[Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Hesham ElBakoury]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 117 bytes --]

https://cordcuttersnews.com/starlink-internet-speeds-could-skyrocket-to-2-gigabits-per-second-spacex-president-says/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 306 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Dave Taht]

To me, the additional speeds don't matter all that much.

I am presently in gale force winds, my boat rocking, and my latency
stable, and only about 50mbit down:
https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=a14b4467-16d7-4b6e-8736-1593813d6eda

Maybe a little less packet loss would help, as my last (hour long)
videoconference broke up twice, and bbr is seriously outperforming
cubic. In addition for aiming for higher speeds, improving density and
reliability would be nice, but otherwise I am a pretty happy camper
with the service I have, compared to 5g.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 2:16 PM Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> https://cordcuttersnews.com/starlink-internet-speeds-could-skyrocket-to-2-gigabits-per-second-spacex-president-says/
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



-- 
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3973 bytes --]

Right now, Starlink have reached capacity in quite a number of places.

The availability map on Starlink's home page shows that Starlink is 
"sold out" in many places, including London, Manila, Rio de Janeiro, 
Seattle, Portland, Sacramento (California), Edmonton, San Diego, Austin 
(Texas), Mexico City, Guadalajara, Brisbane, Accra, Lagos, Nairobi, 
Lusaka, Harare, and many more:

https://www.starlink.com/us/map

This isn't surprising given the fact that Dishys to date only use 
Ku-band, there's only 2 GHz of it for user downlink, and you can't use 
the same beam frequency in adjacent cells.

SpaceX have a modification application before the FCC that, if 
successful, would allow them to:

  * Up power flux density on the ground. This'd allow satellites to
    transmit with higher power. Note that none of the current beam
    transmitters on the satellites have sufficient EIRP to hit the
    current PFD limits across the entire Ku-band. But the Gen. 2 ones
    are supposedly only by a factor of about 2.7 off, so with Starship
    able to carry heavier sats, there might be room for a bit of growth.
  * Use satellites down to 20 deg above the horizon instead of the
    current 25 deg (this mightn't look like much, but if my calculations
    aren't wrong, means that they'd see about 43% more of the orbital
    sphere with that increase alone).

SpaceX have tried for a long time to get into lower orbital height 
shells. This makes sense from their perspective: Each satellite's beam 
footprint becomes smaller, which makes frequency re-use easier. Path 
loss decreases, and a ground station sees a smaller fraction of 
satellites in that shell, so they can argue that since the ground now 
sees transmissions from fewer satellites, EPFD limits are less critical, 
which allows them to up power. Makes for a couple of bits more per 
symbol perhaps. Latency goes down a little, too, and they now have the 
numbers in terms of satellites, so it doesn't matter so much that these 
shells need a larger number of sats to work.

Now there are drawbacks also: The lower the orbits go, the more residual 
atmospheric drag there will be, and this expresses itself in either 
shorter sat lifespan or the need to carry more fuel, which either means 
they'll need to launch at a faster rate or with fewer sats per launch. 
It's also a bit more crowded in lower space, as this is where a lot of 
earth observation spacecraft sit (if you want to take detailed pics of 
the Earth's surface, you want it to be as close to your camera lens as 
you can have it), and some of those aren't there for open source public 
good science.

On 23/11/2024 11:33 am, Dave Taht via Starlink wrote:
> To me, the additional speeds don't matter all that much.
>
> I am presently in gale force winds, my boat rocking, and my latency
> stable, and only about 50mbit down:
> https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=a14b4467-16d7-4b6e-8736-1593813d6eda
>
> Maybe a little less packet loss would help, as my last (hour long)
> videoconference broke up twice, and bbr is seriously outperforming
> cubic. In addition for aiming for higher speeds, improving density and
> reliability would be nice, but otherwise I am a pretty happy camper
> with the service I have, compared to 5g.
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 2:16 PM Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> https://cordcuttersnews.com/starlink-internet-speeds-could-skyrocket-to-2-gigabits-per-second-spacex-president-says/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: 5634 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Brandon Butterworth]

On 22/11/2024 23:32:19, "Ulrich Speidel via Starlink" 
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>Right now, Starlink have reached capacity in quite a number of places.

They contacted me, presumably to talk about uk ground stations,
but then stopped responding. This was just before they started
the sold out areas.

