6 ms·

Private companies will charge whatever they can. I never understood why people seek justification for a certain price. The bargaining power imbalance is plain t

Private companies will charge whatever they can. I never understood why people seek justification for a certain price. The bargaining power imbalance is plain to see. When starlink charges you $100 it's because where it does so it has competitors that charge at that level. (Pendants will challenge this). In Australia where starlink is the superior satellite service there is an inferior NBN service and various mobile services if you can get signal. In Ukraine what do the alternatives charge that have consistent service?

ROTMetro 4y ago
So war profiteering then? Since Ukraine HAD alternatives pre-war, then your model only applies because they can get away with it in a war zone. If I own the only gas station with gas after a hurricane or earthquake, I should be able to raise my rates to whatever I want?
- killingtime74 4y ago
  Is not my model it's an observation. If you don't raise prices after hurricane or earthquake you run out, which is what usually happens. This is what happened at the start of COVID with masks and hand sanitizer. It is profiteering. Read your country's local news to see if anything was done about it at the time, in mine nothing was.
- celestialcheese 4y ago
  What network alternatives do they have in the combat zones? My understanding was that communication infra was taken offline in the first few weeks of the war.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    Pre-war there were alternatives. The only reason for scarcity is the war, hence it being war profiteering.
- smileysteve 4y ago
  Many governments (especially states in the U.S) have anti price gouging laws.
  - killingtime74 4y ago
    So does mine (Australian). However during covid we didn't see much actual enforcement
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Not necessarily, having security resources to counter Russian attempts at civilian bombings is expensive from an opportunity cost standpoint.
- Animatronio 4y ago
  It's only $20 mil. If I remember correctly Raytheon was awarded a $182 mil contract to develop 2x NASAMS for Ukraine. Just ask them for a slight price cut and voila, money for SpaceX.
warbler73 4y ago
Satellites cost a lot to operate and UA is using significant bandwidth for these satellites. SpaceX is not a charity.
- thot_experiment 4y ago
  What is the operational cost of a satellite? It's all upfront cost, there is no operational cost other than running uplink stations/bandwidth on the ground. Is there really significant opportunity cost for Spacex here? I fucking doubt it, the starlink satellites serve relatively small geographic areas. I very much doubt that satellites over the Donbass are in a position where they are not making money because all the traffic that would otherwise be paid for by a bunch of people is being clobbered by priority UA mil packets. I also can't imagine that the entire UA military is particularly significant on the backbone end of things when you have large metros etc mixed in, it just doesn't line up for me.
  - celestialcheese 4y ago
    LEO sats have a lifespan (5 years IIRC), so you have to constantly refresh your constellation with new launches and sats. These launch and replacement costs will drop over time, but they aren't trivial. Don't get me wrong, it's an incredible business, but there are real operating costs to keeping the network alive.
    - thot_experiment 4y ago
      As mentioned in the other comment and the parent, Ukrainian wartime demand is not relevant to that side of the business, there aren't satellites that are deployed specifically to serve Ukraine and I am informed guessing that there is no aspect of the network that is actually degraded in a customer-losing sense, and while there may be greater bandwidth costs I am unconvinced that the total cost to Spacex is particularly high. (fwiw it would be chill of the US government to pitch them some money for the actual cost imo, but i think the actual cost to spacex (real and opportunity) is likely much smaller than the numbers being bandied about here)
  - 4y ago

ROTMetro 4y ago

So war profiteering then? Since Ukraine HAD alternatives pre-war, then your model only applies because they can get away with it in a war zone. If I own the only gas station with gas after a hurricane or earthquake, I should be able to raise my rates to whatever I want?

killingtime74 4y ago
Is not my model it's an observation. If you don't raise prices after hurricane or earthquake you run out, which is what usually happens. This is what happened at the start of COVID with masks and hand sanitizer. It is profiteering. Read your country's local news to see if anything was done about it at the time, in mine nothing was.
celestialcheese 4y ago
What network alternatives do they have in the combat zones? My understanding was that communication infra was taken offline in the first few weeks of the war.
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  Pre-war there were alternatives. The only reason for scarcity is the war, hence it being war profiteering.
smileysteve 4y ago
Many governments (especially states in the U.S) have anti price gouging laws.
- killingtime74 4y ago
  So does mine (Australian). However during covid we didn't see much actual enforcement
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Not necessarily, having security resources to counter Russian attempts at civilian bombings is expensive from an opportunity cost standpoint.
Animatronio 4y ago
It's only $20 mil. If I remember correctly Raytheon was awarded a $182 mil contract to develop 2x NASAMS for Ukraine. Just ask them for a slight price cut and voila, money for SpaceX.

warbler73 4y ago

Satellites cost a lot to operate and UA is using significant bandwidth for these satellites. SpaceX is not a charity.

thot_experiment 4y ago
What is the operational cost of a satellite? It's all upfront cost, there is no operational cost other than running uplink stations/bandwidth on the ground. Is there really significant opportunity cost for Spacex here? I fucking doubt it, the starlink satellites serve relatively small geographic areas. I very much doubt that satellites over the Donbass are in a position where they are not making money because all the traffic that would otherwise be paid for by a bunch of people is being clobbered by priority UA mil packets. I also can't imagine that the entire UA military is particularly significant on the backbone end of things when you have large metros etc mixed in, it just doesn't line up for me.
- celestialcheese 4y ago
  LEO sats have a lifespan (5 years IIRC), so you have to constantly refresh your constellation with new launches and sats. These launch and replacement costs will drop over time, but they aren't trivial. Don't get me wrong, it's an incredible business, but there are real operating costs to keeping the network alive.
  - thot_experiment 4y ago
    As mentioned in the other comment and the parent, Ukrainian wartime demand is not relevant to that side of the business, there aren't satellites that are deployed specifically to serve Ukraine and I am informed guessing that there is no aspect of the network that is actually degraded in a customer-losing sense, and while there may be greater bandwidth costs I am unconvinced that the total cost to Spacex is particularly high. (fwiw it would be chill of the US government to pitch them some money for the actual cost imo, but i think the actual cost to spacex (real and opportunity) is likely much smaller than the numbers being bandied about here)
- 4y ago