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

341–350 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#341

Post by dools »

hedora wrote: post #333
dools wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fascis…

It's massively hypocritical, even if the people don't realise it right away.

If you take libertarianism to its logical conclusion you wind up with feudalism, which is anything but free.

Whenever libertarians try to take their philosophy through to its logical conclusion in practice they just wind up reinventing government only worse (or reinventing banking only worse in the case of crypto).

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#342

Post by wnolens »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #281

This is the nomad dream. Have a single phone service and wander anywhere on the planet with it. No more having to swap SIMs out on every border, being unable to use text-based 2FA, forcing friends to contact only via messaging apps, system messages in a foreign language, etc. It's not the coverage; that's mostly good. It's not the price; mostly SIM cards and plans are cheaper when travelling than they are at home. It…

google fi for the past decade has given me exactly this, with top speed data connectivity at $10/GB no matter where.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#343

Post by infobot »

nikkwong wrote: post #340
hcurtiss wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 happen…

You…wouldn’t be bullish on the most successful businessman in the history of the world?

Sometimes I come here for a good laugh

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#344

Post by jimmydoe »

modeless wrote: post #305
mmaunder wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

China is going to do it for sure. It doesn't have to be as efficient as SpaceX if it is massively subsidized for defense purposes. And China is pretty good at building things cheap. On the commercial side Blue Origin has been slow in starting but they are almost ready and will have relatively cheap launches. There are other up and coming private launch competitors too.

Nothing is impossible but it takes time.

Based on current disclosed plan, they will have same number of LEOs as SpaceX have today by ~2030; and SpaceX is not slowing down either.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#345

Post by ssl-3 »

mrtksn wrote: post #66
markasoftware wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how plausible would it be for a conspiracy nit to create a rocket to take out the satellites? not plausible at all. Most /countries/ aren't able to launch a rocket to orbit.

Those countries just don't have the motivation to do such a thing. Those who have the motivation had done it despite embargoes.

I'm sure that the only thing preventing Liechtenstein from having their own space program is motivation.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#346

Post by CodeArtisan »

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…

The European Union wants its own satellite network to counter Starlink. It will be build by SpaceRISE, a consortium that include Airbus, Thales, Deutsche Telekom...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS%C2%B2

https://www.spacerise.eu/

https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-s...

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#348

Post by jonpurdy »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #281

This is the nomad dream. Have a single phone service and wander anywhere on the planet with it. No more having to swap SIMs out on every border, being unable to use text-based 2FA, forcing friends to contact only via messaging apps, system messages in a foreign language, etc. It's not the coverage; that's mostly good. It's not the price; mostly SIM cards and plans are cheaper when travelling than they are at home. It…

I've been using data-only plans since 2015 combined with voip.ms VoIP numbers (for Toronto and SF). This means I could travel and pop in a prepaid SIM card whenever I went anywhere and not have any problems using data-based messaging services (Signal/WhatsApp/iMessage).

As of this year I ditched my T-Mobile prepaid data SIM and exclusively use prepaid eSIMs (esimdb.com has a great comparison, but Nomad makes it very easy with their app). So I still have to "swap sims" but it's all done on the iPhone itself, no need to bring a sim ejector/paperclip.

What's really funny is that last week my eSIM ran out (I forgot to top up) and my 16 Pro connected to the satellite network (since it assumed no service was available I guess?), where I was able to use iMessage (in the limited way (to individuals, not groups)).

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#349

Post by JumpCrisscross »

skissane wrote: post #241
sangnoir wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Wasn't there a shareholder suite that alleged the directors aren't independent because of the above-standard Tesla options they receive? Has a court accepted that argument? I mean, you can come up with all sorts of grounds to claim an independent director isn’t really independent, but unless a court with jurisdiction accepts the argument, it doesn’t really count for anything.

> Has a court accepted that argument

Yes, a Delaware court. It’s why Musk’s pay package is contested and why Tesla redomiciled.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#350

Post by hedora »

dools wrote: post #341
hedora wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fascis…

It's massively hypocritical, even if the people don't realise it right away. If you take libertarianism to its logical conclusion you wind up with feudalism, which is anything but free. Whenever libertarians try to take their philosophy through to its logical conclusion in practice they just wind up reinventing government only worse (or reinventing banking only worse in the case of crypto).

Well, yeah, that’s the point of corporate libertarianism.

You can’t grant absolute power to corporations without also implementing feudalism.

Of course, there are voters that think they are voting for individual libertarianism, but are voting for corporate libertarianism instead.

(Similarly, there are progressives and moderates that end up voting for corporatists.)

Post reply on HN