Was a shame as we'd been wondering how to contact them to suggest
some rural sites we have fibre at, or can build to, that may be
suitable. Won't help if they've maxed out spectrum use, perhaps
they've paused while resolving that.

brandon

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4122 bytes --]

Ulrich Speidel wrote:

> Right now, Starlink have reached capacity in quite a number of places.

True, but they are still launching under their existing authorizations, with 
several thousand more satellites authorized (IIRC, they can at least double 
their existing number, plus they have authorization to replace older satellites 
with newer ones.

they will add capacity, add users, be 'at capacity', launch more...

David Lang

> The availability map on Starlink's home page shows that Starlink is "sold 
> out" in many places, including London, Manila, Rio de Janeiro, Seattle, 
> Portland, Sacramento (California), Edmonton, San Diego, Austin (Texas), 
> Mexico City, Guadalajara, Brisbane, Accra, Lagos, Nairobi, Lusaka, Harare, 
> and many more:
>
> https://www.starlink.com/us/map
>
> This isn't surprising given the fact that Dishys to date only use Ku-band, 
> there's only 2 GHz of it for user downlink, and you can't use the same beam 
> frequency in adjacent cells.
>
> SpaceX have a modification application before the FCC that, if successful, 
> would allow them to:
>
> * Up power flux density on the ground. This'd allow satellites to
>   transmit with higher power. Note that none of the current beam
>   transmitters on the satellites have sufficient EIRP to hit the
>   current PFD limits across the entire Ku-band. But the Gen. 2 ones
>   are supposedly only by a factor of about 2.7 off, so with Starship
>   able to carry heavier sats, there might be room for a bit of growth.
> * Use satellites down to 20 deg above the horizon instead of the
>   current 25 deg (this mightn't look like much, but if my calculations
>   aren't wrong, means that they'd see about 43% more of the orbital
>   sphere with that increase alone).
>
> SpaceX have tried for a long time to get into lower orbital height shells. 
> This makes sense from their perspective: Each satellite's beam footprint 
> becomes smaller, which makes frequency re-use easier. Path loss decreases, 
> and a ground station sees a smaller fraction of satellites in that shell, so 
> they can argue that since the ground now sees transmissions from fewer 
> satellites, EPFD limits are less critical, which allows them to up power. 
> Makes for a couple of bits more per symbol perhaps. Latency goes down a 
> little, too, and they now have the numbers in terms of satellites, so it 
> doesn't matter so much that these shells need a larger number of sats to 
> work.
>
> Now there are drawbacks also: The lower the orbits go, the more residual 
> atmospheric drag there will be, and this expresses itself in either shorter 
> sat lifespan or the need to carry more fuel, which either means they'll need 
> to launch at a faster rate or with fewer sats per launch. It's also a bit 
> more crowded in lower space, as this is where a lot of earth observation 
> spacecraft sit (if you want to take detailed pics of the Earth's surface, you 
> want it to be as close to your camera lens as you can have it), and some of 
> those aren't there for open source public good science.
>
> On 23/11/2024 11:33 am, Dave Taht via Starlink wrote:
>> To me, the additional speeds don't matter all that much.
>> 
>> I am presently in gale force winds, my boat rocking, and my latency
>> stable, and only about 50mbit down:
>> https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=a14b4467-16d7-4b6e-8736-1593813d6eda
>> 
>> Maybe a little less packet loss would help, as my last (hour long)
>> videoconference broke up twice, and bbr is seriously outperforming
>> cubic. In addition for aiming for higher speeds, improving density and
>> reliability would be nice, but otherwise I am a pretty happy camper
>> with the service I have, compared to 5g.
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 2:16 PM Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> https://cordcuttersnews.com/starlink-internet-speeds-could-skyrocket-to-2-gigabits-per-second-spacex-president-says/
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> 
>> 
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 149 bytes --]

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

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Ulrich Speidel]

On 23/11/2024 7:05 pm, David Lang wrote:
> Ulrich Speidel wrote:
>
>> Right now, Starlink have reached capacity in quite a number of places.
>
> True, but they are still launching under their existing 
> authorizations, with several thousand more satellites authorized 
> (IIRC, they can at least double their existing number, plus they have 
> authorization to replace older satellites with newer ones.

Yep. But the "sold out" is new. Previously, when they ran short, it was 
"coming soon" or something along those lines.

> they will add capacity, add users, be 'at capacity', launch more...

Not so sure.

