[Starlink] one dish per household is silly.

[Starlink] one dish per household is silly.

[Dave Taht]

My objection to steve song's analysis here:

https://manypossibilities.net/2023/11/starlink-and-inequality/

A) Am I the only person left in the world that shares his wifi? A
single dishy can easily serve dozens of people which lowers the cost
per person enormously. Starlink has limited density per cell in the
first place, so hanging a wired or wireless bridge off of it and
covering a small town or merely multiple houses, not much of a
problem. I know of refuge centers in the ukraine serving hundreds of
people as one example.

B) I keep seeing estimates of service life being 5 years, when at the
moment I see it being 10 or more.


-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

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

[Inemesit Affia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1417 bytes --]

Starlink terms of service as at launch with the round dishes required each
user to pay regardless of the number of dishes. Not unusual compared to
other ISP's.

Of course you can share regardless. Cruise liners use 6 to 12 dishes to
deliver service to thousands. And there's people using it for free WiFi in
restaurants and airplanes and schools

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023, 12:44 PM Dave Taht via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> My objection to steve song's analysis here:
>
> https://manypossibilities.net/2023/11/starlink-and-inequality/
>
> A) Am I the only person left in the world that shares his wifi? A
> single dishy can easily serve dozens of people which lowers the cost
> per person enormously. Starlink has limited density per cell in the
> first place, so hanging a wired or wireless bridge off of it and
> covering a small town or merely multiple houses, not much of a
> problem. I know of refuge centers in the ukraine serving hundreds of
> people as one example.
>
> B) I keep seeing estimates of service life being 5 years, when at the
> moment I see it being 10 or more.
>
>
> --
> Oct 30:
> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2220 bytes --]

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

[Bill Woodcock]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1175 bytes --]

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

As always, the Musk-vs.-Tesla and Musk-vs.-SpaceX conflicts are tricky to sort out, and may not yield any more broadly-applicable principles.


                                -Bill


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

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

[Dave Taht]

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. 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) 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."



-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

When I saw the subject line I thought the proposal was to add several
dishes per household, but no.

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/
[...]

> 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."

And, the specs of Starlink WiFi Router say "Mesh - Compatible with up to
3 Starlink Mesh nodes".  Why 3 and not 4, one might wonder.

Yet there are additional technical reasons as to why extending the WiFi
to others is inconvenient.  For both IPv4 and IPv6 the other users would
be situated behind NATs, multiple levels of them.  It would break
certain apps.

This kind of WiFi sharing was tried and with some degree of success to
ground multi-ISP settings.  My home ISP WiFi allows other users having
same ISP at their home.  Some agreements exist between some ISPs to
expand that domain of allowance.

Here we talk about only one ISP.  Starlink might want, as a first step,
to allow other users that have Starlink at their home.  When more space
ISPs like this will appear, maybe some agreements might happen.

Alex


> 
> 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. 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) 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."
> 
> 
> 

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

[David Lang]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:

>> 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."
>
> And, the specs of Starlink WiFi Router say "Mesh - Compatible with up to
> 3 Starlink Mesh nodes".  Why 3 and not 4, one might wonder.
>
> Yet there are additional technical reasons as to why extending the WiFi
> to others is inconvenient.  For both IPv4 and IPv6 the other users would
> be situated behind NATs, multiple levels of them.  It would break
> certain apps.

given how many users live behing multiple layers of NAT now, I think there are 
fewer apps that would break than you think (and in terms of overall traffic, 
it's a very small percentage)

I'm not a fan of wifi mesh, it can work in some conditions, but it breaks down 
quickly under load (aittime utilization, be it number of nodes, number of users, 
area covered, or bandwidth used). But setting up a structured distribution to a 
number of APs can scale well (I run the wireless network at the Scale conference 
and use simple APs (most over a decade old now) running openWRT to support >3500 
geeks over a 100,000 sq ft facility)

> This kind of WiFi sharing was tried and with some degree of success to
> ground multi-ISP settings.  My home ISP WiFi allows other users having
> same ISP at their home.  Some agreements exist between some ISPs to
> expand that domain of allowance.

that's still a guest mode on a bunch of separate uplink networks, not the same 
as sharing one uplink network with a wide group of people.

> Here we talk about only one ISP.  Starlink might want, as a first step,
> to allow other users that have Starlink at their home.  When more space
> ISPs like this will appear, maybe some agreements might happen.

I'm not understanding what you think Starlink is prohibiting here.

each dish in an area imposes noticable overhead, beyond simply the bandwidth 
the user consumes, so it's better for the starlink system to have fewer dishes 
that distribute to the same number of users, with the same usage patterns.

