From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp120.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp120.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 913673B29E for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 17:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from app29.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp24.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 172D2239FE for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 17:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from deepplum.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app29.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30CE20055 for ; Mon, 1 May 2023 17:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed@deepplum.com, from: dpreed@deepplum.com) with HTTP; Mon, 1 May 2023 17:01:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: dpreed@deepplum.com Date: Mon, 1 May 2023 17:01:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "David P. Reed" To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20230501170151000000_56434" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html In-Reply-To: References: X-Client-IP: 209.6.168.128 Message-ID: <1682974911.992311793@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: webmail/19.0.23-RC X-Classification-ID: 7985798f-577a-4a7e-a6ff-189304a07d47-1-1 Subject: Re: [Starlink] a bit more starship news 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: Mon, 01 May 2023 21:01:52 -0000 ------=_20230501170151000000_56434 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A> Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2023 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT)=0A=0A> From: David Lang =0A...=0A> the V2 mini satllites do not have the same capabili= ty as the full V2 satellites,=0A> they are cut down in capacity as well as = in size to fit them on a Falcon 9.=0A> =0A> I would not be surprised to see= v2 satellites launched on Starship later this=0A> year.=0A> =0A> Gwen Shot= well said late last year that they had a quarter of Starlink having=0A> pos= itive cash flow, and that it's expected to be profitable in 2023=0A=0A=0A"Q= uarter of Starlink having positive cash flow" means what exactly? I.'ve nev= er heard a quarter of a corporation having positive cash flow as any kind o= f business metric.=0A =0AOf course, since Starlink and SpaceX are subject t= o completely weird accounting standards (including providing software assis= tance to Twitter for free, and other shenanigans in the accounting world ac= cording to Musk), it could mean anything.=0A =0AI worked with Iridium and M= otorola during the phase before it was sold for scrap to the DoD, essential= ly. What's fascinating is how "creative accounting" between then and the cu= rrent Starlink continues to persist. Motorola's Chris Galvin was a lot like= Musk w.r.t. not seeing clearly what was happening - he was isolated by syc= ophants who really wanted to believe that there was a business there. Then = later Motorola completely screwed up its cellular tech business by betting = against GPRS and the Europeans. Should have hedged and participated in the = rapid cellular industry growth, but instead, basically drove a great tech c= ompany into the ground.=0A =0AAs a I watch Starlink and SpaceX play a shell= game with their business economics, it's fascinating to watch a similar th= ing play out. =0A =0AEspecially watching the "fan boys and girls" get taken= for a ride as the Iridium "fan boys and girls" did - including stunts like= showing that you could make a phone call from Mt. Everest, as if that was = gonna fix the underlying lack of business strategy for success.=0A =0AThe c= urrent version of this "fan thinking" is the idea that somehow the satellit= es can route packets among themselves and provide a low-latency, high-quali= ty Internet access service. As Dave Taht points out, we don't see the custo= mer churn rates as people discover the bufferbloat effects as the customers= scale, and which are largely designed into the Starlink systems architectu= re (the satellites' packet routing architecture).=0A =0ABut yeah, we might = send a few people to Mars to die there.=0A ------=_20230501170151000000_56434 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Date: Sun, 30 Apr= 2023 14:48:51 -0700 (PDT)

=0A
=0A

> From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
...

=0A<= p style=3D"margin:0;padding:0;font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt; overflow= -wrap: break-word;">> the V2 mini satllites do not have the same capabil= ity as the full V2 satellites,
> they are cut down in capacity as w= ell as in size to fit them on a Falcon 9.
>
> I would not = be surprised to see v2 satellites launched on Starship later this
>= year.
>
> Gwen Shotwell said late last year that they had= a quarter of Starlink having
> positive cash flow, and that it's e= xpected to be profitable in 2023

=0A

"Qu= arter of Starlink having positive cash flow" means what exactly? I.'ve neve= r heard a quarter of a corporation having positive cash flow as any kind of= business metric.

=0A

 

=0A

Of course, since Starlink and SpaceX are subject to completely weird ac= counting standards (including providing software assistance to Twitter for = free, and other shenanigans in the accounting world according to Musk), it = could mean anything.

=0A

 

=0A

I worked with Iridium and Motorola during the phase before it was so= ld for scrap to the DoD, essentially. What's fascinating is how "creative a= ccounting" between then and the current Starlink continues to persist. Moto= rola's Chris Galvin was a lot like Musk w.r.t. not seeing clearly what was = happening - he was isolated by sycophants who really wanted to believe that= there was a business there. Then later Motorola completely screwed up its = cellular tech business by betting against GPRS and the Europeans. Should ha= ve hedged and participated in the rapid cellular industry growth, but inste= ad, basically drove a great tech company into the ground.

=0A

 

=0A

As a I watch Starlink and Space= X play a shell game with their business economics, it's fascinating to watc= h a similar thing play out. 

=0A

 

=0A<= p style=3D"margin:0;padding:0;font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt; overflow= -wrap: break-word;">Especially watching the "fan boys and girls" get taken = for a ride as the Iridium "fan boys and girls" did - including stunts like = showing that you could make a phone call from Mt. Everest, as if that was g= onna fix the underlying lack of business strategy for success.

=0A

 

=0A

The current version of thi= s "fan thinking" is the idea that somehow the satellites can route packets = among themselves and provide a low-latency, high-quality Internet access se= rvice. As Dave Taht points out, we don't see the customer churn rates as pe= ople discover the bufferbloat effects as the customers scale, and which are= largely designed into the Starlink systems architecture (the satellites' p= acket routing architecture).

=0A

 

=0A

But yeah, we might send a few people to Mars to die there.=0A

 

=0A
 ------=_20230501170151000000_56434--