They only have 2 GHz for downlink in the Ku band, and the power flux 
density limits they're subject to pretty much limit downlink to between 
12 and 20 Gb/s max depending on which generation sat contributes to the 
downlinks into a cell. More isn't possible for a single cell, but even 
to get to this limit, you need more than one satellite because the 
maximum EIRP of the beam transmitters on each bird is only just enough 
for a part of that band. So you always need multiple beams - between 3 
and about 12 - to fill that band completely, and this needs beams from 
multiple sats usually. That gets further de-rated if neighbouring cells 
also want / need service: In this (overwhelmingly common) case, one cell 
can't monopolise all beam frequencies and polarisations across the 
entire Ku spectrum - it needs to cede at least some freqs / 
polarisations to its neighbours.

More sats help if there simply aren't enough spare beams available up in 
the sky to service a part of the Ku band that isn't already in use in 
your cell or its neighbourhood. That's a "I simply haven't got enough 
beam transmitters available" problem that can be solved with more beam 
transmitters, which is what you get with more sats.

More satellites don't really help if all frequency + polarisation 
combinations are taken in your area. Any combination that is taken can't 
simply be supplied by another satellite, even if that satellite has a 
spare beam available. That's a "I have more users that I can possibly 
serve" problem.

Think of it like a popular restaurant where the metric is how many 
diners you can serve in an hour. If the restaurant is understaffed, you 
can hire more staff and have them cook and serve faster. If all tables 
are taken and you can't fit any more in, you can employ as many extra 
chefs and waiters as you like, but that doesn't really help you much as 
people still take as long to eat as they always did.

The areas that have now gone "sold out" appear to be without exception 
urban fringe areas that are underserved with fibre. Expect a few more to 
move into that category in the next little while (watch Australia's big 
cities, for example).

There is perhaps some wiggle room in terms of power flux density limits 
(these have been challenged), in terms of making beams narrower and 
cells smaller over the longer term, and in terms of improving frequency 
re-use by serving nearby cells on the same frequency / polarisation from 
different directions. If POTUS is your best friend and you can get him 
and your mate that's running the FCC to armwrestle the ITU into giving 
you another gig of Ku band, then we might also see this open up a little 
again. But none of these techniques appears to be a game changer that 
offers the growth potential that you need to keep pace with Internet 
traffic growth.

If there is some semblance of a local distribution network (or one can 
be built short term) then another option are SpaceX's Ka-band community 
gateways. But in Ku, there's not much room left in the inn anymore by 
the looks of it. At least in some areas.

>
> David Lang
>
>> The availability map on Starlink's home page shows that Starlink is 
>> "sold out" in many places, including London, Manila, Rio de Janeiro, 
>> Seattle, Portland, Sacramento (California), Edmonton, San Diego, 
>> Austin (Texas), Mexico City, Guadalajara, Brisbane, Accra, Lagos, 
>> Nairobi, Lusaka, Harare, and many more:
>>
>> https://www.starlink.com/us/map
>>
>> This isn't surprising given the fact that Dishys to date only use 
>> Ku-band, there's only 2 GHz of it for user downlink, and you can't 
>> use the same beam frequency in adjacent cells.
>>
>> SpaceX have a modification application before the FCC that, if 
>> successful, would allow them to:
>>
>> * Up power flux density on the ground. This'd allow satellites to
>>   transmit with higher power. Note that none of the current beam
>>   transmitters on the satellites have sufficient EIRP to hit the
>>   current PFD limits across the entire Ku-band. But the Gen. 2 ones
>>   are supposedly only by a factor of about 2.7 off, so with Starship
>>   able to carry heavier sats, there might be room for a bit of growth.
>> * Use satellites down to 20 deg above the horizon instead of the
>>   current 25 deg (this mightn't look like much, but if my calculations
>>   aren't wrong, means that they'd see about 43% more of the orbital
>>   sphere with that increase alone).
>>
>> SpaceX have tried for a long time to get into lower orbital height 
>> shells. This makes sense from their perspective: Each satellite's 
>> beam footprint becomes smaller, which makes frequency re-use easier. 
>> Path loss decreases, and a ground station sees a smaller fraction of 
>> satellites in that shell, so they can argue that since the ground now 
>> sees transmissions from fewer satellites, EPFD limits are less 
>> critical, which allows them to up power. Makes for a couple of bits 
>> more per symbol perhaps. Latency goes down a little, too, and they 
>> now have the numbers in terms of satellites, so it doesn't matter so 
>> much that these shells need a larger number of sats to work.
>>
>> Now there are drawbacks also: The lower the orbits go, the more 
>> residual atmospheric drag there will be, and this expresses itself in 
>> either shorter sat lifespan or the need to carry more fuel, which 
>> either means they'll need to launch at a faster rate or with fewer 
>> sats per launch. It's also a bit more crowded in lower space, as this 
>> is where a lot of earth observation spacecraft sit (if you want to 
>> take detailed pics of the Earth's surface, you want it to be as close 
>> to your camera lens as you can have it), and some of those aren't 
>> there for open source public good science.
>>
>> On 23/11/2024 11:33 am, Dave Taht via Starlink wrote:
>>> To me, the additional speeds don't matter all that much.
>>>
>>> I am presently in gale force winds, my boat rocking, and my latency
>>> stable, and only about 50mbit down:
>>> https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat?test-id=a14b4467-16d7-4b6e-8736-1593813d6eda 
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a little less packet loss would help, as my last (hour long)
>>> videoconference broke up twice, and bbr is seriously outperforming
>>> cubic. In addition for aiming for higher speeds, improving density and
>>> reliability would be nice, but otherwise I am a pretty happy camper
>>> with the service I have, compared to 5g.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 2:16 PM Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink
>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>> https://cordcuttersnews.com/starlink-internet-speeds-could-skyrocket-to-2-gigabits-per-second-spacex-president-says/ 
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/
****************************************************************

