From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x42e.google.com (mail-pf1-x42e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42e]) (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 5189D3CB42 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 13:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x42e.google.com with SMTP id h13so9215152pfr.7 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:57:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nathan.io; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=so7hn4mqZxFRGNnAFZBaPll/Sigs2OO6v9nmc2OBBQI=; b=x08pOmoNEONaNSHE7zeXdjbi2gmJ3B2AoEEsxignGPrGaIB5nFzlfi3esTZ5PqeOZd EXHE6e7X7iEC8nXSAgyQyNWkBr4WpgxcklrhnSeUvYr3XiqdO065y5doATfZfUExxtug bbdv4xxQjSBP4ddws2ASChXDlIKkbOriKioQ9JlqQgn6ZsABpXJ7NW0OoXFHHAsJKECS 74iqKarpQMgY9UTWRm4hXzhTBsXOwBSsgEgyIClOtTs479SvwuOo0I/ffVin+MD5yit7 DJPwW/GVfdl+JxH+feOmftxcL3ri81rHOQTdefaVWvbB/ILnYgiubrGFj4qJWvWAawcB tsaw== 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=so7hn4mqZxFRGNnAFZBaPll/Sigs2OO6v9nmc2OBBQI=; b=O9e2KmpPuS+u+Q32ERlnjyY3OucEX2bPKXQKCYTEpLxnfG2lUitF/+62jRYrb3RiQR 1NIKyR25M9RuurscG/+eYCWOhZkULoVILJpF4n4dK0OovK50o2DnBlRNI/EZ7C7vDC+w f4JjRx3mS0HJ2s47OF+Expuq2PeQgQsrwo9twWSDJRnDEUyq4z4x9HFbSWVMHAASr/1j 958bM2GMSQAQey3cBMtOItfG4pRn/MelSRj5C5cY6YqiJXFkmuCE1Ps9QVrnhtA12+pO QmW551OqPOfgwL4n/gYc8voy2/i5J/uHaajq2C1RPvo1eymDRrL8YDM921BX3TPfA2NO IDBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1vKuSs62qL9cYRxODqbQtZRsaX+7lRZigAulIXO1efP6FK8Zak thIr702xrF2BOFI7X6yI52WrGEN+5NXm4jMFkmxctQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4gHZlSzWYgZc9tM9oPwRPGg5aWWfcrJfDDxmzHv3LEi9Y7EVFPuNNKMiuvEsWYVLekos+b2Q7/rEq7wQnAcuk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:16c4:b0:535:890:d52 with SMTP id l4-20020a056a0016c400b0053508900d52mr8411139pfc.9.1665943035050; Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:57:15 -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: Nathan Owens Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2022 10:57:03 -0700 Message-ID: To: Steve Stroh Cc: David Lang , Starlink list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d2270405eb2a96a6" 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 17:57:16 -0000 --000000000000d2270405eb2a96a6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Elon posted a graph, it showed a peak of 7000GB per unit time, the only one that makes sense to me is per hour, which is 15Gbps peak -- not a huge amount. On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 10:50 AM Steve Stroh via Starlink < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > I=E2=80=99m speculating, but given that Starlink is THE communications > infrastructure for much of Ukraine, then the scaling of the ground statio= ns > to provide that level of service must be a significant expense. To provid= e > that much bandwidth would require deploying a lot of ground stations, eac= h > with expensive hardware, power infrastructure (including backup), fiber > backhaul, skilled labor, and no small amount of fiber bandwidth that Spac= eX > 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 base= d >> 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 >> 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 >> 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 o= n >> statistics ;-) >> >> David Lang >> >> On Fri, 14 Oct 2022, tom@evslin.com wrote: >> >> > Putting aside the timing of Elon's complaint about cost right after th= e >> spat over his Ukrainian "peace plan", It is certainly reasonable for >> Starlink to get paid like other weapon suppliers who didn't give out fre= e >> 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. The= y'd >> be out of business otherwise. The satellites are part of Starlink's fixe= d >> 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 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 commerc= ial >> 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 a= s >> "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 mode= l, 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 >> > -- > Steve Stroh N8GNJ (he / him / his) > Editor > Zero Retries Newsletter - https://zeroretries.substack.com > > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > --000000000000d2270405eb2a96a6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Elon posted a graph, it showed a peak of 7000GB per unit t= ime, the only one that makes sense to me is per hour, which is 15Gbps peak = -- not a huge amount.

On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 10:50 AM Steve Stroh via = Starlink <starlink@lis= ts.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
I=E2=80=99m speculating, but given that= Starlink is THE communications infrastructure for much of Ukraine, then th= e scaling of the ground stations to provide that level of service must be a= significant expense. To provide that much bandwidth would require deployin= g a lot of ground stations, each with expensive hardware, power infrastruct= ure (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 d= eploys to support Ukraine is a resource that it could have used for speedin= g up revenue generation in lucrative markets like the US.=C2=A0
<= br>
On Fri,= Oct 14, 2022 at 12:41 David Lang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>> wrote:
I= f 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 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 Str= oh N8GNJ (he / him / his)
Editor
Zero Retries Newsletter - https://zeroretries= .substack.com

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlin= k@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
--000000000000d2270405eb2a96a6--