>> resale is prohibited.

resale is prohibited, but cost sharing is not, and I don't even think that 
resale of the service to the community would be prohibited, just resale of the 
equipment, or setting yourself up as a distributer of starlink service and 
equipment.

David Lang

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

[David Lang]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Dave Taht via Starlink wrote:

> A) Am I the only person left in the world that shares his wifi?

doing so would require that you know your neighbors, in much of the country, 
especially urban areas, neighbors seeing each other in a store would not 
recognize each other, let alone know their names.

> B) I keep seeing estimates of service life being 5 years, when at the
> moment I see it being 10 or more.

This is due to the FAA approvals of the satellites. I believe the specs that are 
approved say that they are fueled for 'at least' a 5 year lifetime, and are in 
orbits that will cause them to re-enter within 5 years if they fail (with the 
intent being that at the end of their lifetime, they do a controlled re-entry)

this repetition of '5 years' has been picked up. I think the v2 and v2 mini 
satellites have more fuel capacity. But they are currently still quite a ways 
out from a steady state of reentries vs launches (even without starship)

David Lang

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

[Dave Taht]

As today is the 25th anniversary of my merry geekhouse's building and
documenting one of the first long distance wifi connections in the USA
(nov 10th 1998) ( a pre-blog post here:
http://www.rage.net/wireless/diary.html that I wrote while recovering
from a cold caught by climbing on my roof and fixing my antenna in the
rain, and then sitting there for an hour, thinking about what we had
done - a recap from 2010 here:
http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2010/10/who-invented-embedded-linux-based.html
 )

I am in a reflective mood, reading over stuff I blogged
(the-edge.blogspot.net) in 2002-2004 and trying to figure out what
went right and what went wrong. I have all those emails from 1998-2002
somewhere...

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 8:17 AM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> When I saw the subject line I thought the proposal was to add several
> dishes per household, but no.

There is a natural limit to the number of dishes per cell. The amount
of bandwidth is enormous if you discount the potential impact of
netflix-like traffic, and even then netflix "DASH" traffic as well as
youtube, will scale down to 1.5Mbits/sec or less.

> 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/
> [...]
>
> > 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."
>
> And, the specs of Starlink WiFi Router say "Mesh - Compatible with up to
> 3 Starlink Mesh nodes".  Why 3 and not 4, one might wonder.

The sad thing about most of the wifi meshes is that they are not
interoperable between vendors. "EasyMesh", from the wifi alliance, was
supposed to fix this, but it is pretty lame. 802.11s supposedly can go
to 32 mesh nodes. I do not know what the limit actually is on eero (it
is partially 802.11s). I worked pretty hard on mesh technologies (see
OLPC), as well as more advanced mesh types (built around wifi adhoc
mode) for much larger distributed wifi networks (5-10k nodes with the
babel protocol), nearly all the big outdoor meshy network makers have
their own routing protocol to manage failover and optimization.

In all cases, bufferbloat is what, in part, made wifi meshes scale
badly, and eeros' adoption of fq_codel is in part what made their
product an early success when so many others (including olpc) had
failed.

The most interoperable L2 wifi mesh "standard" is the batman protocol, IMHO.

> Yet there are additional technical reasons as to why extending the WiFi
> to others is inconvenient.

The starlink gen2 router did not have ethernet ports. I tossed it, and
plugged something better in. Then I plugged it back in to test some
stuff I am not officially supposed to know or talk about. I keep
hoping for a report from someone on the starlink list about the
attributes of the gen3 router. In terms of spreading internet around
more physically, ethernet to fiber converters are cheap, and you can
go 1000s of meters with cheap SFPs nowadays.

> For both IPv4 and IPv6 the other users would
> be situated behind NATs, multiple levels of them.  It would break
> certain apps.

Very few popular apps break nowadays because of multiple layers of
NAT. End user apps that don't work with NAT have largely vanished.
Even "homeservers" proxy through the cloud. It is not a desirable end
to the end to end internet, but it is what it is.

In starlink's case, you can request a real IPv4 address from the app
at no extra charge. This is kind of becoming a default in many places,
as it is still very helpful to have a real ip for vpns, as one
example. Elsewhere, you can still rent ip addresses from many ISPS, I
think a block of 5 was running about 25/month.

As for IPv6 support, I have seen varying degrees of support for it
from starlink around the world, but do not know if anything more than
a /64 can be requested.  (?) 40% of my personal starlink traffic is
ipv6, with the notable exceptions of fosstodon, github...

I see /60 and /56 requests succeeding for comcast. When we designed
ipv6, we imagined a static /48 assigned per household.

