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

331–340 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#331

Post by iml7 »

m463 wrote: post #209
samwillis wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's similar (ish), but I think unfortunately the comparison distracts from your core point and observation. Musk Inc. is, in essence, a privet equity company. He raises a fund, and invests it along with his own cash into a business he knows well, and with which he believes he can disrupt the status quo. He's very hands on, understanding all the important core details, setting culture, and pushing hard . But he also…

I agree with you, yet in a somewhat different way. He is an investor investing in science fiction. This isn't even implied, he comes out and says it again and again. I'm reminded of xerox parc's "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" and I think that's his philosophy. As to "businesses he knows well" I do not agree. He didn't go into electric vehicles, rockets, robots or neural interfaces as "business h…

[flagged]

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#333

Post by hedora »

dools wrote: post #220
smbullet wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your concern with people choosing to use Starlink?

I'm not concerned that people are choosing to use it. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of libertarianism.

In the 90’s, libertarians were against any consolidation of power (including corporations) that could infringe on individual rights. (This was roughly in Ron Paul’s time.)

That’s been replaced with corporate libertarians, which are against any government power that could infringe on the rights of corporations. See also Rand Paul, and the corporatist movement (which is sadly mainstream in the US, an offshoot of fascism, and essentially indistinguishable from modern libertarianism).

Anyway, they are many things, but I wouldn’t say they’re hypocritical.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#334

Post by MBCook »

hedora wrote: post #323
shepherdjerred wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on Musk being a nazi, or is that just hyperbole?

Nazi might be a bit much, but he’s pretty clearly guilty of treason. He blocked a US funded military strike that would have sunk Russia’s navy a while back. (The definition of treason in the US is extremely clear, and he obviously crossed the line.)

Also seems relatively clear that he started his first company in the US while on a visa that did not allow that, thus breaking immigration law as well.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#335

Post by MBCook »

paxys wrote: post #252
acrophiliac wrote: post #251

A quick glance at these comments indicates the majority are excited about Starlink. I must be in the minority. Is anyone else here on HN very unhappy with the prospect of having no place to escape internet access? I love the idea of no-rescue zones. https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/print-issues/hike-at-your... Not trying to change anyone's mind, just wondering if I'm a complete outlier.

You already have the option of escaping internet access, anywhere in the world – by turning off your device.

But we don’t have the option of opting out of trains of satellites in the sky ruining the view.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#336

Post by freeone3000 »

mmaunder wrote: post #304
modeless wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Game that out for us. How government innovation competes with a private sector launch company whose main differentiator is lower cost.

blink

By spending more money in absolute terms to achieve objectives, without a necessitative need of immediate profit?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#337

Post by fasteddie31003 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #213

[flagged]

First, I'd recommend you understand the etymology of the word Nazi. The Nazi acronym is NSDAP, which stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Elon is far from a socialist just the opposite IMO. If you don't like him stop being lazy and ignorant and better describe why you don't like him. I'm sick of lazy rhetoric like this.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#338

Post by golemotron »

ssl-3 wrote: post #311
nehal3m wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you Elon? Also monopolies are never awesome.

Must a monopoly always be bad? For example: Mitutoyo seems to have a monopoly on producing accurate digital calipers that have battery life measured in years (using one dainty little LR44 alkaline cell). They use approximately fuck-all for power whether switched on or off. Certainly, the market is open for others to produce an actually-competitive product with similar performance. All it takes is for the competition…

Thiel and Masters make the case eloquently in Zero to One.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#339

Post by jazzyjackson »

tgma wrote: post #73
lupusreal wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink and SpaceX have an even closer relationship than most other Musk companies; Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX.

> Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX. Starlink is not a separate entity — it's a division of Space Exploration Technologies Corp. From Terms of Service[1]: > Your order for two-way satellite-based internet service (“Services”) and a Starlink antenna, Wi-Fi router and mount (“Starlink Kit” or “Kit”) is subject to the terms (“Terms”) of this Starlink agreement for the United States and its territories. The…

I didn't realize SpaceX was just a nickname for Space Exploration Technologies Corp, TIL

So the Terms of service is with SpaceX but apparently there is such a thing as Starlink Services LLC, but I'm just going off Wikipedia, all this corporate structuring is opaque to me.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#340

Post by nikkwong »

hcurtiss wrote: post #326
nikkwong wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My family had starlink installed at a remote house we own for internet access. While we could get it up and running, the connection wasn't reliable and we encountered many issues. When we tried to contact Starlink for help, support was non-existent; sent us to multiple dead ends, and often wasted our times with repairs promised weeks into the future, over and over, which never surfaced. After 8 months of pain, we end…

Where was this? Members of my family have three different remote cabins surrounded by trees in Montana, Idaho, and Oregon, and all work perfectly. The early days were a little more glitchy, but with the constellation they have today, you don’t even need to aim.

2023 in the Pacific Northwest. We were given the argument that tree cover was a problem quite early on in our attempted troubleshooting. The house is a waterfront property, with a clear view of sky to the east. Anyways, the suspected issue continued to evolve, and we were not able to get to the bottom of it with the support we received.

Certainly, our experience could be an anomalous. But I certainly hear this happening all the time with Tesla, with the manufacturer trying to void warranties and evade liability for vehicle defects.

I just.. wouldn't be bullish on any of Elon's companies in a crowded market; which I suspect will define more his companies in the future. His politically obtuse behavior and lack of respect for authority is enough to turn off ethically minded consumers; and that's before the general crummy experience of being his customer. My best friend has a Honda EV that broke down twice, one time being potentially out of warranty-and the dealer repaired it, no questions asked

Post reply on HN