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Michael Richardson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 822 bytes --]


Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
    > to launch at a faster rate or with fewer sats per launch. It's also a bit
    > more crowded in lower space, as this is where a lot of earth observation
    > spacecraft sit (if you want to take detailed pics of the Earth's surface, you
    > want it to be as close to your camera lens as you can have it), and some of
    > those aren't there for open source public good science.

<sincecism alert>
1. I'm sure that spaceX could just include cameras for earth observation of dissidents.
2. Earth observation will be obsolete according to Project 2025.
3. Elon will own the FCC.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide





[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 515 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Dave Taht]

On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 11:49 AM Michael Richardson via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>
> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>     > to launch at a faster rate or with fewer sats per launch. It's also a bit
>     > more crowded in lower space, as this is where a lot of earth observation
>     > spacecraft sit (if you want to take detailed pics of the Earth's surface, you
>     > want it to be as close to your camera lens as you can have it), and some of
>     > those aren't there for open source public good science.
>
> <sincecism alert>
> 1. I'm sure that spaceX could just include cameras for earth observation of dissidents.

Being able to get a cell phone id over anywhere is probably 'better"
than cameras.

> 2. Earth observation will be obsolete according to Project 2025.

Haven't read that part.

> 3. Elon will own the FCC.

This FCC promises to open up more spectrum. Where?

you forgot to include a closing tag. Intentional?

>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>            Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



-- 
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Ulrich Speidel]

On 24/11/2024 9:05 am, Dave Taht wrote:
>> 3. Elon will own the FCC.
> This FCC promises to open up more spectrum. Where?

I think it's not so much a matter of opening up spectrum. SpaceX's 
spectrum "reserve" at the moment is Ka-band. That's hitherto been used 
for gateways only, but with the lasers, that's becoming less of a 
bottleneck because you can in principle uplink from and downlink to a 
remote gateway or set of remote gateways (unlike with the end user - I 
mean Elon can't simply provide the service Dave's paying for over, say, 
New York, rather than where Dave's boat is). So that frees up a bit of 
resource to deploy directly to users in tight spots. Except that Dishy 
doesn't talk on Ka.

The trouble with Ka is that it's a bit more susceptible to rain fade 
than Ku, and also that the amount of spectrum available there isn't 
exactly an order of magnitude larger either. To the contrary - the three 
Ka-bands in which SpaceX can downlink data have a combined 1.8 GHz of 
spectrum - less than for Ku. The pros of Ka are that the shorter 
wavelength makes for sharper beams and a nicer link budget with the same 
size antennas. As long as you don't get rained on. So you better throw 
in some extra antenna gain, which is what they're doing with the 1.85 m 
dishes (not Dishys) at their community gateways. But that's an entirely 
different business model.

And yes I'm aware that there's some labelling issues as to what counts 
as Ka and what doesn't, internationally, and that the FCC's notion of Ka 
starts at lower frequencies than some other peoples'.