To get around the ipv6/64 limitation (one subnet) - many folk just
bridge it, or more advanced meshy folk (babel, oslr, batman) just do
p2p routes. I had L3 mobility working on wifi adhoc mode as early as,
oh, 2004? Always puzzled as to why it has been so hard to keep wifi's
original adhoc mode alive. Bridging wifi really hurts the network on
multicast traffic, still, to this day. I am happy that the biggest
multicast user (mdns) on local networks has a unicast upgrade path for
protocols now.

> This kind of WiFi sharing was tried and with some degree of success to
> ground multi-ISP settings.  My home ISP WiFi allows other users having
> same ISP at their home.  Some agreements exist between some ISPs to
> expand that domain of allowance.

There is quite a big push for harmonizing single signon captive portal
technology in the wifi world. Boingo, eduroam, telecom infrastructure
project, many others are in it.

> Here we talk about only one ISP.  Starlink might want, as a first step,
> to allow other users that have Starlink at their home.  When more space
> ISPs like this will appear, maybe some agreements might happen.

What I had wanted was for the starlink business service to allow
BYO-IP and BGP as a fallback for wired services. I hope that appears
(if it hasn't), soon.

> Alex
>
>
> >
> > 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. 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) 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."
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

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

[Dave Taht]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 8:44 AM David Lang via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
>
> >> 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."
> >
> > And, the specs of Starlink WiFi Router say "Mesh - Compatible with up to
> > 3 Starlink Mesh nodes".  Why 3 and not 4, one might wonder.
> >
> > Yet there are additional technical reasons as to why extending the WiFi
> > to others is inconvenient.  For both IPv4 and IPv6 the other users would
> > be situated behind NATs, multiple levels of them.  It would break
> > certain apps.
>
> given how many users live behing multiple layers of NAT now, I think there are
> fewer apps that would break than you think (and in terms of overall traffic,
> it's a very small percentage)
>
> I'm not a fan of wifi mesh, it can work in some conditions, but it breaks down
> quickly under load (aittime utilization, be it number of nodes, number of users,
> area covered, or bandwidth used). But setting up a structured distribution to a
> number of APs can scale well (I run the wireless network at the Scale conference
> and use simple APs (most over a decade old now) running openWRT to support >3500
> geeks over a 100,000 sq ft facility)

I would really like to see your "vintage" wndr3800s benchmarked
against the latest cisco meraki product, in that kind of environment,
which is also derived from a recent openwrt but for wifi6. The really
bothersome thing about that product is that if you stop paying for the
license, they turn them off.


> > This kind of WiFi sharing was tried and with some degree of success to
> > ground multi-ISP settings.  My home ISP WiFi allows other users having
> > same ISP at their home.  Some agreements exist between some ISPs to
> > expand that domain of allowance.
>
> that's still a guest mode on a bunch of separate uplink networks, not the same
> as sharing one uplink network with a wide group of people.
>
> > Here we talk about only one ISP.  Starlink might want, as a first step,
> > to allow other users that have Starlink at their home.  When more space
> > ISPs like this will appear, maybe some agreements might happen.
>
> I'm not understanding what you think Starlink is prohibiting here.
>
> each dish in an area imposes noticable overhead, beyond simply the bandwidth
> the user consumes, so it's better for the starlink system to have fewer dishes
> that distribute to the same number of users, with the same usage patterns.

Exactly! Most wireless services benefit from some sort of concentrator
and then spreading out the internet via some other method, be it wifi,
or wired. Less (and better) antennas = less interference, more
effective user multiplexing. I am quite grumpy at seeing 160mhz
channels or bigger being the default for 6ghz wifi. 40Mhz gives more
range and less interference.

How to somehow shift the public conversation from "bandwidth" to "more
range and less interference"?


> >> resale is prohibited.
>
> resale is prohibited, but cost sharing is not, and I don't even think that
> resale of the service to the community would be prohibited, just resale of the
> equipment, or setting yourself up as a distributer of starlink service and
> equipment.

Well they have signed up distributors like home depo of the gear. I
have not much clue as to how they handle sales worldwide.

