• JasminIstMuede@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Normally I associate such price swings with wild speculation and am genuinely surprised with this considering the generally more prevalent conservatism in European financial markets, but perhaps it’s true that the (time of reading) 550% jump in value is all accurate pricing in of future contracts at this point.

      I’m definitely excited to see.

      • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        it was like 1.20€ per share, so investors don’t really had much to lose. that plays a big part IMO. if you’re only losing a few bucks worst case, the risk isn’t a problem.

        • JasminIstMuede@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          While price does negatively (with few outliers) correlate with volatility in the stock market, this seems like more than that. 22M volume on the 5th is more than the stock has seen… ever, as far as I can see, with an overwhelming majority being held by insiders or institutions. The bet appears to be larger than a few bucks, from people who I presume expect big things.

  • zaxvenz@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    1 day ago

    Key points:

    1. Shares of French satellite operator Eutelsat skyrocketed almost 390% last week.
    2. Eutelsat shares continued to climb Monday, jumping more than 22%.
    3. The gains follows speculation that Eutelsat could replace Elon Musk’s Starlink in Ukraine.
  • jjpamsterdam@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 day ago

    Man, I remember using Eutelsat to send and receive E-Mails in Afghanistan in the early 2000s. Of course back then we needed a giant receiver in the back yard of the compound. It was slow as hell, incredibly expensive, but the only reliable way of getting an internet connection after the end of the (first) Taliban regime. The world really has changed so much in the last twenty years, unfortunately more for worse than for better in my opinion.

  • alberto1stone@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 day ago

    I see this radical development of the share as an expression of great hope that Eutelsat will be able to replace Starlink and, if possible, in the short term. I wonder whether this is technically possible, e.g. due to the production and launch volume of satellites or the available bandwidths. Do any of you have figures to compare both companies.

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      24 hours ago

      I think what has made starlink possible at all has been that musk also owns SpaceX so he can launch a shit ton of satellites. No other launch provider can match their cadence, so I’d guess that will be a limiting factor

      • MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Oneweb is medium altitude unlike starlink which is low altitude, so you don’t need as many. It doesn’t have as much capability but it’s fine. But when starship is operational there will be plenty of capacity to launch a lot more sats and get more capacity.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          21 hours ago

          NGL, I’ve always hated starlink’s proposal. They last so little time and polute the sky making astronomy harder and raising risks of collision. It’s LEO littering for a product that could be substituted with existing infrastructure tech at a fraction of the cost.

          • MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 hours ago

            The current amount is only about a third of the total planned amount.

              • MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                It will be the largest number though. They’re the only ones that are bothering to do such a low orbit, because that gives you lower latency but means you have to have a lot more in orbit for the same coverage and they don’t last as long before the orbit decays. They can do that because the launches are basically free

      • Zwiebel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        23 hours ago

        They only need to cover the band that orbits over Ukraine for now tho, not the entire world right

        • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s still a lot since those satellites aren’t geostationary. To guarantee a stable, permanent connection in all of Ukraine and the adjacent Sea I’d assume you might need up to 3 of those bands of satellites. Now, fortunately, Ukraine doesn’t necessarily require a lot of bandwidth. It just has to be a reliable few mbps that can be easily set up everywhere.

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    lol … Turnip and his cronies are probably jumping on the bandwagon … while also banking on the losses of Starlink