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

Emergency SOS via satellite

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 479 posts

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#211

Post by masom »

Buttons840 wrote: post #154
COGlory wrote: post #123

I was just on the ground coordinating with 4 friends that got buried in 5+ foot of unexpected snow in the mountains (forecast said 1"-2" when they went up) for the rifle opener in Montana. I wound up getting sick so I stayed home (hilariously I was the only one who got an elk) but I sent them up with my InReach. All I can say is THANK GOD that I did, because it turned into over a week long effort to get them out. Two…

Does InReach require a monthly cost? Alternatively, you can spend about $200 one time on a personal locator beacon that requires no ongoing costs. It can't do two-way communication but activating it sends out a specific frequency picked up by satellites and is the equivalent of calling 911. Rescuers will come to help you. All serious hikers and outdoor adventurers should carry a personal locator beacon.

InReach, and any users (other brands offering competing two-way communicators) of the Iridium satellite network, have ongoing fees. They're rather small compared to someone dying in the wilderness.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#212

Post by qubex »

alach11 wrote: post #191

> The service will be included for free for two years starting at the time of activation of a new iPhone 14, iPhone 14 Plus, iPhone 14 Pro, and iPhone 14 Pro Max. Interesting to see the hidden in the fine print at the end. Will they be selling a subscription to the service?

As remarked by others this is likely so they can kill it off in the near future (in a couple of years) if it is an unmitigated disaster. It’s highly unlikely they’ll make it into a subscription service because the optics could be so bad (“man dies of exposure after Apple declines credit card and disconnects satellite emergency service”).

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#213

Post by ghaff »

prescriptivist wrote: post #167
jmbwell wrote: post #120

Set backcountry search and rescue aside for a second. Seems to me this is for ordinary people doing ordinary things outside cell range, and finding they need help. A family member has a heart attack. A collision with a moose. Who knows what. Less “should’ve brought water and a jacket” and more “we’ve been on route 9 for two hours, a moment ago everything was fine, now he’s not breathing, we have no bars, and we have…

Yeah. I mean there are large swaths of New England where there isn't any cell service at all, let alone multi-carrier coverage. And these aren't just logging roads or whatever, they are paved roads that people commute and travel on every day. This is an unalloyed good for anyone anywhere in areas like this.

On the rare times when I take the commuter rail into Boston from the west, there's one section around Concord and Lincoln (expensive suburbs--wouldn't shock me if locals opposed additional cell phone towers) where my connection always drops.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#214

Post by freeflight »

germinalphrase wrote: post #54
wongarsu wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And phones like the CAT s61 [1] are well on their way to add the functionality of Spock's Tricorder into the same package. https://www.catphones.com/en-ca/cat-s61-smartphone/

Listed features: - thermal imaging - laser assisted distance measurement - indoor air quality

Even more impressive is the fact how it can do all these things for around the same price as other smartphones, while being way more rugged.

Definitely gonna keep those CAT phones in mind for the next time I need a new one.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#215

Post by Hippocrates »

I've had a few situations skiing at resorts where I was just a bit off-piste and found myself struggling through waist-deep powder. In the dense trees and snow it can be very difficult to see and hear even a small distance away. Add an injury to the mix and it's trouble. I would never consider buying a standalone satellite communicator device for this but having one on my phone is an awesome value add for me.

As someone else said "The best camera is the one you have with you". Same is true for satellite communicators.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#216

Post by MBCook »

Hippocrates wrote: post #207

Apple is building up a nice portfolio of life-saving features. Currently we have fall detection, a-fib detection, crash detection, satellite communication. These are all solid value-adds and differentiators from the competition. I'm not sure if they amount to a strong selling point for _everyone_ yet, but I'm sure that's where Apple is headed. I am extremely bullish on Apple's ability to measure health signals in the…

TBF Google had crash detection first, by a few years.

But I agree. If they can add a cheap part (better accelerometer) or re-use an existing one (pulse detection for a-fib) and provide really great possible benefits for some people? Sounds great.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#217

Post by Buttons840 »

masom wrote: post #211
Buttons840 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does InReach require a monthly cost? Alternatively, you can spend about $200 one time on a personal locator beacon that requires no ongoing costs. It can't do two-way communication but activating it sends out a specific frequency picked up by satellites and is the equivalent of calling 911. Rescuers will come to help you. All serious hikers and outdoor adventurers should carry a personal locator beacon.

InReach, and any users (other brands offering competing two-way communicators) of the Iridium satellite network, have ongoing fees. They're rather small compared to someone dying in the wilderness.

My point was that you can avoid dying in the wilderness with an even cheaper PLB.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#218

Post by michael1999 »

COGlory wrote: post #123

I was just on the ground coordinating with 4 friends that got buried in 5+ foot of unexpected snow in the mountains (forecast said 1"-2" when they went up) for the rifle opener in Montana. I wound up getting sick so I stayed home (hilariously I was the only one who got an elk) but I sent them up with my InReach. All I can say is THANK GOD that I did, because it turned into over a week long effort to get them out. Two…

Would sending your their location have been enough? Because that seems to be an option in addition to the 911 call.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#219

Post by s0rce »

Buttons840 wrote: post #154
COGlory wrote: post #123

I was just on the ground coordinating with 4 friends that got buried in 5+ foot of unexpected snow in the mountains (forecast said 1"-2" when they went up) for the rifle opener in Montana. I wound up getting sick so I stayed home (hilariously I was the only one who got an elk) but I sent them up with my InReach. All I can say is THANK GOD that I did, because it turned into over a week long effort to get them out. Two…

Does InReach require a monthly cost? Alternatively, you can spend about $200 one time on a personal locator beacon that requires no ongoing costs. It can't do two-way communication but activating it sends out a specific frequency picked up by satellites and is the equivalent of calling 911. Rescuers will come to help you. All serious hikers and outdoor adventurers should carry a personal locator beacon.

So far 100% of my inreach use is texting family, I bought it for emergencies but so far (luckily) haven't needed it for that. I'm confident that it will work well enough in that situation that I don't need a PLB.

Re: Emergency SOS via satellite

#220

Post by totalZero »

brookst wrote: post #162
portyllo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A MHz-POP is just bandwidth times population covered by the Geographic Service Area (i.e., where the company is licensed to operate). For example, in the US, they would have 11.5 MHz x 330 M = 3.79 Billion MHz-POP.

Thank you! Doesn't that seem like a weird metric? I would think MHz/POP would make more sense. I guess the idea is to assume unlimited and independent channels to everyone as a first order?

I think multiplying by population serves as a way to normalize for link speed. Ten people who use a lot of spectrum are probably bigger customers than ten people who use a tiny sliver of spectrum, and thus constitute a bigger user base.
Post reply on HN