>
> David Lang
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 10/11/2023 à 14:44, David Lang a écrit :
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
> 
>>> 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."
>> 
>> And, the specs of Starlink WiFi Router say "Mesh - Compatible with
>>  up to 3 Starlink Mesh nodes".  Why 3 and not 4, one might wonder.
>> 
>> Yet there are additional technical reasons as to why extending the
>>  WiFi to others is inconvenient.  For both IPv4 and IPv6 the other
>>  users would be situated behind NATs, multiple levels of them.  It
>>  would break certain apps.
> 
> given how many users live behing multiple layers of NAT now, I think
>  there are fewer apps that would break than you think (and in terms
> of overall traffic, it's a very small percentage)
> 
> I'm not a fan of wifi mesh, it can work in some conditions, but it 
> breaks down quickly under load (aittime utilization, be it number of
>  nodes, number of users, area covered, or bandwidth used). But
> setting up a structured distribution to a number of APs can scale
> well (I run the wireless network at the Scale conference and use
> simple APs (most over a decade old now) running openWRT to support
>> 3500 geeks over a 100,000 sq ft facility)
> 
>> This kind of WiFi sharing was tried and with some degree of success
>> to ground multi-ISP settings.  My home ISP WiFi allows other users
>> having same ISP at their home.  Some agreements exist between some
>> ISPs to expand that domain of allowance.
> 
> that's still a guest mode on a bunch of separate uplink networks, not
> the same as sharing one uplink network with a wide group of people.
> 
>> Here we talk about only one ISP.  Starlink might want, as a first 
>> step, to allow other users that have Starlink at their home.  When
>>  more space ISPs like this will appear, maybe some agreements might
>>  happen.
> 
> I'm not understanding what you think Starlink is prohibiting here.

Original poster (Dave, not me) provided this text: "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.""

If that text is true, I tend to agree with the interpretation that that
text prohibits sharing the wifi.

It says 'personal, family, household'.  That certainly means to be: not
my visitors, not my neighbors.

In the past it was the case like that with non-space home ISPs.  There
were requests to modify that, business to open.  The response was the
appearance of business that shared the wifi (independent wifi sharing
boxes, free for end users), independent of the ISPs.  It led into the
development of the concept of sharing WiFi among users of same ISP, and
agreements between ISPs.  The same could happen now with Starlink.

However, and I will post separately, there are so many unknowns and so
much noise about Starlink in general, changing all the time, that it is
hard to make a definitive oppinion.  Basically one does not know what is
real until one tries it, and I have not tried it (I am not a starlink
user but considering it).

Alex

> 
> each dish in an area imposes noticable overhead, beyond simply the 
> bandwidth the user consumes, so it's better for the starlink system 
> to have fewer dishes that distribute to the same number of users, 
> with the same usage patterns.
> 
>>> resale is prohibited.
> 
> resale is prohibited, but cost sharing is not, and I don't even think
> that resale of the service to the community would be prohibited, just
> resale of the equipment, or setting yourself up as a distributer of
> starlink service and equipment.
> 
> David Lang

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 10/11/2023 à 13:33, Bill Woodcock via Starlink a écrit :
>> 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> As always, the Musk-vs.-Tesla and Musk-vs.-SpaceX conflicts are tricky to sort out, and may not yield any more broadly-applicable principles.

For info, some times these refuge points are called 'invincibility 
points', I think.

They are not the only ways in which starlink is used in Ukraine.

I think the invincibility points are largely humanitarian.

They are used intermittently, though.  It keeps changing since 2 years. 
Fiber comes up and down, cellular base stations come up and down, 
starlink comes up and down.

Alex

> 
>                                  -Bill
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[David Lang]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:

>> I'm not understanding what you think Starlink is prohibiting here.
>
> Original poster (Dave, not me) provided this text: "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.""
>
> If that text is true, I tend to agree with the interpretation that that
> text prohibits sharing the wifi.
>
> It says 'personal, family, household'.  That certainly means to be: not
> my visitors, not my neighbors.

it says 'designed for' not 'limited to'

They list this, but then they also ship a handful of dishes to rural Indian 
villages to be setup in the community center for everyone to use. That would be 
against the rules per your interpretation.

your interpretation would also prohibit businesses from using Starlink and 
allowing customers to use it. Since this is a reasonably common use of Starlink 
and I have not heard ANY stories of SpaceX objecting to it, I don't see any 
evidence to back that they intend for it to be that restricted.

> In the past it was the case like that with non-space home ISPs.  There
> were requests to modify that, business to open.  The response was the
> appearance of business that shared the wifi (independent wifi sharing
> boxes, free for end users), independent of the ISPs.  It led into the
> development of the concept of sharing WiFi among users of same ISP, and
> agreements between ISPs.  The same could happen now with Starlink.

no, the ability to use other people's network connections on the same ISP is not 
something that developed from users sharing wifi. If you have any evidence that 
it was, please correct me.

> However, and I will post separately, there are so many unknowns and so
> much noise about Starlink in general, changing all the time, that it is
> hard to make a definitive oppinion.  Basically one does not know what is
> real until one tries it, and I have not tried it (I am not a starlink
> user but considering it).

