[Starlink] Starlink no longer available to the Ukrainian army?

[Nathan Owens]

Elon posted a graph, it showed a peak of 7000GB per unit time, the only one
that makes sense to me is per hour, which is 15Gbps peak -- not a huge
amount.

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 10:50 AM Steve Stroh via Starlink <
starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> I’m speculating, but given that Starlink is THE communications
> infrastructure for much of Ukraine, then the scaling of the ground stations
> to provide that level of service must be a significant expense. To provide
> that much bandwidth would require deploying a lot of ground stations, each
> with expensive hardware, power infrastructure (including backup), fiber
> backhaul, skilled labor, and no small amount of fiber bandwidth that SpaceX
> has to pay SOMEONE to provide.
>
> Not to mention that anything SpaceX deploys to support Ukraine is a
> resource that it could have used for speeding up revenue generation in
> lucrative markets like the US.
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:41 David Lang via Starlink <
> starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> If spacex is providing the high-end/business grade service to all
>> terminals
>> that they normally charge $4500/month for, reimbursement should be based
>> on
>> that.
>>
>> Base it on the normal service pricing, not on cost-plus (if it were based
>> on
>> cost-plus it would be an utter windfall for SpaceX as they are still in
>> the
>> stage of building the service, and so there is a much higher spend rate
>> to
>> expand the service at this point than the ongoing maintinance of it)
>>
>> while the satellites do support that area, they also support the rest of
>> the
>> service, and if they weren't supporting Ukraine, there wouldn't be any
>> fewer
>> satellites launched.
>>
>> I've seen too many games played with 'fully loaded costs' (sometimes
>> backfiring
>> on the people tinkering with the numbers), and so it's something I watch
>> out
>> for.
>>
>> lies, damn lies, and statistics, 'fully loaded costs' tend to be heavy on
>> statistics ;-)
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022, tom at evslin.com wrote:
>>
>> > Putting aside the timing of Elon's complaint about cost right after the
>> spat over his Ukrainian "peace plan", It is certainly reasonable for
>> Starlink to get paid like other weapon suppliers who didn't give out free
>> samples to prove their usefulness, Given that they should be reimbursed
>> based on loaded cost plus profit like anyone else. I'm sure the other
>> suppliers allocate their overhead costs when pricing weapon systems. They'd
>> be out of business otherwise. The satellites are part of Starlink's fixed
>> overhead so a portion of their costs should be allocated to service
>> provided in Ukraine.
>> >
>> > All that being said, it would be terrible if Ukraine got less than the
>> best support that can be provided.
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Starlink <starlink-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
>> David Lang via Starlink
>> > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 1:28 PM
>> > To: Kurtis Heimerl <kheimerl at cs.washington.edu>
>> > Cc: Starlink list <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink no longer available to the Ukrainian
>> army?
>> >
>> > Having now read more info on this, less significant than the $80m total
>> figure is the $20m/month figure he quoted. With 15k dishes as the figure
>> that they sent (separate from whatever has been purchased on the commercial
>> side), that works out to 1.3k/dish/month, which is very high.
>> >
>> > now, not being able to deploy reliable ground stations inside Ukraine
>> could be driving up costs, plus the ongoing battle against jamming. But in
>> his tweet he also cites satellite costs, which should not be allocated as
>> "Ukraine related"
>> > costs (and I don't think the cyberdefense and jamming defense work
>> should be
>> > either)
>> >
>> > David Lang
>> >
>> > On Fri, 14 Oct 2022, Kurtis Heimerl via Starlink wrote:
>> >
>> >> This thread (https://twitter.com/dim0kq/status/1580827171903635456)
>> >> strongly argues that Starlink is largely paid for their service, at
>> >> least on the consumer side. I imagine there are significant
>> >> operational expenses in dealing with the various actors involved but
>> >> not on the basic model.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:06 AM Juliusz Chroboczek via Starlink
>> >> <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> In essence, once you give something away for free, not even setting
>> >>>> the expectation that it’s a “freemium” model, it’s very hard to get
>> >>>> out of it. If you then claim your costs are way higher than what
>> >>>> analysis work out, eyebrows raise way above the hairline.
>> >>>
>> >>> Uh.  Hmm.
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Starlink mailing list
>> >>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Starlink mailing list
>> >> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
> --
> Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
> Editor
> Zero Retries Newsletter - https://zeroretries.substack.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20221016/1ae3ca82/attachment-0001.html>