4 ms·

> The far more expensive part, however, is the ongoing connectivity. SpaceX says it has paid for about 70% of the service provided to Ukraine and claims to have

by Rapzid 4y ago

> The far more expensive part, however, is the ongoing connectivity. SpaceX says it has paid for about 70% of the service provided to Ukraine and claims to have offered that highest level – $4,500 a month – to all terminals in Ukraine despite the majority only having signed on for the cheaper $500 per month service. Dang, SpaceX is taking them to the cleaners.

wmf 4y ago
For comparison, consumer Starlink service costs 230 PLN ($47) per month in Poland. AFAIK the consumer plan is not throttled, so what are they getting for $4,500?
- simonh 4y ago
  They’re not the same devices. The premium terminals support higher data rates up to double those of the basic consumer units. There may be other improvements and advantages as well, there was talk of wider field of view of the sky, multiple simultaneous satellite tracking and redundant connections but I don’t know if those features made it into these devices. Starlink prioritised Ukraine for the latest gear.
  - wmf 4y ago
    If they knew it was just going to be a free trial, maybe everyone involved would have rejected the premium terminals. I wonder if the premium terminals are even faster when there are so many of them clogging the network.
    - simonh 4y ago
      >maybe everyone involved would have rejected the premium terminals Sure, maybe they should have. Maybe that would have been much better for them. They're grown ups, I'm sure they would make the right decision.
    - jhgb 4y ago
      I bet one of the issues is that there's actually too few of them. While Ukraine is fairly small compared to the US, it's still no slouch. The front was as long at one point as the distance between the northern and southern border of the US. A few thousand ground terminal in such a large area make what seems to be a sub-optimal number of ground terminals per base station. Normally the "non-premium" terminals would be oversubscribed in an area and the ISP would rely on usage statistics to determine the economic optimum, but here you might have a situation where the "non-premium" pricing may not reflect the service available (there may be more connectivity available per terminal, because there's so few of them) nor the costs incurred (the same amount of effort is spent on servicing a small number of terminals). The upside is that the ground terminals can each be shared by many people so it's not all that expensive per connected individual -- you're just splitting the costs at the level of connected individuals, not at the level of privately owned terminals.
  - rasz 4y ago
    But majority of terminals were bought by third parties. State Department (USAID) paid for ~2K, Poland bought >11K units. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-ukraine https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex... > The largest single contributor of terminals, according to the newly obtained documents, is Poland with payment for almost 9,000 individual terminals. https://twitter.com/j_jakobowski/status/1579889819010097154 https://twitter.com/j_jakobowski/status/1579889819010097154 >~11.7k out of 18k Starlink sets in were bought by Poland. >6,7k by Polish government and 5k by Polish oil company Orlen
    - bobdvb 4y ago
      Another good thread about how the terminals and subscriptions have been done from someone else whose been buying them: https://twitter.com/dim0kq/status/1580827171903635456 https://twitter.com/dim0kq/status/1580827171903635456
    - DeWilde 4y ago
      The terminals aren't the issue here hut rather the operational service provided to the terminals: the satellites providing connectivity.
    - simonh 4y ago
      That's correct, Starlink provided 3,670 of the premium terminals at their own cost, plus (so far) free premium service to all of the terminals provided as aid, including those bought by USAID and various governments. There are further consumer grade terminals individuals and crowd funders have provided entirely at their own cost including service.
- mlindner 4y ago
  You're pumping a lot less data through than military guys constantly using cell phones on the internet while sitting in trenches 24/7 and/or streaming steady real time video from drones and video chat. Elon posted a graph of the data usage in Ukraine here: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580572380535001088 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580572380535001088
  - attentive 4y ago
    useless without number of terminals stat

by Rapzid 4y ago

wmf 4y ago

For comparison, consumer Starlink service costs 230 PLN ($47) per month in Poland. AFAIK the consumer plan is not throttled, so what are they getting for $4,500?

simonh 4y ago
They’re not the same devices. The premium terminals support higher data rates up to double those of the basic consumer units. There may be other improvements and advantages as well, there was talk of wider field of view of the sky, multiple simultaneous satellite tracking and redundant connections but I don’t know if those features made it into these devices. Starlink prioritised Ukraine for the latest gear.
- wmf 4y ago
  If they knew it was just going to be a free trial, maybe everyone involved would have rejected the premium terminals. I wonder if the premium terminals are even faster when there are so many of them clogging the network.
  - simonh 4y ago
    >maybe everyone involved would have rejected the premium terminals Sure, maybe they should have. Maybe that would have been much better for them. They're grown ups, I'm sure they would make the right decision.
  - jhgb 4y ago
    I bet one of the issues is that there's actually too few of them. While Ukraine is fairly small compared to the US, it's still no slouch. The front was as long at one point as the distance between the northern and southern border of the US. A few thousand ground terminal in such a large area make what seems to be a sub-optimal number of ground terminals per base station. Normally the "non-premium" terminals would be oversubscribed in an area and the ISP would rely on usage statistics to determine the economic optimum, but here you might have a situation where the "non-premium" pricing may not reflect the service available (there may be more connectivity available per terminal, because there's so few of them) nor the costs incurred (the same amount of effort is spent on servicing a small number of terminals). The upside is that the ground terminals can each be shared by many people so it's not all that expensive per connected individual -- you're just splitting the costs at the level of connected individuals, not at the level of privately owned terminals.
- rasz 4y ago
  But majority of terminals were bought by third parties. State Department (USAID) paid for ~2K, Poland bought >11K units. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-ukraine https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex... > The largest single contributor of terminals, according to the newly obtained documents, is Poland with payment for almost 9,000 individual terminals. https://twitter.com/j_jakobowski/status/1579889819010097154 https://twitter.com/j_jakobowski/status/1579889819010097154 >~11.7k out of 18k Starlink sets in were bought by Poland. >6,7k by Polish government and 5k by Polish oil company Orlen
  - bobdvb 4y ago
    Another good thread about how the terminals and subscriptions have been done from someone else whose been buying them: https://twitter.com/dim0kq/status/1580827171903635456 https://twitter.com/dim0kq/status/1580827171903635456
  - DeWilde 4y ago
    The terminals aren't the issue here hut rather the operational service provided to the terminals: the satellites providing connectivity.
  - simonh 4y ago
    That's correct, Starlink provided 3,670 of the premium terminals at their own cost, plus (so far) free premium service to all of the terminals provided as aid, including those bought by USAID and various governments. There are further consumer grade terminals individuals and crowd funders have provided entirely at their own cost including service.
mlindner 4y ago
You're pumping a lot less data through than military guys constantly using cell phones on the internet while sitting in trenches 24/7 and/or streaming steady real time video from drones and video chat. Elon posted a graph of the data usage in Ukraine here: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580572380535001088 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580572380535001088
- attentive 4y ago
  useless without number of terminals stat