I currently pay for 3 starlinks, one that my sister has been using since early 
in the beta period in rural Michigan (on a farm, two miles outside the limits of 
the nearest villiage), one that I use full time at my house (as a redundent 
connection) and one that is configured for mobile use that is used for camping 
and search and rescue work

Ask away and I will respond with my experience.

David Lang

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 10/11/2023 à 17:40, David Lang a écrit :
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
>>> I'm not understanding what you think Starlink is prohibiting
>>> here.
>> 
>> Original poster (Dave, not me) provided this text: "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.""
>> 
>> If that text is true, I tend to agree with the interpretation that
>> that text prohibits sharing the wifi.
>> 
>> It says 'personal, family, household'.  That certainly means to be:
>> not my visitors, not my neighbors.
> 
> it says 'designed for' not 'limited to'
> 
> They list this, but then they also ship a handful of dishes to rural
>  Indian villages to be setup in the community center for everyone to
> use.

I agree with your interpretation as well.  It is a sign of generosity
that is valuable.

For me, it is a matter of law speech and I am not good at it.  But I
agree with you as well.

Alex

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 10/11/2023 à 17:40, David Lang a écrit :
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
>>> I'm not understanding what you think Starlink is prohibiting
>>> here.
>> 
>> Original poster (Dave, not me) provided this text: "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.""
>> 
>> If that text is true, I tend to agree with the interpretation that
>> that text prohibits sharing the wifi.
>> 
>> It says 'personal, family, household'.  That certainly means to be:
>> not my visitors, not my neighbors.
> 
> it says 'designed for' not 'limited to'
> 
> They list this, but then they also ship a handful of dishes to rural
>  Indian villages to be setup in the community center for everyone to
> use. That would be against the rules per your interpretation.
> 
> your interpretation would also prohibit businesses from using
> Starlink and allowing customers to use it. Since this is a reasonably
> common use of Starlink and I have not heard ANY stories of SpaceX
> objecting to it, I don't see any evidence to back that they intend
> for it to be that restricted.
> 
>> In the past it was the case like that with non-space home ISPs.
>> There were requests to modify that, business to open.  The response
>> was the appearance of business that shared the wifi (independent
>> wifi sharing boxes, free for end users), independent of the ISPs.
>> It led into the development of the concept of sharing WiFi among
>> users of same ISP, and agreements between ISPs.  The same could
>> happen now with Starlink.
> 
> no, the ability to use other people's network connections on the same
>  ISP is not something that developed from users sharing wifi. If you
> have any evidence that it was, please correct me.

It dates many years back but here it is: I used 'FON wifi' when it
appeared, for several years.  It was a box that you plug in ethernet at
home, scotch its wifi antena on window, and thus give wifi to all people
in the street.  The counterpart was that I could use wifi wherever else
FON was present.  Since then many things happened.  FON was acquired by
an ISP, and other ISPs started to offer similar service.


> 
>> However, and I will post separately, there are so many unknowns and
>> so much noise about Starlink in general, changing all the time,
>> that it is hard to make a definitive oppinion.  Basically one does
>> not know what is real until one tries it, and I have not tried it
>> (I am not a starlink user but considering it).
> 
> I currently pay for 3 starlinks, one that my sister has been using
> since early in the beta period in rural Michigan (on a farm, two
> miles outside the limits of the nearest villiage), one that I use
> full time at my house (as a redundent connection) and one that is
> configured for mobile use that is used for camping and search and
> rescue work
> 
> Ask away and I will respond with my experience.

My most pressing question is that of use of IPv6.  I developped a theory
that says that countrary to what's being advertised in many places, the
IPv6 of starlink is a /64 prefix, not a /56.  It means it is not
extensible other than by NAT66.  Those who get a /56 it is not from
starlink but from their non-starlink wifi router provider, and it is
encapsulated either in IPv6 or in IPv4.  It means it is not native IPv6 
but some kind of kludge or hack if you wish.

To make sure that theory is true, if I had a starlink DISHY, I'd simply
check with wireshark the packets on the Ethernet link between wifi
router and DISHY.  That packet dump would show IPv6 RAs with /64 inside,
and would also show - maybe - IPv6-in-IPv6 packets or IPv6-in-IPv4
packets to a dst address that is not starlink's.  (IP-in-IP packets are
shown as two subsequent packets, and some field value tells so).

Someone contradicting that theory would show other sign in IP packets
showing that there is a /56.

Until then it's fuzzy.

DO you use IPv6 on starlink, is it extensible?

Alex

> 
> David Lang

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 10/11/2023 à 13:21, Inemesit Affia via Starlink a écrit :
> Starlink terms of service as at launch with the round dishes required 
> each user to pay regardless of the number of dishes. Not unusual 
> compared to other ISP's.
> 
> Of course you can share regardless. Cruise liners use 6 to 12 dishes to 
> deliver service to thousands. And there's people using it for free WiFi 
> in restaurants and airplanes and schools

Are we sure we dont have a different set of terms of conditions...