-- 
****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Sascha Meinrath]

For those who haven't been following the Starshield project (and its exponential 
ramp-up)... I fully expect that Musk will focus more on military-industrial 
complex funding than in trying to repurpose FCC or NTIA support -- why fight in 
the trenches for hundreds of millions when you can repurpose 
billions/tens-of-billions elsewhere:

https://spacenews.com/pentagons-commercial-satellite-internet-services-program-soars-to-13-billion/

And yes, Starshield is just as scary and prone for abuse as Michael alludes to.

--Sascha

On 11/23/24 13:29, Michael Richardson via Starlink wrote:
> 
> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>      > to launch at a faster rate or with fewer sats per launch. It's also a bit
>      > more crowded in lower space, as this is where a lot of earth observation
>      > spacecraft sit (if you want to take detailed pics of the Earth's surface, you
>      > want it to be as close to your camera lens as you can have it), and some of
>      > those aren't there for open source public good science.
> 
> <sincecism alert>
> 1. I'm sure that spaceX could just include cameras for earth observation of dissidents.
> 2. Earth observation will be obsolete according to Project 2025.
> 3. Elon will own the FCC.
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

-- 
Sascha Meinrath
Director, X-Lab
Palmer Chair in Telecommunications
Penn State University

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2571 bytes --]

Sascha Meinrath via Starlink wrote:

> For those who haven't been following the Starshield project (and its 
> exponential 
> ramp-up)... I fully expect that Musk will focus more on military-industrial 
> complex funding than in trying to repurpose FCC or NTIA support -- why fight 
> in 
> the trenches for hundreds of millions when you can repurpose 
> billions/tens-of-billions elsewhere:
>
> https://spacenews.com/pentagons-commercial-satellite-internet-services-program-soars-to-13-billion/
>
> And yes, Starshield is just as scary and prone for abuse as Michael alludes 
> to.

what's scary about it? it's just a smaller copy of Starlink, but run by the 
Military so that they don't have to worry about who may work in a commercial 
company that operates the system that may not have the countries best interests 
at heart.

while it's expensive, the systems that it's going to replace are even more 
expensive, and are FAR slower. (and the fact that it's just normal TCP/IP means 
that all the branches and vendors that provide equipment will actually 
standardize, they won't be able to push their own propriatary systems/protocols)

but 13B over several years for SpaceX to build and launch satellites for them is 
a small portion of SpaceX revenue. It's expected that the income from Starlink 
will be far more than that. So there is no reason to believe that they will 
abandon the commercial space and go all military.

David Lang


> --Sascha
>
> On 11/23/24 13:29, Michael Richardson via Starlink wrote:
>> 
>> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>      > to launch at a faster rate or with fewer sats per launch. It's also 
> a bit
>>      > more crowded in lower space, as this is where a lot of earth 
> observation
>>      > spacecraft sit (if you want to take detailed pics of the Earth's 
> surface, you
>>      > want it to be as close to your camera lens as you can have it), and 
> some of
>>      > those aren't there for open source public good science.
>> 
>> <sincecism alert>
>> 1. I'm sure that spaceX could just include cameras for earth observation of 
> dissidents.
>> 2. Earth observation will be obsolete according to Project 2025.
>> 3. Elon will own the FCC.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Steve Stroh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3613 bytes --]

Starshield isn’t just a version of Starlink for US military. The Starshield
sats have remote sensing capabilities too. That gives the US military
greater ability to watch developments in realtime with all the Starshield
sats in LEO than they could with their more capable, larger, but fewer
observation sats. Not to mention higher bandwidth to downlink the observed
data interleaved with the coms traffic.




Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
Editor
Zero Retries Newsletter - https://www.zeroretries.org
Radios are Computers - With Antennas!


