From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 461243B2A4 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 18:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-666eec46206so2539050b3a.3 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 15:03:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; t=1687212214; x=1689804214; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uxFKtvD6yRFXdmoKEVDVRRKx6cosWkYEx6Kgol/csMc=; b=G6DXK2J/K4CAn9YG818ctP8MiqSU2Wou50ZCDzUng2K9qXJ2mZ5IGeEurIZTleIddx xYXZk7Kx2CAJPTBUNAysc7+wrwsWlx5CQ2HwOlYrBvJTHd7ORGzRoyhu4qTTMPBXGazf tEFaUGJSs46Zaer/GIL9nUJgwUHV0PqwXh7N4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1687212214; x=1689804214; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uxFKtvD6yRFXdmoKEVDVRRKx6cosWkYEx6Kgol/csMc=; b=WnzEQHMBax+C72/D/1VE5jsnUrU6uXn0ywxamqSeKjvhITOaRY9hx5yM5dygxaRaJY 0cLwJJiLlmgy90pp0LOLdlskPMgI1wG98JqA9aPcw/MxHdU8ui9XTtF6CDfLYVdZxVjx 0ZppZHg3QpApTYCkKirnvKRdnKxUsmADm70iiWgcmP0x9Bx+gNKGLqK6XJmAQhbACh8H G6suA7wjMHgwnuZJI3grJOdDalCOusyRmb0E+MHshDsOkna1T4pMYJYA3RLVg4inteQ+ ChuFXDzUw2KgYw91ujadCaSCrDIqs8VNQFO8Gg2ykabok9lWFzXVHYVcyYr0hJz2lGmY VVzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDze/PkVMPLPgEeHR7/Bj2xalj86odD/vIjegv2SAKnZlxdEZXXY qJjxrUq4VWYuBryk1Jac2GUAkQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4su/qKUAWERUxyUWyOYiqDYQziyxKK1FhhUHT32PpuMNADyjqSN7iRGzwtltIlSUkDaHuOFg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:78a9:b0:10a:cb95:5aa3 with SMTP id bf41-20020a056a2178a900b0010acb955aa3mr14457313pzc.7.1687212214014; Mon, 19 Jun 2023 15:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (dhcp-72-253-194-45.hawaiiantel.net. [72.253.194.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x2-20020a62fb02000000b0064928cb5f03sm126958pfm.69.2023.06.19.15.03.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Jun 2023 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Eugene Y Chang Message-Id: <2B7DE40F-A6A6-461D-B599-50B4236093F7@ieee.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2BD53802-D702-4C19-BCCE-5C8A63AE4197"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.3\)) Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 12:03:30 -1000 In-Reply-To: Cc: Eugene Chang , Dave Taht via Starlink To: =?utf-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.3) Subject: Re: [Starlink] FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps 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, 19 Jun 2023 22:03:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2BD53802-D702-4C19-BCCE-5C8A63AE4197 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9A0D1099-E677-489A-86D1-A3419B378751" --Apple-Mail=_9A0D1099-E677-489A-86D1-A3419B378751 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Is the language carefully chosen to imply it can provide data links for = classified satellites? Gene ---------------------------------------------- Eugene Chang IEEE Senior Life Member eugene.chang@ieee.org m 781-799-0233 (in Honolulu) > On Jun 18, 2023, at 10:21 PM, David Fern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink = wrote: >=20 > I followed the link below about Starshield > (https://www.spacex.com/starshield) and it says: >=20 > - Interoperability: Starlink's inter-satellite laser communications > terminal, which is the only communications laser operating at scale in > orbit today, can be integrated onto partner satellites to enable > incorporation into the Starshield network. >=20 > Besides that the EDRS is out there also, at a reduced scale, ok > = (https://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/R= elay_system_speeds_vital_data_flow_with_75_000_links), > I was wondering about how the integration of partner satellites into > the Starshield network will work, besides hosting the ISL payload. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > David >=20 >> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:08:59 -0600 >> From: Dave Taht >> To: Tom Beecher >> Cc: Michael Thomas , nanog@nanog.org, Dave Taht via >> Starlink >> Subject: Re: [Starlink] FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate >> Impact of Data Caps >> Message-ID: >> = >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8" >>=20 >> I am happy to see the conversation about starlink escaping over here, >> because it is increasingly a game-changing technology (I also run the >> starlink mailing list, cc=C2=B4d)... >>=20 >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 3:56=E2=80=AFPM Tom Beecher = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics = are the >>>> real economics. >>=20 >> There is a whole other cluster on the drawing boards, called >> Starshield, which you can read about here: >> https://www.spacex.com/starshield/ >>=20 >> The current "retail"economics are limited to US allies as a result of >> the ukraine war showing how important information and bandwidth are = to >> modern warfare. There are also political implications to downlinks in >> each country. >>=20 >> I imagine, for example, that India is holding off on licensing until >> Musk gets them a tesla factory. >>=20 >> Multiple other countries are making a huge investment into retaining >> control of the "spacewaves", so there=C2=B4s that also. >>=20 >>> I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling demand because = they >>> still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to overcharge = in the >>> mean time. >>=20 >> Throttling demand is not how I would put it. Each cell has a limited >> capacity, so starlink has been running promotions to get more >> subscribers into more rural cells where the capacity exists. >>=20 >> I have kvetched elsewhere about how poorly starlink manages bandwidth >> and bufferbloat currently, but they are largely better than modern = day >> 5G and DSL, so... >>=20 >>> Is there something inherent in their cpe that makes them much more >>> expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? >>=20 >> The original cost/dish was about 2k, so they were selling those at >> well below the install price, with a ROI of about 12 months, given >> that figure. I imagine with mass manufacturing the cost/dish has come >> down substantially, and they also charge a realistic price on the >> business quality dish of $2500. It would not surprise me if the basic >> dishy essentially cost less than 500 to manufacture nowadays. >>=20 >> The default wifi router, which many replace, cannot be more than 50 >> dollars on the BOM. >>=20 >>> I can see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that = mainly >>> just