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

Starlink Direct to Cell

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#221

Post by mbrubeck »

kortilla wrote: post #103
vl wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have zero signal, modern iPhone allows you to connect to satellite and text using iMessage. I just used it this week multiple times during massive Pacific Northwest blackout. Works surprisingly well. You have to be outside and hold iPhone in the specifics position pointed at satellite, it tells you where to turn iPhone to to get signal.

Did they get rid of the limitation of having to setup a special family group in advance?

You can initiate a conversation with anyone while you are connected via satellite. But you do need to set up an emergency contact and/or Family Sharing Group if you want to connect via satellite and receive messages that were sent to you while you were offline.

(I’m referring to the "Messages via Satellite" feature that launched two months ago in iOS 18. This is different from the "Emergency SOS via Satellite" feature that has been around since 2022.)

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#222

Post by sangnoir »

mrandish wrote: post #189
Reason077 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink would need to license LTE spectrum in every country it operated. Much easier to work with local carriers and piggyback on their existing bandwidth.

> license LTE spectrum in every country I think this is the biggest reason. All nation's governments will absolutely ensure, overtly or covertly, that their national regulators limit any space-based supra-national system from being able to threaten their national telephony and data carriers. Why? Preventing losing national capabilities, government revenue (taxes, licenses & other domestic carrier fees, lobbying, kick…

> All nation's governments will absolutely ensure, overtly or covertly, that their national regulators limit any space-based supra-national system from being able to threaten their national telephony and data carriers

The ITU is pretty overt about how frequency allocation governance works. Absolutely no one wants a free-for-all frequency regime, for a multitude of reasons - not even SpaceX.

You may recall that Huawei 5G equipment was expunged from domestically-controlled, western infrastructure without having broken any laws, due to fears of future abuse. Your suggestion of a foreign company unilaterally, and illegally[1] imposing it's foreign-controlled, space-based phone network goes much further than whatever fears Washington had over Huawei.

1. Pretty much every country on earth with a government regulates how radio spectrum is licensed for telecommunications, not for the purposes of control as an end, but coordination and preventing interference.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#223

Post by Alex-Programs »

bilsbie wrote: post #188

Is iot useful if it needs a clear view of the sky? Also why does my cell phone not need a clear view of the cell tower? It works in my brother in laws walk in closet just fine. Same frequency.

Because you aren't 350+ miles from the cell tower.

Direct to cell is only possible because it's an almost entirely unobstructed view.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#224

Post by tssva »

harrall wrote: post #168
charliebwrites wrote: post #6

I wish I could pay Starlink directly and have global satellite based LTE instead of having to go through a specific carrier and be limited by other carriers’ reciprocity to specific countries and bands One space based cell plan for the whole world

I can’t imagine satellites being able to compete with cell towers in bandwidth or capacity. There are millions of cell towers. During a major event, cellular companies set up portable cell towers (COWs) and even these are not enough. And a cell tower that is right next to you still pales in comparison to a single cable in bandwidth.

They aren't trying to compete with cell towers. SpaceX is partnered with traditional carriers in each country where LTE service will be available and the Starlink service is intended to supplement those services by providing service where existing cell towers can't.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#227

Post by lupusreal »

OutOfHere wrote: post #134
inglor_cz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kessler syndrome is a theoretical construction, yet too many people speak of it as a certainty-beyond-any-doubt, like you do.

Some people aren't smart enough to appreciate theory. These people don't even learn the hard way either. They take their disbelief and excuses to their grave. For the rest of us, good theories aren't just admired from afar, they're acted upon before they materialize.

> "smart enough to appreciate theory"

Bro you "learned" this theory from popsci media, evidenced by your surface level understanding of it. Any debris in these orbits clears out in a few years, it's a complete non issue with this constellation.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#228

Post by shepherdjerred »

pyrale wrote: post #154
heywoods wrote: post #121

Does this allow the ability to circumvent LTE networks in countries like China? Do we have the capability to send messages to any/all phones in China if we (USA) wanted to?

For that, Starlink would have to use the frequency band that the phone (and, therefore, the relevant operator) is using. Such frequencies are assigned by states to operators, and using them from space would be extremely easy to detect. That is why Starlink either has to make a deal with in operators, or acquire a licence to use a frequency band in every country it wants to operate. I assume that if Starlink was tryin…

Does the US/China have the capability to shoot down satellites? I mean, Starlink has a lot of satellites; could they really all be destroyed?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#229

Post by sangnoir »

skissane wrote: post #197
elAhmo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The board at Tesla is basically Elon’s buddies. There is no oversight or independence there, they do what he wants. If law was applied equality to billionaires as it does to regular people, he would be in jail for fraud.

> The board at Tesla is basically Elon’s buddies. AFAIK, Robyn Denholm, Tesla’s chair, had no particular association with Musk prior to joining Tesla’s board. She is an Australian business executive with a history of working in senior finance roles in Australian and US firms. She was recruited on to Tesla’s board by another (now former) Tesla director, Brad Buss, who to my knowledge has never been that closely associ…

Wasn't there a shareholder suite that alleged the directors aren't independent because of the above-standard Tesla options they receive? Robyn Denholm excecised and sold $35M worth of TSLA in the past month.
Post reply on HN