From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1AA63B29D for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 13:50:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id u71so8635997pgd.2 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:50:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IowXe2q0Joal1+4oC57Kl00xtGfecN2KDg4i2k6AQEs=; b=hKUc/vTna3O/1J6ucnyb2Zw8TQIhdkcMGLNLPgL3e9D2P2RaRrOMWm4yA/KCBtrmc3 1znzrLjq4KySbJdk1bnlVwHuj/HPvDKoAKMIW2o2HnRDrTn1PoKtAf/SugzwZUtR8fsC D3xy6sIHv5GJei5smkxFfPW7TlyqKahVLUPWxUEwhlKTV2+H26P7vsygjGGMVFXXh7W3 0R6CQV6AksBHria7NXp1JRORnH1gHIfxS4KDFvkt1bNTmjw6MKz458N3wG53KfArmvbQ X1M4skAI1pgqAQPCAtlEKdeN7zp88+Uy4FDnuqRJFkoO5pD4D3GoyTM9C2bz3dM/uuCg D3pg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=IowXe2q0Joal1+4oC57Kl00xtGfecN2KDg4i2k6AQEs=; b=EQZhtJExWUJKKjf44swBTpX+/JzGd8+jlHjKfFKlbZFOdQTYfuXmzXoIDpZkx3dIjs 3BC0DyPe3+UpJ0F7EZ6DDMwOkQQc6g2snZC1pHwwfqELq76P5Hsg16Ftp60AVQZQzOdm 4J6K5+cZKCXflARW/r0+2qe6Ug1BVlEf8pTw8jqYMmlgnzZ8uXeRN3aQ+0PJwM9qBaZL 0aw1s/VHk7FIYJU6zim7I+tue2MuNTy/rxiQ2eF36sHC2TdUTSPE2k+yUTkgkYbxsd/W iA6XiEDQhz5s6is2LWD1LdMYVYVTe3vmJdrSlJkxyOg2HO4Mc3gms0gvGm0snJ/MKftk xS4w== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2Hk3pGYyvY88qCj/fAECAmXvRsZ26gT2thUxI9X6CLlZvPtCqh D0PH86VBykSZW+SXKh/rWJMgoo6gq6yJFjrZGB3aTBJE X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM73PD+74Esu/56uyNNyDqtRUk6x1vVnD0ySeyxz6dt3M3TA7czztro3EMS9JyPYH76VcKNesT8eca7m4UnggdI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:c86:b0:563:b89c:3d0b with SMTP id a6-20020a056a000c8600b00563b89c3d0bmr8676248pfv.50.1665942644506; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:50:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8735bqpq1r.wl-jch@irif.fr> <38522124-6d3b-4ac8-bb20-92bfa35dc9fe@Spark> <87tu46o8e3.wl-jch@irif.fr> <3ea89257-d5f8-4fa9-a90a-c73d49d2a9e2@Spark> <87r0zao0f0.wl-jch@irif.fr> <398208s8-6080-r8q7-s6rs-q9np11428n3o@ynat.uz> <12bfd01d8e001$03cf0e40$0b6d2ac0$@evslin.com> In-Reply-To: From: Steve Stroh Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:50:32 -0700 Message-ID: To: David Lang Cc: Starlink list , tom@evslin.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008ac6a805eb2a7fa4" Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink no longer available to the Ukrainian army? X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2022 17:50:46 -0000 --0000000000008ac6a805eb2a7fa4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I=E2=80=99m speculating, but given that Starlink is THE communications infrastructure for much of Ukraine, then the scaling of the ground stations to provide that level of service must be a significant expense. To provide that much bandwidth would require deploying a lot of ground stations, each with expensive hardware, power infrastructure (including backup), fiber backhaul, skilled labor, and no small amount of fiber bandwidth that SpaceX has to pay SOMEONE to provide. Not to mention that anything SpaceX deploys to support Ukraine is a resource that it could have used for speeding up revenue generation in lucrative markets like the US. On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 12:41 David Lang via Starlink < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > If spacex is providing the high-end/business grade service to all > terminals > that they normally charge $4500/month for, reimbursement should be based > on > that. > > Base it on the normal service pricing, not on cost-plus (if it were based > on > cost-plus it would be an utter windfall for SpaceX as they are still in > the > stage of building the service, and so there is a much higher spend rate t= o > expand the service at this point than the ongoing maintinance of it) > > while the satellites do support that area, they also support the rest of > the > service, and if they weren't supporting Ukraine, there wouldn't be any > fewer > satellites launched. > > I've seen too many games played with 'fully loaded costs' (sometimes > backfiring > on the people tinkering with the numbers), and so it's something I watch > out > for. > > lies, damn lies, and statistics, 'fully loaded costs' tend to be heavy on > statistics ;-) > > David Lang > > On Fri, 14 Oct 2022, tom@evslin.com wrote: > > > Putting aside the timing of Elon's complaint about cost right after the > spat over his Ukrainian "peace plan", It is certainly reasonable for > Starlink to get paid like other weapon suppliers who didn't give out free > samples to prove their usefulness, Given that they should be reimbursed > based on loaded cost plus profit like anyone else. I'm sure the other > suppliers allocate their overhead costs when pricing weapon systems. They= 'd > be out of business otherwise. The satellites are part of Starlink's fixed > overhead so a portion of their costs should be allocated to service > provided in Ukraine. > > > > All that being said, it would be terrible if Ukraine got less than the > best support that can be provided. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Starlink On Behalf Of > David Lang via Starlink > > Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 1:28 PM > > To: Kurtis Heimerl > > Cc: Starlink list > > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink no longer available to the Ukrainian > army? > > > > Having now read more info on this, less significant than the $80m total > figure is the $20m/month figure he quoted. With 15k dishes as the figure > that they sent (separate from whatever has been purchased on the commerci= al > side), that works out to 1.3k/dish/month, which is very high. > > > > now, not being able to deploy reliable ground stations inside Ukraine > could be driving up costs, plus the ongoing battle against jamming. But i= n > his tweet he also cites satellite costs, which should not be allocated as > "Ukraine related" > > costs (and I don't think the cyberdefense and jamming defense work > should be > > either) > > > > David Lang > > > > On Fri, 14 Oct 2022, Kurtis Heimerl via Starlink wrote: > > > >> This thread (https://twitter.com/dim0kq/status/1580827171903635456) > >> strongly argues that Starlink is largely paid for their service, at > >> least on the consumer side. I imagine there are significant > >> operational expenses in dealing with the various actors involved but > >> not on the basic model. > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:06 AM Juliusz Chroboczek via Starlink > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In essence, once you give something away for free, not even setting > >>>> the expectation that it=E2=80=99s a =E2=80=9Cfreemium=E2=80=9D model= , it=E2=80=99s very hard to get > >>>> out of it. If you then claim your costs are way higher than what > >>>> analysis work out, eyebrows raise way above the hairline. > >>> > >>> Uh. Hmm. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > --=20 Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) Editor Zero Retries Newsletter - https://zeroretries.substack.com --0000000000008ac6a805eb2a7fa4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I=E2=80=99m speculating, but given that Starlink is THE c= ommunications infrastructure for much of Ukraine, then the scaling of the g= round stations to provide that level of service must be a significant expen= se. To provide that much bandwidth would require deploying a lot of ground = stations, each with expensive hardware, power infrastructure (including bac= kup), fiber backhaul, skilled labor, and no small amount of fiber bandwidth= that SpaceX has to pay SOMEONE to provide.