Alex

> 
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023, 12:44 PM Dave Taht via Starlink 
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> 
> wrote:
> 
>     My objection to steve song's analysis here:
> 
>     https://manypossibilities.net/2023/11/starlink-and-inequality/
>     <https://manypossibilities.net/2023/11/starlink-and-inequality/>
> 
>     A) Am I the only person left in the world that shares his wifi? A
>     single dishy can easily serve dozens of people which lowers the cost
>     per person enormously. Starlink has limited density per cell in the
>     first place, so hanging a wired or wireless bridge off of it and
>     covering a small town or merely multiple houses, not much of a
>     problem. I know of refuge centers in the ukraine serving hundreds of
>     people as one example.
> 
>     B) I keep seeing estimates of service life being 5 years, when at the
>     moment I see it being 10 or more.
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Oct 30:
>     https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>     <https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html>
>     Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>     _______________________________________________
>     Starlink mailing list
>     Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>     <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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

> 
> 
> 

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

[J Pan]

technology wise, starlink and https://optimerainc.com/ 's community
gateway is an option
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/16jo86l/the_first_community_gateway_now_providing_speeds/
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 3:44 AM Dave Taht via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> My objection to steve song's analysis here:
>
> https://manypossibilities.net/2023/11/starlink-and-inequality/
>
> A) Am I the only person left in the world that shares his wifi? A
> single dishy can easily serve dozens of people which lowers the cost
> per person enormously. Starlink has limited density per cell in the
> first place, so hanging a wired or wireless bridge off of it and
> covering a small town or merely multiple houses, not much of a
> problem. I know of refuge centers in the ukraine serving hundreds of
> people as one example.
>
> B) I keep seeing estimates of service life being 5 years, when at the
> moment I see it being 10 or more.
>
>
> --
> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Inemesit Affia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 164 bytes --]

It's kinda expensive to run. Likely 75KW peak.

Check the power requirements for a regular gateway and divide by two.

Might be useful for Taiwanese Islands though

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 504 bytes --]

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

[J Pan]

is the power consumption related to traffic volume? currently the
traffic is very light
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarlinkEngineering/comments/17k3jas/intergs_ground_station_satellite_links_much/
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:40 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> It's kinda expensive to run. Likely 75KW peak.
>
> Check the power requirements for a regular gateway and divide by two.
>
> Might be useful for Taiwanese Islands though
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Inemesit Affia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1169 bytes --]

You have to size power equipment for max power plus a percentage regardless of current traffic needs.

Look for the ANATEL docs on Reddit you'll see it there(per dish at least). Or search the NASASpaceflight forum.

I think it's 250kw peak. Could be 25kw instead can't remember right. But each dish is more than 5kw and there's other equipment than dishes

Nov 13, 2023 5:10:27 PM J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca>:

> is the power consumption related to traffic volume? currently the
> traffic is very light
> https://www.reddit.com/r/StarlinkEngineering/comments/17k3jas/intergs_ground_station_satellite_links_much/
> -- 
> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> 
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:40 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> 
>> It's kinda expensive to run. Likely 75KW peak.
>> 
>> Check the power requirements for a regular gateway and divide by two.
>> 
>> Might be useful for Taiwanese Islands though
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2066 bytes --]

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

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4363 bytes --]

Caution - 250 kW peak sounds more like a horror movie (around 500 W 
average powers your average household) but there's an easy explanation. 
It's also a good example for why Reddit isn't a good source of 
information unless you know and can interpret what it is that you're 
looking at. The figures you've seen are almost certainly EIRP ones 
(effective isotropically radiated power). And EIRP ain't the same as 
power consumption.

Simple example: Take a 100 W light bulb that radiates more or less 
isotropically (same amount of light power in all directions) without any 
reflectors etc. When you look at that light bulb, you see 100 W EIRP. 
Put a mirror behind the lightbulb, so you now see the bulb and its 
reflection, which looks like two bulbs. Makes 200 W EIRP, but it doesn't 
increase your power bill. A simple mirror like that has a gain of 3 dBi.

At a Ku band frequency of 18 GHz, a 1.5 m diameter parabolic dish has a 
gain of over 48 dBi. Each 3 dBi step in there effectively doubles the 
number of transmitters you see reflected to you if you're the receiver. 
48 dBi means 16 such steps. So you have to divide the EIRP of something 
like this by the "2^16" reflections that this gives you. If you're 
having 250 kW EIRP, then the actual transmit power is just a few watts, 
and similarly your power consumption is a lot more modest.

