Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

291–300 of 496 posts

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

#291

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.

They could put-compete if they can create an iPhone with extra powerful antennas or other hardware. Like they always do- own the full stack to allow it to work better.

you can't create "extra powerful antennas" in a cell phone. it's physics, and antenna gain is driven by size.

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

#292

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.

Apple could partner with SpaceX and T-Mobile, like they did with AT&T and the original iPhone launch instead of trying to compete with them.

They could, but they’ve supposedly been working on hardware support for Globalstar satellites in the next iPhone for 2 years.

They want this as a differentiator from Android. Starlink will work on Android too.

So maybe it would actually make sense for Google to partner with them somehow (I believe they’re also a SpaceX investor) but I’m not sure how.

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

#293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could put-compete if they can create an iPhone with extra powerful antennas or other hardware. Like they always do- own the full stack to allow it to work better.

you can't create "extra powerful antennas" in a cell phone. it's physics, and antenna gain is driven by size.

And then you need to design it in a way that it’s not blocked by somebody’s hand when they hold the phone.

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

#294
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?

starlink so far has been lackluster compared to the promises, and it's only getting worse.

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

#295

How does the radio link budget work from the cell phone to the satellite? (I understand downlink can work with powerful tx at the satellite end but most cell phones transmitters are much lower power)

this is why he said it could take 30 min to get a text out. it's essentially noise/a very low bit rate on uplink.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

iPhones are the plurality. If you have a few random people together in the US there’s a good chance one of them in an iPhone. Pretty sure that’s what they meant.

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

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the... is that what's possible with 5G? Amazing, and even days ago I was thinking of satellite smartphone internet as something scifi because of (clearly incorrect!) complicated antenna requirements.

I think the "complicated antenna requirements" still exist - they've just put the complicated antenna on the satellite, instead of on the phone.

Yeah that's not how it works. You can't just "put the complicated antenna on the satellite, instead of on the phone" and declare this problem solved. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

I'm declaring shenanigans right now on Elon's pitch but what else is new. It makes me sad that this thread is full of (probably) SWEs in a complete froth who took this at face value with little understanding of how antennas work. No, your existing phone will not be able to work on this service, full stop.

The issue is not getting signal from the satellite to your phone. That's the easy part - after all, your phone receives GPS signals. Satellites have powerful transmitters and high-gain antennas. Even GPS which is considered extremely low-power has a TX power of around 20-25 watts and EIRP is probably an order of magnitude higher after the antenna (probably enough to turn your eyeballs into Easter eggs if you were standing in front of it). The issue is going the other way. For messaging to work, your phone needs a two-way connection. Your current iPhone/Android handset is simply not designed for satellite communication.

"But muh Garmin inReach" ..... have you stared at one and wondered "why can't my iPhone do this"? First, the antenna is the size of a thumb, it looks like a helical antenna to me, which would make sense given that most satellite communications uses something called "circular polarization" to combat things like the Faraday effect. This requires an antenna specifically designed for it. Your iPhone doesn't have one, which means more signal loss. Iridium phones look similar - very Michael Douglas in Wall Street industrial design. Satellite phones and communicators are designed to direct most of the energy upwards towards the sky. Your existing phone does not so you are losing most of the energy in an omnidirectional pattern. Even things like 406 MHz emergency beacons send extremely short message bursts - just a few bytes - the link budget needed to sustain an IP connection (uplink) with an existing handset just isn't there.

So I'm expecting Elon to deliver on the magical complicated-super-antenna that works with your existing mobile handset right around the same time he gives us his FSD Cybertruck. Which is to say, never.

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

iPhones are stuck with MMS limitations because Apple won't support RCS.

Hopefully they never will. Nothing I’ve read about RCS in the last two months has convinced me it is anything other than a security and spam hole waiting to happen. If there’s to be an inter-operable standard between Apple and Android, I think it has to be Apple and Google-driven rather than something that makes the carriers happy. Anything at all to reduce their role to dumb IP-carrying pipes is aces in my books.

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

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the... is that what's possible with 5G? Amazing, and even days ago I was thinking of satellite smartphone internet as something scifi because of (clearly incorrect!) complicated antenna requirements.

Satellite smartphone internet is still sci fi. This is extremely low bandwidth and intended for sending extremely high latency text chats. Elon said in the presentation that it could be as much as 30 mins between hitting send and the message going through. This competes with existing stuff from existing satellite providers. It’s really really cool, and doesn’t need to be full on smartphone satellite internet to fulfi…

His 30 minute example was when there are only a few satellites in space. Once many are active, it would allegedly become near-realtime.
Post reply on HN