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

251–260 of 526 posts

Re: Starlink Aviation

#251

Post by dzhiurgis »

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.

Airlines should def offer sections - party/drinkers, quiet, families, the rest come to mind.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#252

Post by dzhiurgis »

parker_mountain wrote: post #12
ralusek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather that be a problem left to etiquette, rather than avoided due to lack of technology.

> a problem left to etiquette I fly regularly, and it will absolutely become a problem on day 1.

You can take a call in a restaurant, yet almost no one does.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#253

Post by dzhiurgis »

sneak wrote: post #32
BluSyn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to do real remote work, including real time video calls, while on a plane is actually game changing. I'm sure this will eventually become standard on most airlines, especially for Business Class.

I can't wait to fly business class on a Friday morning out of SFO and be surrounded by a dozen corporate salarymen simultaneously addressing their standups via their AirPods. Normal airlines are promptly going to need some no-phone-calls rules. (TBH I think they already have them.)

So inconsiderate. If someone needs to take important call - let them. Phone calls are possible in restaurants, yet you almost never see anyone.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#255

Post by JCharante »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #159
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 economics would probably work out for longer international flights. I fly economy with my family and I'd probably be willing to dump out $20/passenger for flights from Seattle to Japan/Europe, considering you're stuck in a seat for like 10 hours. That seems like it'd make long flights quite a bit nicer at a reasonable cost. Alternatively being able to work more means I don't have to burn as many vacation…

I started boycotting Korean Air. Supposedly the reason why they don’t have wifi is that Koreans are used to great internet service, so it’s better not to have any wifi on their planes than to have slow internet.

I didn’t realize how addicted to the internet I was until I did a 15 hour flight from Boston to Incheon in the spring. Never again. I’ll gladly fly Delta instead.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#256

Post by Thlom »

mlindner wrote: post #229
Thlom wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telecoms sans frontiers is operating within Ukraine and neighboring countries providing Internet access and telephone services to civilians. SpaceX shouldn’t have been allowed to insert themselves in the conflict. They should use existing structures if they want to provide humanitarian telecom and if they wanted to provide their offerings to the military they should go through normal channels. Just throwing their off…

> SpaceX shouldn’t have been allowed to insert themselves in the conflict. Except Starlink has become critical for the military in Ukraine. It's used extensively to live stream drone footage from the frontlines to command locations over things like google hangouts. There's videos of this which is why we know. It also works without any infrastructure when it's all been destroyed has has been critical in getting cell s…

I’m sorry if I was unclear. I do not mean spaceX should stay away, but that they should operate through normal routes. It might take a bit longer, but should make this ongoing drama less likely to happen.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#257

Post by Ayesh »

gaadd33 wrote: post #189
bpodgursky wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very US-centric (or at least western-centric) view of the world.

I didn't think a lot of the cities can get fiber to the home. I know I can't in NYC and when I was in LA, nor in Ft Lauderdale. Is it easier in most other big cities?

Not a big city, but in Colombo, there is an ISP that exclusively provides Fibre lines to apartment buildings. It's a common interest for both building management and the ISP to provide service.

If the building signs up with the ISP, any customer from that building can sign up directly at ISP, and they can setup the connection within the same day.

Price wise, they are on par with other ISPs, but the Sri Lankan government heavily regulates the prices.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#258

Post by thot_experiment »

threeseed wrote: post #111
thot_experiment wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems so backwards to me, why would you want other people to behave the way you want them to when you can just put in earplugs, noise cancelling headphones, have self control and not get annoyed, etc etc. It seems crazy to me that people consider something so minor to be uncouth or whatever. I think in general the onus to take care of something should be on the person getting annoyed and only until you've exhaus…

Why ban smoking on the plane when you can just breathe through a mask and deal with it ? Earplugs, noise cancelling headphones etc are imperfect just like masks are.

I really don't think these are at all the same class of thing. One is like, a basic human need? I think for most people? The other is a harmful vice that has a lot of documented negative effects.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#259

Post by SargeDebian »

gaadd33 wrote: post #189
bpodgursky wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very US-centric (or at least western-centric) view of the world.

I didn't think a lot of the cities can get fiber to the home. I know I can't in NYC and when I was in LA, nor in Ft Lauderdale. Is it easier in most other big cities?

Yes, fiber is common in most Dutch cities for example. It is not at every premise yet, but being rolled out. If not FttH, then ~100Mbps DSL or Docsis up to 1000Mbit down.

Re: Starlink Aviation

#260

Post by borissk »

londons_explore wrote: post #238
ShakataGaNai wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Ku/Ka band antenna's used by other providers are quite significant in size. https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/gogo-2ku-inflight-wi... https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/466228743522893824

If I was an airline considering this, I'd want to see $/km fuel costs from the extra air resistance in the sales brochure...

It will be a lot less than the percentage a radio antenna increases the fuel consumption of a car.

Modern planes like the 787 are made to a big degree from composites and the antenna can be installed inside the fuselage - leading to 0% increase in air resistance.

Post reply on HN