software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the = truck >>> roll. >>=20 >> There is no truck roll. They have gone to amazing extants in - put = the >> dish in a clear area, power it up, you are on. >>=20 >> Establishing infrastructure, like downlinks, connected near fiber in >> civilization does have a large cost, takes time, and is also subject >> to government regulation. >>=20 >>>=20 >>> - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a = month, >>> that's $165M in revenue, >>=20 >> Creating A 2B dollar/year business in 4 years is quite impressive. A >> reasonable projection would be 10m subs in 4 more years, e.g. >> 10B/year. That aint' chicken scratch. In fact, I think it funds >> humanity=C2=B4s expansion into the solar system quite handily. >>=20 >>> - A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up = to 60 >>> Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k = sats >>> in the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you = assume >>> the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own = stuff, >>> they aren't launching an external paying customer.) >>=20 >>> - The reported price per sat is $250k. >>=20 >> There are multiple sat types, the mini v2 (which can only be flown on >> the falcon 9, is rumored to cost about that much) >>=20 >> Starship had had a much larger, much more highly capable sat designed >> for it, but it is running a few years behind schedule. The hope for >> that was that launch costs would decline even further. >>=20 >> Also OPEX - running this network - is probably a substantial cost. I >> have lost track of the number of downlink stations established (over >> 200 now) but I would guess those are about 1m per. >>=20 >> There is a really amazing site that looks at this stuff called = starlink.sx. >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the = orbital >>> buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and $10B = for >>> sats. >>=20 >> The present day capacity, even if they were to do no more launches, = is >> still underused. Roughly half the USA has no starlink service yet, >> multiple countries have been slow to license, and nearly all of = Africa >> remains uncovered. Maritime and air are big sources of new business. = I >> try to stress it is where people are but infrastructure isn=C2=B4t = is >> where starlink really shines, >>=20 >> and that very little bandwidth is required for things like email and = chat. >>=20 >>>=20 >>> - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K >>> cluster, that's 1200 a year. >>=20 >> Where did you see that? So far as I can tell, the failure rate, >> exclusive of one launch lost to solar expansion, is trending towards >> zero. Also, maneuvering thrust (documented somewhere) has been quite >> under expectations, in terms of operating fuel they could use the >> existing sats for far, far longer than the intended 5 year = operational >> lifetime, in this regard. >>=20 >>>=20 >>> That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement = sats. >>> Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there. >>>=20 >>> So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And = that's >>> just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing = costs >>> of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from = staff , >>> R&D, etc . >>>=20 >>> Numbers kinda speak for themselves here. >>>=20 >>>> I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you = will he >>>> does have big ambitions. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38=E2=80=AFPM Michael Thomas = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop = sooner >>>>> rather than later? >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense = for >>>> those services to completely replace terrestrial only service. >>=20 >> I agree they will not replace terrestrial service, but maritime, >> roaming, airplanes, and rural are big enough markets. >>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only = niche? I >>>> mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you = will he >>>> does have big ambitions. >>>>=20 >>>> =46rom my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the = incumbents. >>>> I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest. >>>>=20 >>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics = are the >>>> real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully = throttling >>>> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make = sense >>>> to overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in = their cpe >>>> that makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? = I can >>>> see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that = mainly just >>>> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck = roll. >>>>=20 >>>> Mike >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17=E2=80=AFPM Michael Thomas = wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>>>> Mark, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet = options. >>>>>>> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. >>>>>>> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the = US >>>>>>> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) = there is >>>>>>> no service. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is = not a >>>>>>> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a = ~1/3 >>>>>>> take rate. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many = markets >>>>>> is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers = that, >>>>>> since there is only so much money and resources to go around. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have = the >>>>>> opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are >>>>>> capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low >>>>>> hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the = alternative >>>>>> provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other = thread. >>>>>>=20 >>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop = sooner >>>>> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but = even if >>>>> they do they could compete with their caps. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Mike >>>>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> Podcast: >> = https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/ >> Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink --Apple-Mail=_9A0D1099-E677-489A-86D1-A3419B378751 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Is = the language carefully chosen to imply it can provide data links for = classified satellites?

