That's great in theory, and folks should be using DNSSEC [1], but we all know there's plenty of
places out there in this wide world that don't do things right, and absolutely *do* rely on packets
getting to the correct place.
I'm not saying we shouldn't whack those folks with a cluestick [1] (w
>
> part of that is because the markets never materialized to justify funding
> to improve it.
>
Not like there's funding here either ; Musk has been playing the same
financial shell games here that he did with SolarCity. Even before the FCC
disqualified them for the $900M in broadband funds , t
>
> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the
> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight
> termination system.
>
The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the first
time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will contin
IP addresses cannot and should not be trusted. It’s not like you can really
trust your packets going to B _today_ are going to and from the real B (or
Bs).
If the security of DNS relies on no one intercepting or spoofing responses
of some of your queries to a root server, it’s been game over for a
There are probably a few more than 100 000 ocean going ships in the world.
There are maybe 60 000 airliners. They may be able to charge more per unit,
maybe several times more, but it’s still orders of magnitude below the size
of the consumer market.
It’s not like satellite Internet is a new thing
On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:41 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
>>
>> You are also assuming their only product is Home Internet. Providing
>> Internet to ships at sea, planes in the sky and other more unconventional
>> uses will provide a lot more revenue than the home Internet will.
>
>
> I am not assuming
On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
>>
>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
>> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
>> really drive down the launch cost.
>
>
> Starship is years away from being flight ready.
On 6/17/23 4:14 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x
more capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that
is going to really drive down the launch cost.
Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent
>
> You are also assuming their only product is Home Internet. Providing
> Internet to ships at sea, planes in the sky and other more unconventional
> uses will provide a lot more revenue than the home Internet will.
>
I am not assuming that at all.
There is absolutely a market for sat internet.
>
> Where did you see that? So far as I can tell, the failure rate,
> exclusive of one launch lost to solar expansion, is trending towards
> zero. Also, maneuvering thrust (documented somewhere) has been quite
> under expectations, in terms of operating fuel they could use the
> existing sats for f
You are also assuming their only product is Home Internet. Providing Internet to ships at sea, planes in the sky and other more unconventional uses will provide a lot more revenue than the home Internet will.On Jun 17, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:You’re assuming the launches are costing t
>
> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more
> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to
> really drive down the launch cost.
>
Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test launch
from Texas was not a 'successful
I am happy to see the conversation about starlink escaping over here,
because it is increasingly a game-changing technology (I also run the
starlink mailing list, cc´d)...
On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 3:56 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
>>
>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics ar
>
> You’re assuming the launches are costing them something, which in fact may
> not be true. Rumor has it, they are piggybacking on other payloads which
> pay for the launches, particularly government contracts.
>
Assuming they are, they aren't doing enough of those launches to piggyback
enough s
Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking
about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like
it could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying
tech reason.
Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x
You’re assuming the launches are costing them something, which in fact may not be true. Rumor has it, they are piggybacking on other payloads which pay for the launches, particularly government contracts.On Jun 17, 2023, at 5:54 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that th
>
> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are the
> real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling demand
> because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to
> overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe
On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner
rather than later?
Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for
those services to completely replace terrestrial only service.
Why would they put up 40
>
> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner
> rather than later?
>
Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for those
services to completely replace terrestrial only service.
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 6/16/23
>
> I have not heard of any mention of Starlink having caps as part of their
> service. Having said that, for services like this, things change as the
> number of customers using them rises.
>
They were proposing data caps to roll out this year, but they abandoned
that in lieu of a 'priority tier.
On 6/17/23 7:12 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
Bill-
Don't say, "We'll keep it up for as long as we feel like it, but at
least a year." That's crap.
30% of the root servers have been renumbered in the last 25 years.
h : 2015
d: 2013
l : 2007
j : 2002
For these 4 cases, only a 6 month tran
Bill-
Don't say, "We'll keep it up for as long as we feel like it, but at
> least a year." That's crap.
>
30% of the root servers have been renumbered in the last 25 years.
h : 2015
d: 2013
l : 2007
j : 2002
For these 4 cases, only a 6 month transition time was provided, and the
internet as we
This seems worse :)
'we are collecting data about you, but didn't bother thinking if it is needed'
On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 at 22:55, Livingood, Jason via NANOG
wrote:
>
> In the meantime please just select some unrelated industry on the form. We
> don’t care – it seems to be boilerplate.
>
>
>
> Fr
23 matches
Mail list logo
