be served by fixed wireless systems.
Another 65,000 locations would receive low-Earth-orbit satellite service. (Texas Comptroller)
That is not a small emergency experiment. It is a major part of the state’s plan for connecting rural Texas.
Satellite internet can be valuable. In remote areas where laying fiber might cost enormous amounts of money, it can connect people much faster. After hurricanes, fires and floods, portable satellite terminals can restore communications when local cables and towers have been damaged.
But there is a difference between buying internet service and building an emergency communications system.
A normal Starlink residential installation requires electricity for the dish, router, power supply and cables. Starlink says its standard equipment generally consumes between 50 and 100 watts while operating, depending on the model and conditions. (Starlink)
That may not sound like much while the electricity is flowing.
During a long blackout, it means the customer needs a working battery, generator, solar system or some other independent source of power. The customer also needs a way to keep phones and computers charged.
The network itself has similar needs.
Satellite communications are not just satellites. They are systems made of satellites, user terminals, ground stations and connections to terrestrial networks. Information transmitted into space eventually has to be received, routed and delivered somewhere on Earth. (GAO)
Starlink’s newer satellites can use laser links to move information from one satellite to another. That allows traffic to bypass a disabled ground station in one area and reach a functioning gateway somewhere else.
That improves resilience.
It does not eliminate Earth.
Starlink’s own materials say community gateway customers must provide space, lifting equipment—and power. (Starlink)
So what exactly are Texas taxpayers purchasing?
Are the contracts merely paying companies to make satellite service available at rural addresses?
Or are they also buying the batteries, generators, solar panels, protected gateways, fuel supplies, replacement equipment, and maintenance needed to keep that service operating during the grid failure being used to justify it?
If emergency survival is part of the sales pitch, emergency survival should be written into the contract.
The state should be able to tell Texans:
How long will a residential satellite installation operate after the power goes out?
Who pays for backup power?
Will community anchor institutions—schools, clinics, libraries, emergency shelters and fire stations—receive generators or battery systems?
How long can the earth stations and gateways operate without grid electricity?
What happens when fuel deliveries are interrupted?
What parts of the network still depend on fiber, data centers and terrestrial internet connections?
Will the companies receiving public money guarantee emergency service, or will customers merely receive the same subscription sold during normal times?
Without answers, the principal beneficiaries may not be the rural Texans whose names justify the program.
They may be the companies receiving public money upfront.
That is especially troubling because lawmakers say favorable payment terms were changed for satellite providers shortly before the grants were awarded. State leaders have ordered an audit of the Broadband Development Office amid concerns about transparency and special treatment. (The Texas Tribune)
Perhaps the audit will show that every decision was reasonable.
Perhaps satellites really were the cheapest practical way to reach certain remote locations.
But Texans should not be frightened with images of a collapsed electrical grid and then sold a communications system that also stops working when the electricity disappears.
A satellite is not a magic lantern hanging in the sky.
It is one part of a long chain. Break the chain at the home, the gateway, the data center or the terrestrial connection, and the satellite may continue circling uselessly above the darkness.
Texas may need satellite internet.
Texas may also need fiber, fixed wireless, cellular networks, radio systems and independent backup power. Real emergency resilience comes from having several systems capable of supporting one another—not from placing the state’s hopes in one company or one technology.
The question is not whether Starlink works.
The question is not whether satellites can help rural Texans.
The question is:
Is Texas buying a communications system that will survive an emergency—or is Texas merely buying satellite subscriptions from companies using the emergency to sell them?
The satellites may remain in orbit when the grid collapses.
The beneficiaries will already have been paid.