Gene
----------------------------------------------
Eugene Chang
IEEE Senior Life = Member
eugene.chang@ieee.org
m 781-799-0233 (in = Honolulu)




On Jun 18, 2023, at 10:21 PM, David Fern=C3=A1ndez via = Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

I = followed the link below about Starshield
(https://www.spacex.com/starshield) and it says:

- Interoperability: Starlink's inter-satellite = laser communications
terminal, which is the only = communications laser operating at scale in
orbit today, = can be integrated onto partner satellites to enable
incorporation into the Starshield network.

Besides that the EDRS is out there also, at a reduced scale, = ok
(https://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Commun= ications/Relay_system_speeds_vital_data_flow_with_75_000_links),
I was wondering about how the integration of partner = satellites into
the Starshield network will work, besides = hosting the ISL payload.

Regards,

David

Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 17:08:59 -0600
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
To: Tom Beecher = <beecher@beecher.cc>
Cc: Michael Thomas = <mike@mtcc.com>, = nanog@nanog.org, =  Dave Taht via
Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: = Re: [Starlink] FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate
= Impact = of Data Caps
Message-ID:
<CAA93jw76nX9wzhBUVFdGOuZH=3DPMNpzNjzy0nMGyE1E1EYbsdbw@mail.gmai= l.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8"
I am happy to see the conversation about = starlink escaping over here,
because it is increasingly a = game-changing technology (I also run the
starlink mailing = list, cc=C2=B4d)...

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at = 3:56=E2=80=AFPM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:

As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current = economics are the
real economics.