Another way of looking at this is that what goes up (to the satellite in 
terms of bits) has to come down (to another ground station / dishy). 
That happens via a similar path. So if you'd transmit to a satellite 
with anything like even 25 kW actual transmitter power, you'd also need 
a similar amount of transmit power at the satellite to downlink. And 
you'd have to generate that power up there in orbit. Now I have solar 
PV, and I know that generating a measly 5 kW peak takes 20 panels of 
around 2 sqm size each. Generating the sort of power you'd need to 
transmit at 25 kW would require solar arrays on the satellite that are 
more like the size of a football field. Ballpark.

Thankfully EIRP for a dish of fixed size goes up as a linear function of 
dish diameter and transmit frequency as the antenna becomes more 
"pointed" as you move from conventional C band to the Ku and Ka bands 
used by Starlink.

On 14/11/2023 5:22 am, Inemesit Affia via Starlink wrote:
> You have to size power equipment for max power plus a percentage 
> regardless of current traffic needs.
>
> Look for the ANATEL docs on Reddit you'll see it there(per dish at 
> least). Or search the NASASpaceflight forum.
>
> I think it's 250kw peak. Could be 25kw instead can't remember right. 
> But each dish is more than 5kw and there's other equipment than dishes
>
> Nov 13, 2023 5:10:27 PM J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca>:
>
>     is the power consumption related to traffic volume? currently the
>     traffic is very light
>     https://www.reddit.com/r/StarlinkEngineering/comments/17k3jas/intergs_ground_station_satellite_links_much/
>     <https://www.reddit.com/r/StarlinkEngineering/comments/17k3jas/intergs_ground_station_satellite_links_much/>
>
>     -- 
>     J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
>     Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>     <http://Web.UVic.CA/~pan>
>
>
>     On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:40 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink
>     <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>
>         It's kinda expensive to run. Likely 75KW peak.
>
>         Check the power requirements for a regular gateway and divide
>         by two.
>
>         Might be useful for Taiwanese Islands though
>         _______________________________________________
>         Starlink mailing list
>         Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>         https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>         <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
-- 
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6762 bytes --]

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

[Inemesit Affia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 192 bytes --]

Arrr you're probably right. Imagine how much it would cost to power ground stations.

I'll check the docs myself in the future. I saw that number without clarifications on a leaked SpaceX doc

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 458 bytes --]

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

[Inemesit Affia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 53 bytes --]

I don't know why that number didn't trip my antenna.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 245 bytes --]

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

[J Pan]

rated power consumption for all components at peak
https://files.tecnoblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/starlink-gateway-v3-selo-anatel-700x898.png
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 12:42 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> I don't know why that number didn't trip my antenna.
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1764 bytes --]

So that's just over 6 kW if phase and voltage align, which in an 
application like this, they're most likely not going to do most of the time.

The interesting bit in the photo are the large air intakes / outlets, 
which point at the presence of some sort of cooler / aircon unit at the 
base of the radome. Transmitter heat removal and/or receiver cooling (to 
keep the noise floor down)?

On 14/11/2023 5:57 pm, J Pan via Starlink wrote:
> rated power consumption for all components at peak
> https://files.tecnoblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/starlink-gateway-v3-selo-anatel-700x898.png 
> <https://files.tecnoblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/starlink-gateway-v3-selo-anatel-700x898.png>
> --
> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, 
> Web.UVic.CA/~pan 
> <http://Web.UVic.CA/~pan>
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 12:42 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know why that number didn't trip my antenna.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list
> > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink 
> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink 
> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>

-- 
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2958 bytes --]

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

[J Pan]

yes, it includes heating and cooling as well
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/nllzoa/this_is_how_gateway_v3_looks_inside_the_dome/
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 9:13 PM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> So that's just over 6 kW if phase and voltage align, which in an application like this, they're most likely not going to do most of the time.
>
> The interesting bit in the photo are the large air intakes / outlets, which point at the presence of some sort of cooler / aircon unit at the base of the radome. Transmitter heat removal and/or receiver cooling (to keep the noise floor down)?
>
> On 14/11/2023 5:57 pm, J Pan via Starlink wrote:
>
> rated power consumption for all components at peak
> https://files.tecnoblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/starlink-gateway-v3-selo-anatel-700x898.png
> --
> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 12:42 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know why that number didn't trip my antenna.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list
> > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
> --
> ****************************************************************
> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>
> School of Computer Science
>
> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>
> The University of Auckland
> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 13/11/2023 à 21:34, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
>
> Caution - 250 kW peak sounds more like a horror movie (around 500 W 
> average powers your average household) but there's an easy 
> explanation. It's also a good example for why Reddit isn't a good 
> source of information unless you know and can interpret what it is 
> that you're looking at. The figures you've seen are almost certainly 
> EIRP ones (effective isotropically radiated power). And EIRP ain't the 
> same as power consumption.
>
> Simple example: Take a 100 W light bulb that radiates more or less 
> isotropically (same amount of light power in all directions) without 
> any reflectors etc. When you look at that light bulb, you see 100 W 
> EIRP. Put a mirror behind the lightbulb, so you now see the bulb and 
> its reflection, which looks like two bulbs. Makes 200 W EIRP, but it 
> doesn't increase your power bill. A simple mirror like that has a gain 
> of 3 dBi.
>
> At a Ku band frequency of 18 GHz, a 1.5 m diameter parabolic dish has 
> a gain of over 48 dBi. Each 3 dBi step in there effectively doubles 
> the number of transmitters you see reflected to you if you're the 
> receiver. 48 dBi means 16 such steps. So you have to divide the EIRP 
> of something like this by the "2^16" reflections that this gives you. 
> If you're having 250 kW EIRP, then the actual transmit power is just a 
> few watts, and similarly your power consumption is a lot more modest.
>
> Another way of looking at this is that what goes up (to the satellite 
> in terms of bits) has to come down (to another ground station / 
> dishy). That happens via a similar path. So if you'd transmit to a 
> satellite with anything like even 25 kW actual transmitter power, 
> you'd also need a similar amount of transmit power at the satellite to 
> downlink. And you'd have to generate that power up there in orbit. Now 
> I have solar PV, and I know that generating a measly 5 kW peak takes 
> 20 panels of around 2 sqm size each. Generating the sort of power 
> you'd need to transmit at 25 kW would require solar arrays on the 
> satellite that are more like the size of a football field. Ballpark.
>
> Thankfully EIRP for a dish of fixed size goes up as a linear function 
> of dish diameter and transmit frequency as the antenna becomes more 
> "pointed" as you move from conventional C band to the Ku and Ka bands 
> used by Starlink.
>
Also, I'd check the label on the power supply unit of the dish box.  
That tells how many Ampers - at a maximum - it can draw.

Alex

> On 14/11/2023 5:22 am, Inemesit Affia via Starlink wrote:
>> You have to size power equipment for max power plus a percentage 
>> regardless of current traffic needs.
>>
>> Look for the ANATEL docs on Reddit you'll see it there(per dish at 
>> least). Or search the NASASpaceflight forum.
>>
>> I think it's 250kw peak. Could be 25kw instead can't remember right. 
>> But each dish is more than 5kw and there's other equipment than dishes
>>
>> Nov 13, 2023 5:10:27 PM J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca>:
>>
>>     is the power consumption related to traffic volume? currently the
>>     traffic is very light
>>     https://www.reddit.com/r/StarlinkEngineering/comments/17k3jas/intergs_ground_station_satellite_links_much/
>>
>>     -- 
>>     J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
>>     Web.UVic.CA/~pan <http://Web.UVic.CA/~pan>
>>
>>     On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 10:40 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink
>>     <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>         It's kinda expensive to run. Likely 75KW peak.
>>
>>         Check the power requirements for a regular gateway and divide
>>         by two.
>>
>>         Might be useful for Taiwanese Islands though
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Starlink mailing list
>>         Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>         https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
> -- 
> ****************************************************************
> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>
> School of Computer Science
>
> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>
> The University of Auckland
> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 14/11/2023 à 06:13, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
>
> So that's just over 6 kW if phase and voltage align, which in an 
> application like this, they're most likely not going to do most of the 
> time.
>
> The interesting bit in the photo are the large air intakes / outlets, 
> which point at the presence of some sort of cooler / aircon unit at 
> the base of the radome. Transmitter heat removal and/or receiver 
> cooling (to keep the noise floor down)?
>
Ah, I see what you people mean by consumption: that of teleports, not 
that of end users.  Sorry for my earlier post about the dishy 
electricity consumption.

Alex

> On 14/11/2023 5:57 pm, J Pan via Starlink wrote:
>> rated power consumption for all components at peak
>> https://files.tecnoblog.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/starlink-gateway-v3-selo-anatel-700x898.png
>> --
>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, 
>> Web.UVic.CA/~pan <http://Web.UVic.CA/~pan>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 12:42 PM Inemesit Affia via Starlink
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't know why that number didn't trip my antenna.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Starlink mailing list
>> > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> -- 
> ****************************************************************
> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>
> School of Computer Science
>
> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>
> The University of Auckland
> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink