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

Starlink Aviation

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 526 posts

Re: Starlink Aviation

#121

Post by freetime2 »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #104
zulban wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shouldn't providing down payment legally guarantee to buy a service at original said price? Why would it? What does your contract say? It sounds like you just gave a company your money and got nothing legally binding in exchange. Don't do that.

Preorders and reservations of unreleased products are for people who like to get screwed, or for people with so much money they don't care if they get screwed. I know people who preorder AAA games, the game turns out to be crap and they complain about it. "Ugh, I can't believe I preordered this crap." Then a year later they're doing it again... "Doctor, it hurts when I poke my eye!" Uh, then stop doing that.

Preorders seem entirely reasonable to me for things that are likely to be in short supply after launch. I recently pre-ordered an iPhone and was happy to receive one promptly after they started shipping. Games seem to be a fairly meaningless thing to pre-order in a world of digital downloads - but I could see the reason behind pre-ordering some limited edition release, for example.

Obviously you need to be careful, know what your options are to cancel, and make sure you trust the company - especially if they require a deposit. But for me getting something a couple of weeks or months earlier than I would otherwise be able to is a benefit that I am often willing to assume some amount of risk for.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#122

Post by MichaelCollins »

eganist wrote: post #105

Edit: a fatal assumption that it's the airlines providing the service underpins my original post below, whereas instead it's the providers charging passengers directly. That's an entirely different model from below, so disregard my original comment aside maybe my last line. Preserving the comment for context though. --- At 25,000/mo, assuming a jet makes 60 trans-con segments in the US per month and a price of $20 pe…

Starlink may provide other value to airlines besides fees from passengers. Streaming high resolution telemetry, or spying on their employees with webcams, or something like that.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#123

Post by rippercushions »

eganist wrote: post #105

Edit: a fatal assumption that it's the airlines providing the service underpins my original post below, whereas instead it's the providers charging passengers directly. That's an entirely different model from below, so disregard my original comment aside maybe my last line. Preserving the comment for context though. --- At 25,000/mo, assuming a jet makes 60 trans-con segments in the US per month and a price of $20 pe…

I think the $25,000/mo is just an opening gambit. For comparison, the list price for Starline Marine is $5,000/mo with a one-time hardware cost of $10,000, and even that seems padded to extract maximum value from yacht owners, cargo ships, etc.

Also, while I imagine the logistics of bouncing 350 MBps from satellite to satellite at 1000 km/h will impose significant overhead, a lot of the places where people will want this service the most (trans-Atlantic, trans-Pacific, Kansas cornfields etc) will have very few if any other users.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#124

Post by dirtyid »

cdnsteve wrote: post #62

It would be nice if Starlink could honour their existing obligations as a priority first. I have reserved Starlink here in Canada nearly two years ago and received an email advising it's now been pushed to summer 2023. That's three years of waiting. I was also emailed last year advising the monthly cost has increased and so has the dish itself. Shouldn't providing down payment legally guarantee to buy a service at or…

It seems inevitable Starlink will prioritize profitable commercial ventures first. Industry is going to find more data intensive applications and squeeze out residential use.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#125

Post by fastball »

brianwawok wrote: post #45
MichaelZuo wrote: post #19

Looks like a very competitive product, assuming pricing is reasonable. It's interesting that they are rolling in the warranty cost with the monthly subscription. First time I've seen that. It will be great for aircraft owners looking to have a full featured internet experience in flight. Though the downside is that it will likely have priority when roaming into any cell, thus degrading service for ordinary ground bas…

Most of the time a plane is over farm fields or water. Highest demand for normal starlink is in cities. Not gonna be flying over NYC w this. Kind of a good fit I would think in terms of utilization.

> Highest demand for normal starlink is in cities.

This is literally the opposite of true.

But both of you combined make a good point: this is the best way to fully utilize bandwidth of the sats, which are not going to be serving terrestrial customers when flying over the oceans, which is a significant portion of the time.

Between boats, planes, and rural terrestrial customers the usage of any individual Starlink sat can be efficiently spread out.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#126

Post by fy20 »

BryanBeshore wrote: post #99
amacalac wrote: post #2

Low latency for Video Calls? Sure, great on private charter jets where it’s you or a couple of people who know each other. Also, generally in favour of the march of technology, so I love this. Do Not Ever want on a flight where I’m sitting beside some random ass stranger who will chat or video chat to whoever at the top of their voice while I’m trying to relax.

For the low price is just $89, you can sit in a seat in the quiet section.

I've been on international flights booked by my comoany, where I cannot change or upgrade anything - except my meal selection to say I need a special meal.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#127

Post by rippercushions »

dfdz wrote: post #120
eganist wrote: post #105

Edit: a fatal assumption that it's the airlines providing the service underpins my original post below, whereas instead it's the providers charging passengers directly. That's an entirely different model from below, so disregard my original comment aside maybe my last line. Preserving the comment for context though. --- At 25,000/mo, assuming a jet makes 60 trans-con segments in the US per month and a price of $20 pe…

> flex, not a tool Suppose that a plane has 250 seats and makes 50 trans-con flights a month. Airline A decides to advertise having fast internet access in their flight, and raises ticket prices by $2 a seat to fund it. (250)(50)(2) = 25000 Airline B stays with slow barely usable internet. Which ticket do you book?

Alas, the market has repeatedly shown that people will choose the cheapest ticket above all other considerations. Unless somebody else is paying the bill, and those business travelers are also the ones most likely to fork out $20/flight for Internet connectivity.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#128

Post by dotnet00 »

thrillgore wrote: post #43

Quoted post unavailable.

Only if you consider the weapons Western governments purchased to either supply to Ukraine or to replace stocks donated to Ukraine to also be extortion on behalf of the MIC.

It's reasonable for SpaceX to want to be paid for providing an essential service for a conflict that seems likely to be a lot more prolonged than initially expected. All this "extortion" thing has done is ensure that the next time someone asks for emergency aid from SpaceX or Tesla, they'll be a lot more conservative in their aid lest they get burned again. No good deed goes unpunished after all.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#129

Post by vl »

petesergeant wrote: post #102
amacalac wrote: post #2

Low latency for Video Calls? Sure, great on private charter jets where it’s you or a couple of people who know each other. Also, generally in favour of the march of technology, so I love this. Do Not Ever want on a flight where I’m sitting beside some random ass stranger who will chat or video chat to whoever at the top of their voice while I’m trying to relax.

This is already theoretically an issue. I'm going to link to Alaska Air's FAQ[0] simply because it's the most available online who note that streaming services are OK, but they don't "allow guests to make voice or video calls". I imagine the latency would make it a poor experience _too_, but the point is that airlines know you don't want people making calls next to you. [0] https://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-in…

Is it the same Alaska Air which just 20 years ago tried to sell in-flight voice calls on their in-plane phones for few bucks a minute, as any other airline did? Remember handsets in the backrest of the seat in front of you with the credit card slot on the side?

Re: Starlink Aviation

#130

Post by rippercushions »

BryanBeshore wrote: post #99
amacalac wrote: post #2

Low latency for Video Calls? Sure, great on private charter jets where it’s you or a couple of people who know each other. Also, generally in favour of the march of technology, so I love this. Do Not Ever want on a flight where I’m sitting beside some random ass stranger who will chat or video chat to whoever at the top of their voice while I’m trying to relax.

For the low price is just $89, you can sit in a seat in the quiet section.

This is actually a thing already, and AirAsia charges $25 to $55 for the privilege: https://www.budgetair.com/en_us/blog/quiet-zones-vs-family-z...
Post reply on HN