On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 08:59 David Lang via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Sascha Meinrath via Starlink wrote:
>
> > For those who haven't been following the Starshield project (and its
> > exponential
> > ramp-up)... I fully expect that Musk will focus more on
> military-industrial
> > complex funding than in trying to repurpose FCC or NTIA support -- why
> fight
> > in
> > the trenches for hundreds of millions when you can repurpose
> > billions/tens-of-billions elsewhere:
> >
> >
> https://spacenews.com/pentagons-commercial-satellite-internet-services-program-soars-to-13-billion/
> >
> > And yes, Starshield is just as scary and prone for abuse as Michael
> alludes
> > to.
>
> what's scary about it? it's just a smaller copy of Starlink, but run by
> the
> Military so that they don't have to worry about who may work in a
> commercial
> company that operates the system that may not have the countries best
> interests
> at heart.
>
> while it's expensive, the systems that it's going to replace are even more
> expensive, and are FAR slower. (and the fact that it's just normal TCP/IP
> means
> that all the branches and vendors that provide equipment will actually
> standardize, they won't be able to push their own propriatary
> systems/protocols)
>
> but 13B over several years for SpaceX to build and launch satellites for
> them is
> a small portion of SpaceX revenue. It's expected that the income from
> Starlink
> will be far more than that. So there is no reason to believe that they
> will
> abandon the commercial space and go all military.
>
> David Lang
>
>
> > --Sascha
> >
> > On 11/23/24 13:29, Michael Richardson via Starlink wrote:
> >>
> >> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>      > to launch at a faster rate or with fewer sats per launch. It's
> also
> > a bit
> >>      > more crowded in lower space, as this is where a lot of earth
> > observation
> >>      > spacecraft sit (if you want to take detailed pics of the Earth's
> > surface, you
> >>      > want it to be as close to your camera lens as you can have it),
> and
> > some of
> >>      > those aren't there for open source public good science.
> >>
> >> <sincecism alert>
> >> 1. I'm sure that spaceX could just include cameras for earth
> observation of
> > dissidents.
> >> 2. Earth observation will be obsolete according to Project 2025.
> >> 3. Elon will own the FCC.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT
> consulting )
> >>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5324 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Internet Speeds Could Skyrocket to 2 Gigabits Per Second, SpaceX President Says

[Dave Taht]

Yes, we have brilliant eyes going up. Brilliant pebbles, next?

On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 9:21 AM Steve Stroh via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> Starshield isn’t just a version of Starlink for US military. The Starshield sats have remote sensing capabilities too. That gives the US military greater ability to watch developments in realtime with all the Starshield sats in LEO than they could with their more capable, larger, but fewer observation sats. Not to mention higher bandwidth to downlink the observed data interleaved with the coms traffic.
>
>
>
>
> Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
> Editor
> Zero Retries Newsletter - https://www.zeroretries.org
> Radios are Computers - With Antennas!
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 08:59 David Lang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> Sascha Meinrath via Starlink wrote:
>>
>> > For those who haven't been following the Starshield project (and its
>> > exponential
>> > ramp-up)... I fully expect that Musk will focus more on military-industrial
>> > complex funding than in trying to repurpose FCC or NTIA support -- why fight
>> > in
>> > the trenches for hundreds of millions when you can repurpose
>> > billions/tens-of-billions elsewhere:
>> >
>> > https://spacenews.com/pentagons-commercial-satellite-internet-services-program-soars-to-13-billion/
>> >
>> > And yes, Starshield is just as scary and prone for abuse as Michael alludes
>> > to.
>>
>> what's scary about it? it's just a smaller copy of Starlink, but run by the
>> Military so that they don't have to worry about who may work in a commercial
>> company that operates the system that may not have the countries best interests
>> at heart.
>>
>> while it's expensive, the systems that it's going to replace are even more
>> expensive, and are FAR slower. (and the fact that it's just normal TCP/IP means
>> that all the branches and vendors that provide equipment will actually
>> standardize, they won't be able to push their own propriatary systems/protocols)
>>
>> but 13B over several years for SpaceX to build and launch satellites for them is
>> a small portion of SpaceX revenue. It's expected that the income from Starlink
>> will be far more than that. So there is no reason to believe that they will
>> abandon the commercial space and go all military.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>>
>> > --Sascha
>> >
>> > On 11/23/24 13:29, Michael Richardson via Starlink wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >>      > to launch at a faster rate or with fewer sats per launch. It's also
>> > a bit
>> >>      > more crowded in lower space, as this is where a lot of earth
>> > observation
>> >>      > spacecraft sit (if you want to take detailed pics of the Earth's
>> > surface, you
>> >>      > want it to be as close to your camera lens as you can have it), and
>> > some of
>> >>      > those aren't there for open source public good science.
>> >>
>> >> <sincecism alert>
>> >> 1. I'm sure that spaceX could just include cameras for earth observation of
>> > dissidents.
>> >> 2. Earth observation will be obsolete according to Project 2025.
>> >> 3. Elon will own the FCC.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>> >>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



-- 
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos