> On Feb 27, 2024, at 08:54, Dave Taht wrote:
> One of the things I learned today was that starlink has published an
> extensive guide as to how existing BGP AS holders can peer with them to get
> better service.
Yes, essentially every AS does this. The ones that follow best-pr
> On Feb 27, 2024, at 08:54, Dave Taht wrote:
> One of the things I learned today was that starlink has published an
> extensive guide as to how existing BGP AS holders can peer with them to get
> better service.
Yes, essentially every AS does this. The ones that follow best-pr
=14593
>
> -- Original message --
>
> From: Dave Taht
> To: NANOG
> Subject: starlink ixp peering progress
> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:54:44 -0500
>
> One of the things I learned today was that starlink has published an
> extensive guide as to ho
The best way I've found (and it is indeed rather incomplete) is to have a BGP
feed going to something like QRator from that AS (or a downstream AS) that then
performs analytics on the BGP feed. Starlink is unlikely to have BGP customers,
so that makes it a bit more difficult.
https
--
From: Dave Taht
To: NANOG
Subject: starlink ixp peering progress
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:54:44 -0500
One of the things I learned today was that starlink has published an
extensive guide as to how existing BGP AS holders can peer with them
to get better service.
https://starlink
Well, for some basic overview you can use CAIDA AS rank.
You can use it directly, or you may try my (more user friendly)
frontend for it: http://as-rank.uu3.net/?as=14593
-- Original message --
From: Dave Taht
To: NANOG
Subject: starlink ixp peering progress
Date: Tue, 27 Feb
One of the things I learned today was that starlink has published an
extensive guide as to how existing BGP AS holders can peer with them
to get better service.
https://starlink-enterprise-guide.readme.io/docs/peering-with-starlink
I am curious if there is a way to see how many have peered
FCC REAFFIRMS DECISION TO REJECT STARLINK APPLICATION FOR NEARLY $900
MILLION IN SUBSIDIES
Applicant Failed to Meet Burden for Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
The Federal Communications Commission today reaffirmed the Wireline
Bureau’s prior decision to reject the long-form application
("bidet") system would actually work.
I look forward to a launch vehicle capable of putting up the next
generation of starlink sats which are estimated to have 4x the
capacity of the old, and further improvements on their wifi, backbone
and satellite switching technologies.
--
Podc
Jorge Amodio wrote:
You, seemingly, do not have much knowledge on UUNET.
Of course I don't :-)
atina agomar(DAILY), antar(DAILY), biotlp(DAILY), cab(HOURLY),
cedro(EVENING), cenep(DAILY), cneaint(DAILY), cnea(EVENING),
cnielf(DAILY), colimpo(DAILY), confein(DAILY),
>
>
> You, seemingly, do not have much knowledge on UUNET.
>
> Of course I don't :-)
#N atina
#S Everex 386 Step 33; SCO Xenix System V 2.3.3
#O Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto
#C Jorge Marcelo Amodio
#E atina!postmaster
#T +54 1 315 4804, Fax: +54 1 315
Jorge Amodio wrote:
This gets sort of merged with DTN (Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking.)
I have been saying that DTN is a reinvention of UUNET.
Hmmm, nope not even close.
You, seemingly, do not have much knowledge on UUNET.
As such, it should be noted that, in UUNET, availability
>
>
> > This gets sort of merged with DTN (Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking.)
>
> I have been saying that DTN is a reinvention of UUNET.
>
Hmmm, nope not even close.
>
> As such, it should be noted that, in UUNET, availability of
> phone links between computers was scheduled.
>
You must be
Jorge Amodio wrote:
We are in the process of starting a new Working Group at IETF, Timer
Variant Routing or TVR.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/tvr/about/
Some of the uses cases are for space applications where you can predict or
schedule the availability and capacity of "links" (radio,
I think it's useful to clarify terminology - the starlink antenna unit
itself is the CPE. With my v1 starlink terminal you can plug literally
anything into the PoE injector that is a 1500 MTU 1000BaseT DHCP client and
it'll get an address and a default route out to the internet. All of the
smarts
23 at 2:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> I read in the Economist that the gen of starlink satellites will have
>> the ability to route messages between each satellite. Would conventional
>> routing protocols be up to such a challenge? Or would it have to be
>> cus
On 1/23/23 3:14 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
The original and traditional high-cost way of how this is done for
MEO/LEO is exemplified by an o3b terminal, which has two active
motorized tracking antennas. The antenna presently in use for the
satellite that is overhead follows it until it's
23 4:43 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Starlink routing
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise
> caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown
> senders.
