4 ms·

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 some

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.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    If the Starlink business model depends on them having a monopoly of this kind of service - it shouldn't be a privately owned service. Hopefully it can stay private though - that typically allows for much greater development velocities. Maybe we just need to trust the FCC to do the right thing? :/ I want to know more about the RF issues involved here though.

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.
- tpmx 6y ago
  If the Starlink business model depends on them having a monopoly of this kind of service - it shouldn't be a privately owned service. Hopefully it can stay private though - that typically allows for much greater development velocities. Maybe we just need to trust the FCC to do the right thing? :/ I want to know more about the RF issues involved here though.