Re: [Starlink] [NNagain] one dish per household is silly.

[Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>]

Le 10/11/2023 à 13:55, Dave Taht via Starlink a écrit :
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 7:33 AM Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Nov 10, 2023, at 12:44, Dave Taht via Nnagain 
>>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: Steve song's analysis 
>>> here: 
>>> https://manypossibilities.net/2023/11/starlink-and-inequality/
>> 
>> He makes some good points.
>> 
>>> A) Am I the only person left in the world that shares his wifi?
>> 
>> My neighbors and I do.
> 
> The history of internet expansion beyond the edge is always of 
> someone getting a good connection and either sharing it or
> attempting to resell it. It makes for visions of capturing every home
> with FTTH or billing per user dubious.
> 
>> 
>>> A single dishy can easily serve dozens of people
>> 
>> But that’s a different question than whether Starlink’s contract 
>> _allows_ you to share it.  The contract does not.
> 
> It appears to.
> 
>> 
>> So I think saying that it’s a good thing because it’s good when
>> you don’t follow the rules is… well, perhaps a little too much of
>> a stretch for a general argument.
> 
> As near as I can tell from the terms of service:
> 
> https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-64
> 
> There is no prohibition against sharing. The closest that document 
> comes to it is: "The Standard Service Plan is designed for personal,
>  family, or household use."
> 
> resale is prohibited.
> 
>>> I know of refuge centers in the ukraine serving hundreds of 
>>> people as one example.
>> 
>> And if Musk weren’t cutting Starlink connectivity for Ukrainian 
>> defensive uses, those refugee centers wouldn’t have so many people 
>> in them.  And, more to the point, Ukrainian graveyards wouldn’t 
>> have so many people in them.
>> 
> 
> Remarkably, the terms of service do include this:
> 
> "However, Starlink is not designed or intended for use with or in 
> offensive or defensive weaponry or other comparable end-uses.

This is strange.

I do not want to be interpreted either way.  In these war zones all
parties have strong feelings.  I look at it from a rule point of view,
and I am not good at laws.  But I think it is good to have these laws be
implemented as much as possible, or adapt them when necessary.

This 'not designed for' might need to be checked on official donations
and official sales to these zones.

There have been many statements of the official use in these areas of
starlink equipment.  I do not mean about a hacker secretely at home
modifying some device, but official statements.

> Custom modifications of the Starlink Kits or Services for military
> end-uses or military end-users may transform the items into products 
> controlled under U.S. export control laws, specifically the 
> International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R. §§ 
> 120-130) or the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 C.F.R.
> §§ 730-774)

One would need to look at these regulations in detail and see how they
cover starlink techno.


> requiring authorizations from the United States government for the
> export, support, or use outside the United States. Starlink 
> aftersales support to customers is limited exclusively to standard 
> commercial service support. At its sole discretion, Starlink may 
> refuse to provide technical support to any modified Starlink
> products and is grounds for termination of this Agreement."

One would need to look at how these authorizations look like.

It is not impossible.

Alex

> 
> 
>