>
> I read in the Economist that the gen of sta
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Michael
Thomas
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 4:43 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Starlink routing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution
when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from
es all the frequency coordination and hand offs with the ground.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of
> Michael Thomas
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 1:43 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Starlink routing
>
> CAUTION: This email originated fr
networking as code that handles
all the frequency coordination and hand offs with the ground.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Michael
Thomas
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2023 1:43 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Starlink routing
CAUTION: This email originated from outside
My present understanding is that starlink satellites with lasers are not
designed to communicate inter-plane. Each launch of starlink satellites is
put into exactly the same orbital inclination (53.2 degrees or the more
rare near polar orbits now launched from Vandenberg).
In the weeks and months
(inline)
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 4:44 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
the ability to route messages between each satellite. Would conventional
>> routing protocols be up to such a challenge?
>
>
If conventional is taken to mean "stock" link-state stuff, then probably no
(speculating).
> Or would it
On 2023-01-23 19:08, I wrote:
> I get that for 1310 nm light, the doppler shift would be just under
> 0.07 nm, or 12.2 GHz:
> [...]
> In the ITU C band, I get the doppler shift to be about 10.5 GHz (at
> channel 72, 197200 GHz or 1520.25 nm).
> [...]
> These shifts are noticably less than typical
17:27, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> > What I didn't think was adequately solved was what Starlink shows in
> > marketing snippets, that is birds in completely different orbital
> > inclinations (sometimes close to 90 degrees off) shooting messages to
> each
> > other. La
ved was what Starlink shows in
> > marketing snippets, that is birds in completely different orbital
> > inclinations (sometimes close to 90 degrees off) shooting messages to
> each
> > other. Last I had read the dopplar effects there were so much larger due
> to
> > relati
On 2023-01-23 17:27, Tom Beecher wrote:
> What I didn't think was adequately solved was what Starlink shows in
> marketing snippets, that is birds in completely different orbital
> inclinations (sometimes close to 90 degrees off) shooting messages to each
> other. Last I had read
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 8:54 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
> Yes re: Iridium. Contrary to what the Chief Huckster may say, inter-sat comms
> are not some revolutionary thing that he invented.
1990s Iridium was a modified version of GSM/ATM with the packetization
and routing that implies. I don't know
a core requirement in Falcon9 design from the outset,
and was able to execute it.
- Nobody had 'given up' on electric cars before Musk pushed the original
founders of Tesla out.
- Musk took Solarcity in the opposite direction (down) as the rest of the
US solar industry grew.
- Starlink still
e ISC, but only between birds
currently orbiting in the same direction, because their relative speeds
were close enough that the doppler effects were manageable.
What I didn't think was adequately solved was what Starlink shows in
marketing snippets, that is birds in completely different orbit
t;. Elon for
whatever reason is insane enough to dump a lot of cash in industries which
everyone said was a dead end and then has been lucky enough to prove the
old guard wrong.
Same for pretty much everything musk does, including starlink. So if
there is anything at all "revolutionary" here
Although it would be totally
>> on-brand for them to do it some “revolutionary” new way whether it actually
>> makes any sense or not.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Matthew Petach
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan
Matthew Petach wrote:
Unlike most terrestrial links, the distances between satellites are
not fixed, and thus the latency between nodes is variable, making the
concept of "Shortest Path First" calculation a much more dynamic and
challenging one to keep current, as the latency along a path may
er it actually
>> makes any sense or not.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Matthew Petach
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read in the Econ
Solved years ago …
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielaam/92/8502886/8412572-aam.pdf
-Jorge
> On Jan 23, 2023, at 1:30 AM, Raymond Burkholder wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 1/22/23 21:54, Tom Beecher wrote:
>> Yes re: Iridium. Contrary to what the Chief Huckster may say, inter-sat
>> comms are not some
On 1/22/23 21:54, Tom Beecher wrote:
Yes re: Iridium. Contrary to what the Chief Huckster may say, inter-sat
comms are not some revolutionary thing that he invented.