There is a whole = other cluster on the drawing boards, called
Starshield, = which you can read about here:
https://www.spacex.com/starshield/

The current "retail"economics are limited to US allies as a = result of
the ukraine war showing how important = information and bandwidth are to
modern warfare. There are = also political implications to downlinks in
each = country.

I imagine, for example, that India = is holding off on licensing until
Musk gets them a tesla = factory.

Multiple other countries are = making a huge investment into retaining
control of the = "spacewaves", so there=C2=B4s that also.

I'm pretty sure they've = been purposefully throttling demand because they
still = don't have the capacity so it would make sense to overcharge in the
mean time.

Throttling= demand is not how I would put it. Each cell has a limited
capacity, so starlink has been running promotions to get = more
subscribers into more rural cells where the capacity = exists.

I have kvetched elsewhere about how = poorly starlink manages bandwidth
and bufferbloat = currently, but they are largely better than modern day
5G = and DSL, so...

Is there something inherent in their cpe that makes them = much more
expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes?

The original cost/dish was about = 2k, so they were selling those at
well below the install = price, with a ROI of about 12 months, given
that figure. I = imagine with mass manufacturing the cost/dish has come
down = substantially, and they also charge a realistic price on the
business quality dish of $2500. It would not surprise me if = the basic
dishy essentially cost less than 500 to = manufacture nowadays.

The default wifi = router, which many replace, cannot be more than 50
dollars = on the BOM.

I can see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but = isn't that mainly
just software? It wouldn't surprise me = that the main cost is the truck
roll.

There is no truck roll. They have = gone to amazing extants in - put the
dish in a clear area, = power it up, you are on.

Establishing = infrastructure, like downlinks, connected near fiber in
civilization does have a large cost, takes time, and is also = subject
to government regulation.


- = Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month,
that's $165M in revenue,

Creating A 2B dollar/year business in 4 years is quite = impressive. A
reasonable projection would be 10m subs in 4 = more years, e.g.
10B/year. That aint' chicken scratch. In = fact, I think it funds
humanity=C2=B4s expansion into the = solar system quite handily.

- A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A = Falcon 9 can carry up to 60
Starlink sats. That's ~667 = launches to reach the stated goal of 40k sats
in the = constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you assume
the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their = own stuff,
they aren't launching an external paying = customer.)

- The reported price per sat is $250k.

There are multiple sat types, the = mini v2 (which can only be flown on
the falcon 9, is = rumored to cost about that much)

Starship = had had a much larger, much more highly capable sat designed
for it, but it is running a few years behind schedule. The = hope for
that was that launch costs would decline even = further.

Also OPEX - running this network - = is probably a substantial cost. I
have lost track of the = number of downlink stations established (over
200 now) but = I would guess those are about 1m per.

There = is a really amazing site that looks at this stuff called starlink.sx.


Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, = the orbital
buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B = for launches, and $10B for
sats.

The present day capacity, even if = they were to do no more launches, is
still underused. = Roughly half the USA has no starlink service yet,
multiple = countries have been slow to license, and nearly all of Africa
remains uncovered. Maritime and air are big sources of new = business. I
try to stress it is where  people are but = infrastructure isn=C2=B4t is
where starlink really = shines,

and that very little bandwidth is = required for things like email and chat.


- The = satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K
cluster, that's 1200 a year.

Where did you see that? So far as I can tell, the failure = rate,
exclusive of one launch lost to solar expansion, is = trending towards
zero. Also, maneuvering thrust = (documented somewhere) has been quite
under expectations, = in terms of operating fuel they could use the
existing = sats for far, far longer than the intended 5 year operational
lifetime, in this regard.


That's = about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats.
Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there.

So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B = annual run rate. And that's
just the orbital costs. We = haven't even calculated the manufacturing costs
of the = receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from staff ,
R&D, etc .

Numbers kinda = speak for themselves here.

