From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.nextlayer.at (smtp2.nextlayer.at [IPv6:2a01:190:1764:150::37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77D253B29E for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 18:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.0.50] (d50-117-141-56.yt.northwestel.net [50.117.141.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.nextlayer.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DBD67802182 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 00:43:10 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.nextlayer.at DBD67802182 Message-ID: <04f2bfb9-444e-9261-1477-f6c649efb773@falco.ca> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 15:43:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100411 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 From: Daniel AJ Sokolov To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <168F6AAF-7953-4498-913A-A322D184FF2B@falco.ca> Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Starlink] SpaceX ordered to explain pricing strategy X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 22:43:12 -0000 Erroneously sent to David only. Now to the list; On 2022-04-08 at 14:45, David Lang wrote: > > your claim that launching additional satellites will not increase > bandwith is directly coutnered by Starlink's desire to launch > additional satellites. I never claimed such a thing. Please read again what I wrote: "And the additional bandwidth per satellite added diminishes as the network grows. You can't double the bandwidth by doubling the satellites, because the available spectrum and the spectral efficiency are given." Of course adding additional satellites adds bandwidth - but the more satellites you already have, the less each additional group of satellites adds. Diminishing returns for additional satellites are not zero return. There are additional ways to increase bandwidth: Use more spectrum and/or increase the spectral efficiency. Nobody knows if or when either can happen, and what tech changes that would require on satellites and ground equipment, so we can't build projections on that. > I don't see premium chaning things much, it's 5x the price, but also > 5x the bandwidth, just in one easy-to-use dish vs configuring load > balancing across 5 dishes. So it looks like a wash to me. It is not 5x the bandwidth. Starlink promises 100 to 200 MBit/s for consumers, and 150 to 500 MBit/s for Premium. Taking the midpoints, Premium is 2.17x the bandwidth. In any case, even 5x the bandwidth would not equal 5x the load on the network. So Premium access brings in more $ per kbit than consumer accounts. Premium clients will get 24/7 tech support (which should not stress the network much, but will add OPEX). > 0.1 clients by sq km seems like an incredibly low density. It is. Note that this number refers to the area covered by a satellite (101,000 square km), not to landmass. Depending on how much of those 101,000 square km are water, you can adjust the number for density over landmass. >I haven't > seen that paper, so I can't argue with it's assumptions directly. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9568932 > I've seen people talking about revenue on the order of $30B/year as a > possibility, and while I think they are probably optimistic, $10B/year > on $30B in additional investment is a fairly short payback period. I think that $10 billion revenue/year is possible - if they get to 8 million consumer accounts or 1.75 million premium accounts, or a mix thereof, without degrading the user experience too much, and before running out of money. With an IPO, SpaceX can maybe raise $20 billion net to achieve low capital costs. (That would be one of the top 4 largest IPOs in history, and Mr. Musk's shareholdings would be diluted accordingly.) If SpaceX can achieve a sufficient manufacturing rate of Raptor engines, can get to a reliable Starship quickly, and can find a launch facility that allows for at least biweekly launches, I think they can make Starlink work out. These are significant vagaries. However, an ARPU of $99 was unsustainable. I thought so, and Starlink thought so. They introduced Premium, and raised the consumer rates. I don't think this was the last rate increase. BR Daniel AJ