It’s also not likely to function anything like they show in marketing
promos, with data magically zipping around the
On 23/01/2023 0:42, Michael Thomas wrote:
I read in the Economist that the gen of starlink satellites will have
the ability to route messages between each satellite. Would
conventional routing protocols be up to such a challenge? Or would it
have to be custom made for that problem? And since
2023 at 3:06 PM Matthew Petach
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> I read in the Economist that the gen of starlink satellites will have
>>> the ability to route messages between each satellite. Would
to do it some “revolutionary” new way whether it actually makes
any sense or not.
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Matthew Petach
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> I read in the Economist that the gen of starlink satellites will have
>&
On 1/22/23 16:05, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
I read in the Economist that the gen of starlink satellites will have
the ability to route messages between each satellite. Would
conventional
routing protocols be up
On 1/22/23 3:05 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
I read in the Economist that the gen of starlink satellites will have
the ability to route messages between each satellite. Would
conventional
routing protocols be up
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 2:45 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
> I read in the Economist that the gen of starlink satellites will have
> the ability to route messages between each satellite. Would conventional
> routing protocols be up to such a challenge? Or would it have to be
>
I read in the Economist that the gen of starlink satellites will have
the ability to route messages between each satellite. Would conventional
routing protocols be up to such a challenge? Or would it have to be
custom made for that problem? And since a lot of companies and countries
uot;Eric Kuhnke"
To: "nanog@nanog.org list"
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 2:06:57 PM
Subject: Re: starlink downlink/internet access
AS14593 is not new, they joined the SIX 3+ years ago, from an outside-of-spacex
view they have just recently within the past 12 months
SP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Eric Dugas via NANOG"
> *To: *"Tom Beecher"
> *Cc: *n
ay, January 11, 2023 10:23:15 AM
Subject: Re: starlink downlink/internet access
Starlink has nothing to do with Google Fiber. It used to use Google Cloud for
routing (BYOIP) in the early days but I am sure this has changed.
Eric
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:51 AM Tom Beecher < beec...@be
Starlink has nothing to do with Google Fiber. It used to use Google Cloud
for routing (BYOIP) in the early days but I am sure this has changed.
Eric
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:51 AM Tom Beecher wrote:
> I can say with certainty at least one downlink location is not using
> Google Fiber, a
fic to starlink here:
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net which has multiple experts on it. There
> are also quite a few folk on twitter covering what's going on there.
>
> The latest information I had was that they'd started off hooked up to
> google's stuff but have been building out their ow
I maintain an email list for issues specific to starlink here:
https://lists.bufferbloat.net which has multiple experts on it. There
are also quite a few folk on twitter covering what's going on there.
The latest information I had was that they'd started off hooked up to
google's stuff but have
Hi folks,
Anyone know/advise if Starlink internet downlink is in US Google fiber ?
I thought I saw a message before that Starlink was using Google fiber.
I was referring to the actual internet transit, not the Satellite
downlink station.
Please advise.
Sunday, June 26, 2022 00:34
> *To:* Mike Hammett
> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
>
>
>
> Mike Hammett wrote on 6/24/2022 1:22 PM:
>
>
> It's DirecTV that became part of AT, but now they're separated again.
>
> D
.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of
blakan...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2022 00:34
To: Mike Hammett
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
Mike Hammett wrote on 6/24/2022 1:22 PM:
It's DirecTV that became part of AT, but now they're separated again.
Dish Network
swisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
*From: *"Owen DeLong via NANOG"
*To: *"Michael Thomas"
*Cc: *nanog@nanog.org
*Sent: *Friday, June 24, 2022 3:14:33 PM
*Subject: *R
gt;
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Owen DeLong via NANOG&quo
Message -
From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG"
To: "Michael Thomas"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 3:14:33 PM
Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
On Jun 24, 2022, at 13:12 , Michael Thomas < m...@mtcc.com > wrote:
On 6/2
"5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined
>>>> over the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance
>>>> was never well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like
>>>> CNN. This is
his nuance was never well
understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like CNN. This is a battle for
12GHz, not 5G.
But is what Starlink saying true or not?
It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants.
Mike
It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technic
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:38 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> Frankly, I really don’t think that Dish’s idea of providing 5G mobile service
> from satellites is a particularly good or beneficial one and granting them
> 12Ghz spectrum for this purpose is probably not really in the public
> On Jun 24, 2022, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>
> It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technical details of the
> Starlink modulation scheme whether or not they could successfully share the
> 12Ghz spectrum.
