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

431–440 of 496 posts

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

#431

Post by epgui »

philistine wrote: post #304
dailykoder wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk already admitted that he was very wrong about FSD and that it's not that easy. Sure his talk was dumb and a lot of people fell for it, but that's just how marketing works.

That is not how marketing works. Show me a reputable book about marketing that says: promise something that doesn't exist.

Alternatively… Explain to me how making predictions about the future that don’t pan out is surprising or alienating to anyone reasonable.

Anyone who thinks predictions about the future hold the same weight as statements about things that currently exist ought to know better.

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

#432

Post by jdminhbg »

lrvick wrote: post #378
Cogito wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sort of? I believe they have some sort of similar solution in place for free messaging on in-flight wifi. Having a look at how they've done that might give a better idea for what this will look like than speculation. Still, it's a hard problem. They want to prioritise connectivity on an extremely low bit-rate channel that covers an extremely large geographic region. Messaging apps needs to be a part of that c…

I think it is quite simple. Just apply net neutrality rules to this like any other internet connection. If they can afford to support whitelisted messengers at a very limited data rate of 1k/s then they can afford to simply give people 1k/s of neutral internet access to use to communicate whatever data they feel is high value enough to fit over those constraints using any protocol they wish. We already have internet…

This is exactly why net neutrality rules were a bad idea, because of insane proposals like this that would kill legitimate innovation. If you are lost in the woods without a cell signal, you don't want someone downloading a podcast episode at 1k/s sucking up all the bandwidth.

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

#433

Post by diebeforei485 »

lrvick wrote: post #378
Cogito wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sort of? I believe they have some sort of similar solution in place for free messaging on in-flight wifi. Having a look at how they've done that might give a better idea for what this will look like than speculation. Still, it's a hard problem. They want to prioritise connectivity on an extremely low bit-rate channel that covers an extremely large geographic region. Messaging apps needs to be a part of that c…

I think it is quite simple. Just apply net neutrality rules to this like any other internet connection. If they can afford to support whitelisted messengers at a very limited data rate of 1k/s then they can afford to simply give people 1k/s of neutral internet access to use to communicate whatever data they feel is high value enough to fit over those constraints using any protocol they wish. We already have internet…

I don't think the speed of text messaging allows for many other meaningful data types. Someone encoding video into the GSM-7 format used by SMS will still consume more data than the typical person typing and sending text messages (which is what, 140 bytes each way per minute on average?).

There is also the difference between free and paid. Sure, if you're paying, you should be able to do whatever you want at the advertised speed and data limits. But for a free feature, I think it's alright to limit to SMS and other texting apps (already done on inflight wifi and it works just fine).

Why not just limit to SMS? Because travelers' home carriers might levy roaming charges on SMS, and WhatsApp / Telegram / iMessage is already de facto in most of the world.

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

#434

Post by ROTMetro »

dailykoder wrote: post #288
vlovich123 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me clarify. Musk claimed 6 years ago [1] that shipping Teslas would be capable of Level 5 autonomy. While Tesla’s markets their feature as “full self driving” it’s a far cry from even level 3 afaik. It’s kind of sad people fall for this. It also has lethal consequences as people assume it can do things it very well can’t (cruise control+ is really what the feature is). It’s a very obvious grift and SEC and FTC re…

Musk already admitted that he was very wrong about FSD and that it's not that easy. Sure his talk was dumb and a lot of people fell for it, but that's just how marketing works.

By 'how marketing works' do you mean 'how every software sales VP I have ever worked with works'?

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

#436

Post by irthomasthomas »

Side note:

https://mobile.twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/15629673112...

"SpaceX announced a big partnership with T-Mobile, $TMUS.

But $TMUS gets 0 options activity.

Before the 12:24 pre-news yesterday, someone swept 112k into $TMUS $150 calls for 6/16/2023 at 11:50am!

The 30k volume sustained next day, a 1000% increase.

Unusual."

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

#437

Post by bottlepalm »

fivestarman wrote: post #420
bottlepalm wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's actually a pretty incredible engineer who was been making important engineering decisions daily for 20 years. Decisions that make or break products and companies.

He never studied to be an engineer. He doesn't have his name on any designs or inventions within his companies. He isn't an engineer. A lot of claims have been made that he also hasn't actually coded anything that's been used. The guy is a liar, look it up. Go on youtube and search "elon musk debunked". There are lots of videos with sources showing how elon is a fraud.

Elon has a degree in physics. You think you can only work as an engineer if the word 'engineer' is the degree you have? Many engineers have degrees in physics among other foundational sciences - math, chemistry, etc... They make for especially good engineers.

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

#438

Post by lrvick »

Sporktacular wrote: post #407
lrvick wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was simply pointing out Starlink supporting SMS is not good enough, even with layers like Silence on top.

Good enough for what? If you have SMS where you didn't before you're still equally free to not use it. Personally I like the idea of always having a simple channel for emergencies.

Not good enough to be the only standard form of communication permitted other than a handful of centralized proprietary apps.

A journalist or a dissident may wish to get critical communications out from a remote area without exposing their identity or location.

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

#439

Post by lrvick »

jdminhbg wrote: post #432
lrvick wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is quite simple. Just apply net neutrality rules to this like any other internet connection. If they can afford to support whitelisted messengers at a very limited data rate of 1k/s then they can afford to simply give people 1k/s of neutral internet access to use to communicate whatever data they feel is high value enough to fit over those constraints using any protocol they wish. We already have internet…

This is exactly why net neutrality rules were a bad idea, because of insane proposals like this that would kill legitimate innovation. If you are lost in the woods without a cell signal, you don't want someone downloading a podcast episode at 1k/s sucking up all the bandwidth.

Maybe they are downloading a low res video demonstrating an emergency field medicine procedure to save a life far from hospitals. Maybe they are a journalist or a whistleblower uploading a picture that may change the outcome of a war.

A central party trying to decide what data is most important is going to be wrong when it counts most.

If a single user is monopolizing all bandwidth and a new user joins, throttle the existing user in half to make room.

There might also need to be a way to signal a need for emergency bandwidth, 911 style, that can give you priority access for a short time window, with the option for a carrier to cut off your device IMEI entirely if it is used too frequently.

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

#440

Post by lrvick »

crangos wrote: post #396
lrvick wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was simply pointing out Starlink supporting SMS is not good enough, even with layers like Silence on top.

A major use case is in emergency situations or catastrophes when no classical cell service is available. If you are hoping to message someone to rescue you, I don't think anonymity is your concern.

Unless you are a journalist or a dissident and need to relay information that will save human lives, but cannot risk exposing your identity, location, or the message content to anyone but the recipients.

Not all emergencies are the same.

Post reply on HN