>Free, Not free according to Musk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4&t=12m37s > Well it can't be free. Because then we'll, like, we'll go out of business. [laugh] > No, no, it can't be free to the user. I don't think so. > This would be... this would cost a lot to build. Ultimately over time to build the full version of the system, we're talking about something that would be 10 or 15 billion dollars to crea…
Nothing a company builds is free. And I think it's better to pay with money than with data. Not saying you're not paying with both here.
Absolutely. Money is once...you pay it to someone, they pay it to someone else, they no longer have it. When you pay someone with your data, they have that forever and can monetize it hundreds of different ways over and over long after you've moved on or stopped using whatever you got from them.
>Free, Not free according to Musk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4&t=12m37s > Well it can't be free. Because then we'll, like, we'll go out of business. [laugh] > No, no, it can't be free to the user. I don't think so. > This would be... this would cost a lot to build. Ultimately over time to build the full version of the system, we're talking about something that would be 10 or 15 billion dollars to crea…
15 billion to develop and deploy to space over four thousand satelites (not ignoring the fact that developing the prototype costs orders of magnitude more than simply assemblying the rest) seems like a gross underestimation...
People have been trying this for decades without success. McCaw and Gates tried it in the 90s with Teledesic, for example. Iridium also tried it without success. IIRC, Teledesic's early estimates 20 years ago were ~$10B.
Tesla vehicles already come with free data! Built-in international roaming 4G SIM. Free data for first 4 years.
How much does it cost after then? Is it bring your own SIM?
They haven't announced pricing yet, or even when they'll start charging. As far as I know, the SIM isn't really user-removable so once they do start charging, you'll have to pay Tesla.
>Free, Not free according to Musk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHeZHyOnsm4&t=12m37s > Well it can't be free. Because then we'll, like, we'll go out of business. [laugh] > No, no, it can't be free to the user. I don't think so. > This would be... this would cost a lot to build. Ultimately over time to build the full version of the system, we're talking about something that would be 10 or 15 billion dollars to crea…
There was an article on HN at some point talking about how GPS is one of the first free-for-everyone services ever. GPS requires maintaining an array of satellites, but governments have decided that footing the bill for maintenance is worth it to give the whole planet access to GPS.
First, GPS is the US, not "governments". The US owns it, period. There's only one reasonably functional alternative and that's GLONASS which is Russian. There is no communal body or activity supporting GPS other than the US (and by extension US taxpayers). The US can deny access to GPS anytime it wishes through a feature called Selective Availability (SA). This was turned off in the early 2000s and the official US position is that it "has no intent" to turn it on again but there's nothing preventing it. Second, access to GPS (the receivers) is further regulated by the US under certain conditions (ie those that would provide a military advantage) and require an ITAR license from the US. Third, GPS was developed and is maintained specifically for defense/military purposes. Public GPS is less capable and the more capable military signals are encrypted. Sure, it is used by the public, but that is not the primary use case. Granted, this is evolving as the US is at the forefront of things like autonomous vehicles and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications which require precise positioning data but the intent was and is to support US efforts primarily military. Any global benefit is purely incidental.
Free, global internet access is the next step toward a smarter, more progressive planet. I don't even care about the speed - if the only thing users could access was wikipedia, I'd still personally donate to the project. I cannot emphasize how important democratizing knowledge is to me (and many others).
Spreading true (well, at least less wrong) information is a noble goal. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we're not seeing such information availability providing avenues towards a smarter, more progressive planet. Instead, the internet seems to be helping people create cocoons of ignorance and "evidence" to support even the most specious claims - such as the world being flat. Knowledge does not seem to be enough. Wisdom a…
15 billion to develop and deploy to space over four thousand satelites (not ignoring the fact that developing the prototype costs orders of magnitude more than simply assemblying the rest) seems like a gross underestimation...
People have been trying this for decades without success. McCaw and Gates tried it in the 90s with Teledesic, for example. Iridium also tried it without success. IIRC, Teledesic's early estimates 20 years ago were ~$10B.
But hasn't satellite technology changed significantly in the interim since 90's with much smaller payloads i.e CubeSats and FemtoSats. These should theoretically result in lower deployment costs:
True. Some believe in an open global community and some freedoms that come with that, in many different nuances. So a global communication network that supports that is great. With an open society comes freedom of speech and other related freedoms. Most certainly freedom of opinions, even when the actual opinions and fervent activities from some groups contrasts fully with foundation of the open society. Mostly, inte…
> Power is profoundly addictive and corrupting. I would argue that a small taste of power corrupted the left. When they started censoring conservative views, banning conservative speakers on campuses, "no platforming", they were not defending freedom.
The corrupting aspect of power is nonpartisan. It affects the right, and it affects the left.
> Power is profoundly addictive and corrupting. I would argue that a small taste of power corrupted the left. When they started censoring conservative views, banning conservative speakers on campuses, "no platforming", they were not defending freedom.
The corrupting aspect of power is nonpartisan. It affects the right, and it affects the left.
Indeed.
The comment I responded to, however, was partisan and I was simply adding balance.
That "shakeup" was a vote to regress things to how they were in the past. It was a vote to rollback changes, not go in a new direction. It was a fundamental part of the campaign slogan: "again". I'm not sure if you noticed, but both houses went Republican, and the Republicans who have been controlling congress for the past 6 years have been stonewalling and blocking everything. The people who were voted in? They actu…
> The Republicans in particular are not going to change the current system, and Trump, even if he wanted to, can't do it without a 2/3rds majority for the constitutional change. There are actually two ways to pass a constitutional amendment. 2/3 of both Federal legislative houses is one, but they can also do it with 2/3 of all state legislatures. Republicans do very well in the state legislatures, they're only about…
There are 2 ways to propose constitutional amendments. And a constitutional convention is is unlikely.