>
> I have no reason to disbelieve th
ance
>> was never well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like
>> CNN. This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G.
>
> But is what Starlink saying true or not?
>
> It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants.
>
> Mike
It’s not entir
s a battle for
12GHz, not 5G.
But is what Starlink saying true or not?
It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants.
Mike
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 9:09 AM Chris Wright
wrote:
> This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G.
It's a battle to use 12Ghz for 5G cell phone tech instead of the
satellite tech it was allocated for. You could drop the 5G from that
sentence and still be correct but nobody has proposed using 4G or
blications like
> CNN. This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G.
I second that. I will try to use that last sentence if I have to get
involved that fight. Elsewhere, though, I do wish that starlink would
adopt
an fq_codel derived algorithm on the dishy and headends to smooth out
the wildly variab
--Original Message-
From: NANOG On
Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:45 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?
It appears that Eric Kuhnke said:
>Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs
>that st
I use Comcast Business for my primary at home, but it is so bad that I was
forced to get Starlink as backup. I am not in a city, but close enough that
there would be issues.
><>
nathan stratton
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:47 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Eric Kuhnke sai
It appears that Eric Kuhnke said:
>Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs
>that stomps on the same frequencies as the last 20 years of existing two
>way VSAT terminals throughout the US seems like a bad idea. Even if you
>ignore the existence of Starl
with their phased array terminals.
Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs
that stomps on the same frequencies as the last 20 years of existing two
way VSAT terminals throughout the US seems like a bad idea. Even if you
ignore the existence of Starlink, there's a myriad of low
On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 3:12 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/tech/spacex-dish-fcc-spectrum-scn/index.html
The article is super light on technical detail but I think what
they're saying is:
The 12ghz spectrum has been allocated to satellite services which have
very low
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/tech/spacex-dish-fcc-spectrum-scn/index.html
Mike
Great presentation!
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 11:16 AM Matthew Petach
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, 07:17 Dorn Hetzel wrote:
>
>> One hopes there is some respectable, perhaps even paranoid, encryption on
>> his control functions.
>>
>>>
> Talk about timely! We just had a very nice
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, 07:17 Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> One hopes there is some respectable, perhaps even paranoid, encryption on
> his control functions.
>
>>
Talk about timely! We just had a very nice presentation about this in
Austin:
One hopes there is some respectable, perhaps even paranoid, encryption on
his control functions.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 6:41 PM Mike wrote:
> You guys are missing the obvious. Russia isn't going to attack starlink in
> space, they are going to take over it's command and control fun
...@theworld.com) wrote:
>
> 1. They don't have to wait or hope for a starlink terminal to arrive.
>
> They just have to dig out an old serial modem or system with one built
> in (they were common), find a phone line which will support that, and
> figure out how to get a dial-up accoun
1. They don't have to wait or hope for a starlink terminal to arrive.
They just have to dig out an old serial modem or system with one built
in (they were common), find a phone line which will support that, and
figure out how to get a dial-up account and use it. Like most of the
world did ~20
On Thu, 2022-03-03 at 01:12 -0500, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> If Ukrainians wanted internet access and to get around blocking it'd
> probably be more effective to dig out old serial modems and get PPP
> dial-up accounts outside the country where phone service that will
> support that still exists.
TBH I doubt Putin et al could care less about a handful of starlinks
in Ukraine.
They're each basically one uplink for one or maybe a few devices in a
country of 44M.
If they did care the easiest/cheapest thing to do would be for the
Russians to sweep neighborhoods for starlink transmission
.. is that a challenge? ;-)
Its a high value target. Even the NSA had it's most critical tools
leaked.someone somewhere is going to get a foot in the door at
starlink, it's just a matter of time (money, or both...).
On 3/2/22 5:27 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I'm aware of the qualifications
Bravo! Data!
Mike
On 3/2/22 5:24 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I have just completed some very unscientific tests of DIY camouflage
materials vs a starlink terminal.
Obviously there is a lot of possible discussion that is possible about
spectrum analyzers, direction finding, jammers, etc within
I'm aware of the qualifications and level of knowledge in network
security/cryptography that they hire for positions in Redmond at Starlink
R They are quite picky about who they hire.
Highly doubt that anything that a 3rd party can do from outside of SpaceX's
network is going to gain admin
I have just completed some very unscientific tests of DIY camouflage
materials vs a starlink terminal.
