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

291–300 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#291

Post by signatoremo »

threeseed wrote: post #238
travisjungroth wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not gonna decline to zero. There's just a really strong tendency for people all over the world to focus on their own experience. And you can actually reinforce this by zooming out too far. If you live in San Francisco, this seems like a pet use case and you can be like "What is it, 10% of the population?" But "the population" is quite the fucking denominator. I mean, it's already happening and obviously Starlink…

No one is saying it will decline to zero. But it will decline such that Starlink is likely to be more of a niche product similar to how satellite internet services are today.

Niche? Millions of airline and cruise passengers have been using Starlink. Industries, militaries and governments are Starlink customers. Millions of users in the rural areas. That’s some interesting definition of niche.

Are you really that ignorant?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#292

Post by piyh »

nehal3m wrote: post #284
mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

Are you Elon? Also monopolies are never awesome.

Honest question because it's something I've internally debated over. Would we have had Bell Labs without the AT&T monopoly?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#293

Post by fragmede »

minetest2048 wrote: post #163
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

Adding to this: I wish I can just buy a 4G modem for my cubesat and get 24/7 access through Starlink without waiting for my cubesats to be in view of my groundstation...

That sounds super fascinating. Can you tell us more about your cubesat?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#295

Post by reed1234 »

rafram wrote: post #77
jrflowers wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been making TikTok videos in the wilderness this entire time, they just wait until they get service to upload them.

Sure, and people were making YouTube videos in the wilderness before that, but the accessibility that came with TikTok and Instagram created a phenomenon increased demand tenfold at many parks. That’s why you have to win a lottery to hike Angels Landing in Zion now. Now we get wilderness livestreams! What will that do?

How more demand for national parks a bad thing?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#296

Post by honestAbe22 »

nehal3m wrote: post #284
mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

Are you Elon? Also monopolies are never awesome.

[dead]

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#297

Post by modeless »

mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

I disagree. Starlink is indeed awesome and SpaceX deserves every bit of their success. But there will be competitors eventually, if for no other reason than foreign militaries sponsoring them. There's no inherent reason for this to be a winner takes all market.

We can only hope the competitors are half as responsible as SpaceX has been about space debris risk and ensuring the satellites are not visible to the naked eye and don't disrupt astronomy. So far the proposals I've seen have been much worse than Starlink in these areas.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#298

Post by piyh »

user3939382 wrote: post #282
cprayingmantis wrote: post #192

If anyone from Starlink or SpaceX is reading these comments here’s what you want to do: Sell your own branded trail cam with solar charging and LTE from orbit. You can charge $25-$40 a month for unlimited pictures sent from the cam. This would open up hunters, nature enthusiasts, and researchers to be able to place their hardware anywhere in the field without worrying about connectivity. Here in SWVA we have deep hol…

Isn’t tree cover a problem for propagation of wavelengths used in satellite comms?

>Direct to Cell works with existing LTE phones wherever you can see the sky.

No new antennas implies we're in the 1-6 GHz region. Should be fine?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#299

Post by coliveira »

nehal3m wrote: post #288
Taek wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you don't want monopolies then you need to create regulations that make it easy for new startups to compete

I agree, but given Elons current position there is basically no chance that’s going to happen in the next four years.

The future of the US: 90% of cars will be Tesla (other carmakers will go bankrupt), internet access and space exploration will be monopolized as well.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#300

Post by mmaunder »

nehal3m wrote: post #284
mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

Are you Elon? Also monopolies are never awesome.

Perhaps you’re not aware that SpaceX sued the US government to break ULAs monopoly on national security launches and brought down costs.

And perhaps you’re unaware just how many national telcos world wide have a national monopoly and for the first time ever may have to compete with Starlink?

Perhaps you’re also unaware of the grip that Russian rocket engine manufacturers had with the RD180 engine on the US launch sector until recently and the positive impace SpaceX has had on that.

Post reply on HN