Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 496 posts

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#91

Post by xcskier56 »

xcskier56 wrote: post #78

While I see the great potential in this technology, the collateral damage is the loss of places where one can truly disconnect. I just got back from 4 days camping at a remote mountain lake with zero phone coverage, and it’s one of the most incredible ways to fully recharge and step away from the day to day treadmill of the modern world. When we loose the possibility to completely disconnect, I at least, will feel a…

To everyone saying “just don’t bring your phone”

1) Camera: iPhones are about the best lightweight camera I’m willing to purchase 2) Navigation: Offline maps with details like slope angle are critical when traveling in the backcountry in winter. Yes I use paper maps too, but some things are much easier digital. 3) I don’t want to leave it in the car to get stolen.

And about airplane mode. Yes “disconnecting is a choice”, but if the internet is just the flip of a button away, I’ve found I’m not able to keep that button off.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#92

Post by mlindner »

judge2020 wrote: post #75
mlindner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> T-Mobile plans to include the service in its most popular mobile plans but did not disclose specific pricing. No, he said that it would "most likely" be included with the most popular mobile plans for free.

"I would expect our pricing for this service to be the un-carrier's favorite price: we expect, on our most popular plans, for this service to be included for free" https://youtu.be/Qzli-Ww26Qs?t=851

Yes, that's what I said.

Edit: Downvotes are happening for some reason. "most likely" and "I would expect" mean basically the same thing unless we're playing grammar police.

The entire point of my above post was to deny the fact that they "did not disclose specific pricing". That was the part that was incorrect that I was correcting, as shown in the long form direct quote.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#93

Post by devindotcom »

Accommodating the doppler effect is non-trivial, Lynk has demonstrated it with its own satellite but doesn't exactly have the orbital presence of Starlink:

https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/29/lynk-demos-global-satellit...

This will definitely be a common thing from multiple providers in a few years though.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#94

Post by wongarsu »

lettergram wrote: post #73

Dear SpaceX, How about you just give me service in middle USA. I pre-ordered in 2021, you’re currently saying I have to wait until 2023. What gives? You’re launching over oceans, Europe, South America, why not Missouri or Indiana or Kentucky?

The satellites aren't geostationary. That satellite that's currently over your head will also travel over Europe, South America and even some oceans. Would be kind of a waste not to use it there too.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#95

Post by extheat »

joshmn wrote: post #88

I'm still baffled that I get better service in the middle of a lake in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness than on the shore. I tried T-Mobile for service, I tried Verizon, and I tried AT&T, and for whatever reason, I could run a decent speed test in the middle of many lakes, but not anywhere else.

Less network congestion probably? Maybe something in the area is causing interference on the mobile frequencies.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#96

Post by mlindner »

fogleman wrote: post #68
mlindner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't just SpaceX, this is T-Mobile as well.

"This isn't just Theranos, this is Walgreens as well."

Why do people keep comparing to Theranos when Starlink is already being used by hundreds of thousands of people? Starlink exists. In fact, SpaceX/Starlink now operates more satellites in Low Earth Orbit than every other country and business in the world, combined. Theranos had no proven track record.

Like, what's enough to satisfy you?

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#98

Post by wongarsu »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #57
samstave wrote: post #9

space based global coverage scares the shit out of me, especially when its 100% commercial interests. Thought you could be untrackable off grid? Think again. Think you can be in an RF free zone, anywhere on planet? Nope. There is no "off-grid" when your grid is literally LAT+LONG 100% data access sounds awesome until you realize that its no longer "surveillance state" and its "surveillance planet"

If you don't want to be tracked, don't carry a cellphone. If you want to live in an RF free zone, well that will be tricky. Avoid lightning storms and the sun.

Also satellite TV went up a couple decades ago.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#99

Post by fragmede »

anonymousiam wrote: post #5

I watched the announcement. Knowing Musk, I'll believe it when I see it, but it sounds promising. Apparently the G2 Starlink satellites will be equipped with large antennas to support cellular users on the existing spectrum. Video was live-streamed, and still available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzli-Ww26Qs

Self-driving cars have proven harder than expected, but given the rest of Musk's tale, I wouldn't bet against him. SpaceX is already launching satellites, and Starlink is already providing service. T-mobile owns the frequencies for it, it's "just" a matter of building the satellites and putting them into space. If the claim were more outlandish, it would be harder to buy, but the technology is eminently doable.

Re: SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas

#100

Post by mlindner »

cma wrote: post #63
Nextgrid wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this require specific hardware?

They claimed it will work on most existing phones, but they did caveat with "aspirationally" all over the place.

I didn't hear any claims of "aspirationally".
Post reply on HN