Obviously there is a lot of possible discussion that is possible about
spectrum analyzers, direction finding, jammers, etc within the context of
what's going on in Ukraine right now. All very
Invade America?… um, not even close to a thing
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Thursday, 3 March 2022 12:39 pm
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine
You guys are missing the obvious. Russia isn't going to attack starlink in
space, they are going
On Wed, 2022-03-02 at 15:39 -0800, Mike wrote:
> You guys are missing the obvious. Russia isn't going to attack
> starlink in space, they are going to take over it's command and
> control functions and deorbit the entire constellation without firing
> a shot.
Gee, sure hope the mas
You guys are missing the obvious. Russia isn't going to attack starlink
in space, they are going to take over it's command and control functions
and deorbit the entire constellation without firing a shot. Same for
China and N. Korea, which both already have ample motivation already to
go after
As I'm reading this - I'm reminded that you don't need to destroy a
satellite to render it ineffective - just fill up the frequencies it's
Tx/Rx on with so much RFI that the pipe no longer bends. It's not as if the
frequencies and sat positions aren't public knowledge...
- Thomas Scott |
The Russians have several ASAT systems not all of them are ground based.
Remember they also have that grappler which locks onto satellites and
destroys them. I think this conflict will be the first one where some
of the battles will be fought in orbit ie the ultimate ‘high ground’ the
NATO
.
For Starlink, they could probably put 500 a week up, maybe more.
https://everydayastronaut.com/definitive-guide-to-starship/
Mike
On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 08:51:05 -0500, Dorn Hetzel said:
> Yeah, if Russia needs one 1st stage booster for every bird they kill, and
> SpaceX needs one 1st stage booster for every 50 they put up Yes,
> Russia is bigger than SpaceX, but that's a tremendous ratio.
Plus the asymmetry is even
their territory, and prohibiting anyone in a nation's banking
system from sending payments to SpaceX. The former is much simpler than the
latter, and also kinda what Musk's comment was all about.
Even today, Starlink has no ground stations in the Ukraine. However, sats
overflying Ukraine are able to hit
11:59 AM Scott McGrath wrote:
>
>> Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and
>> they probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit
>> a very dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds.
>&g
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:59 AM Scott McGrath wrote:
> Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and
> they probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit
> a very dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds.
&g
On Tue, 2022-03-01 at 15:18 -0500, Tom Beecher wrote:
> > Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite
> > weapons and they probably will not hesitate to use them which will
> > make low earth orbit a very dangerous place when Russia starts
> > blowing up
On 3/1/22 10:35, Crist Clark wrote:
So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for
free somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if
you can’t do business in the country?
1. Elon can afford it.
2. Marketing value is huge.
--
Jay Hennigan -
could be a great "free now, but 6 months after an
armistice is signed, you can cancel the service and return the
dish, or start paying our regular monthly service fee" type
situation.
I mean, if starlink offered you free service for N months, and
then at the end, you had to choose to retu
On Tue Mar 01, 2022 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Crist Clark wrote:
> So they???re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for free
> somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if you can???t
> do business in the country?
Who knows but someone got an imported one running
to knock down a dozen I would suggest and
the retaliation would be significant for such a blatant attack on a NATO
countries assets.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Scott
McGrath
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2022 8:57 am
To: Phineas Walton
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Starlink terminals deployed
>
> Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and
> they probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit
> a very dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds.
> I applaud the humanitarian aspect of providing S
Kinda like sending Captain Kirk on a space launch. Amazing marketing!
On 3/1/22 11:41, Phineas Walton wrote:
This is more of a brand image / marketing stunt for Starlink. A pretty
ingenious way to market which will heavily pay off long term. To them,
this is cheap for how much attention it’s
Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and
they probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit
a very dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds.
I applaud the humanitarian aspect of providing Starlink service
This is more of a brand image / marketing stunt for Starlink. A pretty
ingenious way to market which will heavily pay off long term. To them, this
is cheap for how much attention it’s getting them.
Phin
On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:36 PM Crist Clark wrote:
> So they’re going to offer the serv
d
> > by the number of visible satellites in the constellation? I wonder if
> > they've ever even tested it with feeding into an internet facing router.
> > Could tables on the satellites explode?
>
> If there aren't fixed Internet-connected earth stations line-of-sight to
> t
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
