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

211–220 of 496 posts

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

#211

Post by CapmCrackaWaka »

CharlesW wrote: post #192
ericabiz wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn’t looking at this from a technical perspective, more of a business/finance/operations perspective. This is Apple we are talking about. They wouldn’t make this play without some form of vendor lock-in. They will probably choose to lock in based on hardware (“must have iPhone 14 for this capability!”) — but I wouldn’t be surprised to see them lock in on the software side as well. If I were Tim Cook, I might play…

> I wasn’t looking at this from a technical perspective, more of a business/finance/operations perspective. I understand, but an iMessages¹-only Messages² is a non-starter at Apple because it causes complexity and customer confusion, two things that Apple is stellar³ at minimizing. ¹protocol ²app ³overall, always exceptions

I find this completely false, messaging anyone on a non-iPhone (from my iPhone) is a complete disaster. Pictures / texts randomly fail to send, videos turn to 12 pixel noise, it’s so bad that an entire generation of people have friend groups that apple / android only because communication between the two phones is so bad.

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

#212

Post by mlindner »

samstave wrote: post #183
mlindner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thought you could be untrackable off grid? Think again. If you want to be untrackable and off grid why are you bringing your cell phone with you?

The idea is that airplane mode is a farce, and even if you put yourself into airplane, there is still a back-trickle... can anyone disclaim this? What are the anechoics of an airplane mode phone?

No I mean, there's a power button.

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

#213

Post by hk1337 »

We’ll see. This will be interesting to see how it plays out. Both T-Mobile and SpaceX are capable companies but they always boast these grandiose plans that technically do what they say but turn out to be lackluster.

*EDIT* excluding the space exploration division of the company. I had a brain fart for a moment and forgot about its huge successes.

I was thinking more on the satellite internet portion which this would be concentrated on with T-Mobile most likely.

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

#214

Post by easton »

CharlesW wrote: post #205
ericabiz wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, right. I agree with you on that front. I see it working this way: If you are standing on top of a mountain, right now you can’t send anything. With Apple’s upcoming announcement, you’ll be able to send an iMessage. If you try to send a SMS, it just won’t go through—-same as it would today. I hope Apple allows it for all messages, personally. But I could definitely see them restricting it, especially at the beginn…

> If you try to send a SMS, it just won’t go through—-same as it would today. I may be confused about the scenario then, because this does work for me. Specifically, when I turn off my cellular radio (I'm a T-Mobile customer) I can still send and receive messages to people not using iDevices.

Even without Wi-Fi? Because that’s the scenario they’re talking about, where nothing sends because you have no signal whatsoever.

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

#215

Post by kelnos »

xcskier56 wrote: post #91
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 choi…

So in other words, you're annoyed at this new development because you have no self control?

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

#216

Post by imwillofficial »

hk1337 wrote: post #213

We’ll see. This will be interesting to see how it plays out. Both T-Mobile and SpaceX are capable companies but they always boast these grandiose plans that technically do what they say but turn out to be lackluster. *EDIT* excluding the space exploration division of the company. I had a brain fart for a moment and forgot about its huge successes. I was thinking more on the satellite internet portion which this would…

What has SpaceX done that has turned out even remotely lackluster?

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

#217

Post by hk1337 »

imwillofficial wrote: post #216
hk1337 wrote: post #213

We’ll see. This will be interesting to see how it plays out. Both T-Mobile and SpaceX are capable companies but they always boast these grandiose plans that technically do what they say but turn out to be lackluster. *EDIT* excluding the space exploration division of the company. I had a brain fart for a moment and forgot about its huge successes. I was thinking more on the satellite internet portion which this would…

What has SpaceX done that has turned out even remotely lackluster?

Okay, excluding the space agency portion. I honestly forgot about that for some reason. Because of the nature of the post, I was focused on the satellite internet part of the company. Which has been somewhat lackluster.

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

#218

Post by intrepidhero »

kibibyte wrote: post #143
wongarsu wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4G/LTE was commonly quoted as 3km range for rural installations (using the 2GHz bands). 5G added 700MHz and 800MHz bands that are quoted as 10-20km achievable range. For typical cell tower heights 20km is about the range where they would sink behind the horizon, so that might be the practical limit here. Starlink satellites are about 330km up, so one order of magnitude further. But they also have basically unobstruct…

GPS is a thing, so I can imagine that a phone would be able to receive satellite signals pretty easily. But for transmission, I can't imagine this working without having your phone put a ton of power into sending a powerful enough signal, perhaps more so than how much power you need to passively receive GPS signals in the absence of traditional cell towers?

There are cell phone sized thingies that can send text messages to iridium's constellation, which is (as I understand it) way further away than starlink. I use one while backpacking.

I'd be super excited to get the same capability in a standard cell phone.

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

#219

Post by imwillofficial »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #210
extheat wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple phones are a lot less ubiquitous than general cell phones. Anything with an antenna and a (e)SIM card can get access to the T-mobile network, so what Apple is providing might be nice but I can't see how they compete at the level SpaceX can. And the global regulatory approvals needed will be a problem for everyone.

47% of smartphones in the USA are Apple. Seems pretty ubiquitous. T-mobile has 110 million subscribers and the population of USA is 329 million people.

They don’t even have a majority, much less ubiquity.

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

#220

Post by CharlesW »

CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #211
CharlesW wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wasn’t looking at this from a technical perspective, more of a business/finance/operations perspective. I understand, but an iMessages¹-only Messages² is a non-starter at Apple because it causes complexity and customer confusion, two things that Apple is stellar³ at minimizing. ¹protocol ²app ³overall, always exceptions

I find this completely false, messaging anyone on a non-iPhone (from my iPhone) is a complete disaster. Pictures / texts randomly fail to send, videos turn to 12 pixel noise, it’s so bad that an entire generation of people have friend groups that apple / android only because communication between the two phones is so bad.

> I find this completely false, messaging anyone on a non-iPhone (from my iPhone) is a complete disaster.

You should complain to your carrier. I'm on at least 5 different active text chains at any given time (family, friend groups, school parents) with a mix of devices, and it all works fine.

> …videos turn to 12 pixel noise…

That's an MMS limitation. If you regularly send videos, you'll want to use WhatsApp or some other non-standards-based messaging app.

Post reply on HN