I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo = bird but say what you will he
does have big ambitions.


Ambition is good. = But reality tends to win the day. As does math.





On = Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38=E2=80=AFPM Michael Thomas = <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:


On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher = wrote:

Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop = sooner
rather than later?


Unlikely. They will remain niche. The = economics don't make sense for
those services to = completely replace terrestrial only service.

I agree they will = not replace terrestrial service, but maritime,
roaming, = airplanes, and rural are big enough markets.


Why would they put up 40000 satellites if = their ambition is only niche? I
mean, I get that Musk is = sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he
does have = big ambitions.

=46rom my standpoint, they = don't have to completely replace the incumbents.
I'd be = perfectly happy just keeping them honest.

As = I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are = the
real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been = purposefully throttling
demand because they still don't = have the capacity so it would make sense
to overcharge in = the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe
that= makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can
see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that = mainly just
software? It wouldn't surprise me that the = main cost is the truck roll.

Mike



On Fri, Jun 16, = 2023 at 4:17=E2=80=AFPM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:


On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:


On 6/16/23 = 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote:
Mark,

In my world I constantly = see people with 0 fixed internet options.
Many of these = locations do not even have mobile coverage.
Competition is = fine in town, but for millions of people in the US
(and = I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there is
no service.

As a company = primarily delivering to residents, competition is not a
focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive = on a ~1/3
take rate.

I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many = markets
is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the = world suffers that,
since there is only so much money and = resources to go around.

What I was trying = to say is that should a town or village have the
opportunity= to receive competition, where existing services are
capped,= uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low
hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the = alternative
provider would need to show up first, but = that's a whole other thread.

Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be = that backstop sooner
rather than later? I don't know if = they have caps as well, but even if
they do they could = compete with their caps.

Mike



--
Podcast:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910= 227111937/
Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos
_______________________________________________Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

= --Apple-Mail=_9A0D1099-E677-489A-86D1-A3419B378751-- --Apple-Mail=_2BD53802-D702-4C19-BCCE-5C8A63AE4197 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEERPTGiBqcibajhTSsv0/8FiYdKmAFAmSQ0LIACgkQv0/8FiYd KmCxTQ//Z+O4vVB192KJ4YdpOjuRkYxcFQKEBZPMbb0735aJe59p+Zy02YyoIRQE 3MtpbZ/MGDVhiWUHB58QNd/UGVuZYfCfxaCV/pc8BBmQigpGf3r8GtFYB1llGrRA niuPsuQaTuCiSsXUXppE35xM98UQ4PJIraegOYbG/ZGvPZBJSgloP/Q+y/ocGmA8 kLEIi15tVNTy/2icfMxislroYNkiO2wlhdCM9bvCZXeL4Enog1CpZ9Mo4ZfR9JM5 TPyKEZf+4VjC8xBxU5NReDajQ//p56+WXSHjT+Rieo9u4Uze1iwWLtEB5uIC0XeJ kS7V+9ftJhj5VMXHAbTI6L1jLrAPgRjdyD2yfwsndXxEClHIw3/1OxZL8s4fGe6t XQeD0v8h4gDWFyX+asEpE5H06hY1TztW33RRZ0rhOUyvjqSC7IohUnOgzSy6ZkCJ eW4WcZJuB9QIZqUIfh7bZGWxmvSkr80CxxsSeqguKFtEs7f+t52xj7n/K4eigKyR 77RB2IR69lu5T7mA79D3SOUHDg02ghpA1KXKSSv1QeY8DI10NxYmEJI5s/XT/Kw1 aOKFpy/WeiyQ9/BoGYRfUdTz7aLxCe+Yv+/yDFGwaeDQoiArYwaU+iyTj8wPGFwX WmEE2zQMXS6CNvVn0vhl5v9Rv2RTegklhvZ/78FInBDlXPBSb6M= =dayw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2BD53802-D702-4C19-BCCE-5C8A63AE4197--