5 ms·

Because everyone else who has tried has gone bankrupt or has to limit the service in utterly crappy ways? Starlink is only economically and technically viable b

Because everyone else who has tried has gone bankrupt or has to limit the service in utterly crappy ways? Starlink is only economically and technically viable because SpaceX can build and launch high numbers of satellites cheaply enough to bootstrap a sustainable and desirable product. Limiting the scalability of Starlink to make room for a competitor would in the long run make both suck. Now, sclerotic and poor performing monopolies also suck, but for now at least, Starlink is the rapidly improving disruptor.

FireBeyond 6y ago
So what, we allow Starlink to artificially hobble any potential competitors now? That sounds good for us.
- nickik 6y ago
  That's not that they are doing. That is what Amazon claims they are doing with no prove. SpaceX is slightly changing it system (non of its hardware). Amazon reserving an a huge orbit and without real data claiming anybody else that want to operate there is only trying to prevent their system. That is unreasonable. Amazon is trying to artificial hobble Starlink, not the other way around. If Amazon really designed it system in a way where Starlink hinders it, then why would Amazon be allowed to operate such a system? Such a system would mean nobody else can operate in such an orbit. Based on similar claims SpaceX could have attempted to prevent Amazon system but they didn't because they knew it wouldn't, and did want to make false claims about it.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    > Amazon reserving an a huge orbit and without real data claiming anybody else that want to operate there is only trying to prevent their system. That is unreasonable. Spacelink reserved a similar huge orbit and said they didn't want the orbit that Amazon wants. Now they changed their mind. > SpaceX is slightly changing it system (non of its hardware). Sorry. Not changed their mind, changed their system. Precisely into the system they said they didn't want and Amazon subsequently chose.
tpmx 6y ago
> Now, sclerotic and poor performing monopolies also suck, but for now at least, Starlink is the rapidly improving disruptor. for now at least Please think more long term.
- yokem55 6y ago
  In the long run, we're all dead. So let's say we hold back the scaling of Starlink to make sure there is room for future competition. That might make for a somewhat better future. It also might just stifle the whole project in it's cradle.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    > In the long run, we're all dead. Okay, so think 10, 20 and 40 years from now. > So let's say we hold back the scaling of Starlink to make sure there is room for future competition. That might make for a somewhat better future. It also might just stifle the whole project in it's cradle. I guess here is where credible EE/RF journalism would be desirable. You don't know (and I don't know) but you want to stop this because it might maybe hurt Starlink too much.
    - optimiz3 6y ago
      If it's a problem in 10, 20 or 40 years, we can deal with it then. The anti-trust tools are there. Also the current LEO satellites de-orbit in 5-10 years, so the concern is moot if Amazon actually gets their stuff together.
    - Seanambers 6y ago
      From a more strategic viewpoint ; If you assume SpaceX tech gets copied and reuse becomes the norm for rockets then Starlink would face competition. Over time the costs would fall both with regards to launches but also in the satellite part of it, meaning Starlink competitors would be able to do it for less. Slowing Spacex/Starlink now would only serve the help their competitors and punish a first mover. But on the EE/RF side of it i have no idea what arguments are legit and so forth tbh.

FireBeyond 6y ago

So what, we allow Starlink to artificially hobble any potential competitors now? That sounds good for us.

nickik 6y ago
That's not that they are doing. That is what Amazon claims they are doing with no prove. SpaceX is slightly changing it system (non of its hardware). Amazon reserving an a huge orbit and without real data claiming anybody else that want to operate there is only trying to prevent their system. That is unreasonable. Amazon is trying to artificial hobble Starlink, not the other way around. If Amazon really designed it system in a way where Starlink hinders it, then why would Amazon be allowed to operate such a system? Such a system would mean nobody else can operate in such an orbit. Based on similar claims SpaceX could have attempted to prevent Amazon system but they didn't because they knew it wouldn't, and did want to make false claims about it.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  > Amazon reserving an a huge orbit and without real data claiming anybody else that want to operate there is only trying to prevent their system. That is unreasonable. Spacelink reserved a similar huge orbit and said they didn't want the orbit that Amazon wants. Now they changed their mind. > SpaceX is slightly changing it system (non of its hardware). Sorry. Not changed their mind, changed their system. Precisely into the system they said they didn't want and Amazon subsequently chose.

tpmx 6y ago

> Now, sclerotic and poor performing monopolies also suck, but for now at least, Starlink is the rapidly improving disruptor. for now at least Please think more long term.

yokem55 6y ago
In the long run, we're all dead. So let's say we hold back the scaling of Starlink to make sure there is room for future competition. That might make for a somewhat better future. It also might just stifle the whole project in it's cradle.
- tpmx 6y ago
  > In the long run, we're all dead. Okay, so think 10, 20 and 40 years from now. > So let's say we hold back the scaling of Starlink to make sure there is room for future competition. That might make for a somewhat better future. It also might just stifle the whole project in it's cradle. I guess here is where credible EE/RF journalism would be desirable. You don't know (and I don't know) but you want to stop this because it might maybe hurt Starlink too much.
  - optimiz3 6y ago
    If it's a problem in 10, 20 or 40 years, we can deal with it then. The anti-trust tools are there. Also the current LEO satellites de-orbit in 5-10 years, so the concern is moot if Amazon actually gets their stuff together.
  - Seanambers 6y ago
    From a more strategic viewpoint ; If you assume SpaceX tech gets copied and reuse becomes the norm for rockets then Starlink would face competition. Over time the costs would fall both with regards to launches but also in the satellite part of it, meaning Starlink competitors would be able to do it for less. Slowing Spacex/Starlink now would only serve the help their competitors and punish a first mover. But on the EE/RF side of it i have no idea what arguments are legit and so forth tbh.