Not to mention that anything SpaceX deploys to support = Ukraine is a resource that it could have used for speeding up revenue gener= ation in lucrative markets like the US.=C2=A0

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 1= 2:41 David Lang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
If spacex is providing the high-end/business grade service to all term= inals
that they normally charge $4500/month for, reimbursement should be based on=
that.

Base it on the normal service pricing, not on cost-plus (if it were based o= n
cost-plus it would be an utter windfall for SpaceX as they are still in the=
stage of building the service, and so there is a much higher spend rate to =
expand the service at this point than the ongoing maintinance of it)

while the satellites do support that area, they also support the rest of th= e
service, and if they weren't supporting Ukraine, there wouldn't be = any fewer
satellites launched.

I've seen too many games played with 'fully loaded costs' (some= times backfiring
on the people tinkering with the numbers), and so it's something I watc= h out
for.

lies, damn lies, and statistics, 'fully loaded costs' tend to be he= avy on
statistics ;-)

David Lang

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022, to= m@evslin.com wrote:

> Putting aside the timing of Elon's complaint about cost right afte= r the spat over his Ukrainian "peace plan", It is certainly reaso= nable for Starlink to get paid like other weapon suppliers who didn't g= ive out free samples to prove their usefulness, Given that they should be r= eimbursed based on loaded cost plus profit like anyone else. I'm sure t= he other suppliers allocate their overhead costs when pricing weapon system= s. They'd be out of business otherwise. The satellites are part of Star= link's fixed overhead so a portion of their costs should be allocated t= o service provided in Ukraine.
>
> All that being said, it would be terrible if Ukraine got less than the= best support that can be provided.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On = Behalf Of David Lang via Starlink
> Sent: Friday, October 14, 2022 1:28 PM
> To: Kurtis Heimerl <kheimerl@cs.washington.edu>
> Cc: Starlink list <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink no longer available to the Ukrainian = army?
>
> Having now read more info on this, less significant than the $80m tota= l figure is the $20m/month figure he quoted. With 15k dishes as the figure = that they sent (separate from whatever has been purchased on the commercial= side), that works out to 1.3k/dish/month, which is very high.
>
> now, not being able to deploy reliable ground stations inside Ukraine = could be driving up costs, plus the ongoing battle against jamming. But in = his tweet he also cites satellite costs, which should not be allocated as &= quot;Ukraine related"
> costs (and I don't think the cyberdefense and jamming defense work= should be
> either)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022, Kurtis Heimerl via Starlink wrote:
>
>> This thread (https://twitter.com/dim0k= q/status/1580827171903635456)
>> strongly argues that Starlink is largely paid for their service, a= t
>> least on the consumer side. I imagine there are significant
>> operational expenses in dealing with the various actors involved b= ut
>> not on the basic model.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:06 AM Juliusz Chroboczek via Starlink >> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In essence, once you give something away for free, not eve= n setting
>>>> the expectation that it=E2=80=99s a =E2=80=9Cfreemium=E2= =80=9D model, it=E2=80=99s very hard to get
>>>> out of it. If you then claim your costs are way higher tha= n what
>>>> analysis work out, eyebrows raise way above the hairline.<= br> >>>
>>> Uh.=C2=A0 Hmm.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/s= tarlink
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starl= ink
>
>_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlin= k@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
--
Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he /= him / his)
Editor
Zero Retries Newsletter - https://zeroretries.substack.com

--0000000000008ac6a805eb2a7fa4--