Re: [Starlink] Starlink "beam spread"

[David Lang <david@lang.hm>]

Except that he has a track record of eventually delivering (late, and not as 
cheaply as originally thought, but delivering)

David Lang

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022, Dave Collier-Brown via Starlink wrote:

> Mr Musk reminds me of a salesperson I once worked with, who first sold 
> himself on all the impossible things GCOS could do better that OS/360, and 
> then set out to convince customers.  The occasional customer would ask if he 
> was barking mad (;-)) Others merely assumed we just hired liars as salesmen.
>
> --dave
>
> On 8/30/22 20:32, David P. Reed via Starlink wrote:
>
> Then Elon Musk is making proposals in bad faith, because he is leading people 
> to believe that his system can do stuff it clearly cannot do.
>
>
>
> Which they proved when they failed to meet the requirements of the US rural 
> service funding program, after claiming they could.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, August 30, 2022 8:12pm, "David Lang" 
> <david@lang.hm><mailto:david@lang.hm> said:
>
>
>> I have no problems with people making technical arguments saying that there 
>> are
>> limitations on the service that Starlink can provide (I may argue technical
>> specifics or point out things I think you miss, but I won't claim that you 
>> are
>> arguing in bad faith), but when someone then goes beyond that and says that 
>> what
>> it can provide is a level that's unacceptable to Americans or dismissing it
>> because fiber is better, then I'll respond and say that the person is 
>> arguing in
>> bad faith.
>> 
>> David Lang
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022, David P. Reed wrote:
>> 
>> > Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 19:28:56 -0400 (EDT)
>> > From: David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com><mailto:dpreed@deepplum.com>
>> > To: Brandon Butterworth 
>> <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk><mailto:brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
>> > Cc: David Lang <david@lang.hm><mailto:david@lang.hm>, Brandon Butterworth
>> <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk><mailto:brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>,
>> > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink "beam spread"
>> >
>> >
>> > I wasn't starting a discussion about Starlink the business. I was talking
>> about Starlink the technology and the "dreams" that people project onto 
>> that
>> technology.
>> >
>> > I'm happy if the current customers are happy and remain happy. Just 
>> pointing
>> out that there are pretty severe limitations in the physical capabilities 
>> of the
>> technology of the satellites and dishys that will limit how many customers 
>> can be
>> served in an area.
>> >
>> > I was reacting to the idea Dave Taht brought up that somehow the 
>> satellites
>> can cover "more" area per satellite, if they go to a lower total bit rate 
>> (175 vs.
>> 240 per antenna on each satellite).
>> >
>> > I'm a radio engineer, trained in stuff like phased array antenna designs, 
>> and
>> power, etc. I'm also a communications protocol engineer, trained in 
>> multiplexing
>> techniques.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying Starlink engineers are incompetent, but I am saying that 
>> what
>> Musk (who despite the fact that he pretends to be an engineer is not one, 
>> never
>> has been one) has described in his visionary speeches is not what Starlink 
>> is
>> delivering today, and that's because it basically can't be delivered.
>> 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>
> --
> David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
> System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
> dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com<mailto:dave.collier-brown@indexexchange.com> 
> |              -- Mark Twain
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER : This telecommunication, including any 
> and all attachments, contains confidential information intended only for the 
> person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination, distribution, copying 
> or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of confidentiality. 
> If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the 
> sender immediately by return electronic mail and delete the message from your 
> inbox and deleted items folders. This telecommunication does not constitute 
> an express or implied agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means, 
> nor does it constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment or an 
> acceptance of a contract offer. Contract terms contained in this 
> telecommunication are subject to legal review and the completion of formal 
> documentation and are not binding until same is confirmed in writing and has 
> been signed by an authorized signatory.
>