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

351–360 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#351

Post by ssl-3 »

serf wrote: post #324
ssl-3 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. metrology is vast. I am a fan of Mitutoyo too, but this is a poor example of a monopoly. I have literally 3 different brands , including Mitutoyo, on my desk, and the Mitutoyo…

All of my less-discerning maker friends use Amazon/Harbor Freight/whatever calipers and complain about the battery life.

Hence, the source for articles like this: https://hackaday.com/2021/10/30/cheap-caliper-hack-keeps-em-...

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#352

Post by ethbr1 »

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.

The issue is that space launch has some huge economies of scale.

And {world space launch demand} is >> {one country's space launch demand}

The argument for China overcoming SpaceX would be:

- China needs to get within functional (not cost) technological parity with SpaceX ASAP (i.e. which means reusability, albeit for cadence/capacity reasons)

- After that, they need to incentivize global demand to launch on Chinese rockets (likely heavily subsidizing prices to attract demand)

- After that, they need to continue to out-innovate SpaceX on technological and economic fronts

Of those, convincing a substantial portion of global launch demand to use Chinese rockets seems the trickiest bit, give the CCP's relationship with the rule of law.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#353

Post by bpodgursky »

CodeArtisan wrote: post #346
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...

I'm sorry but if you think this has even a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding you need to learn more about the launch and satellite comms industries. This is political posturing, not a plan.

I don't want to spend hours typing on this so let's just say this; Arianespace is on the "team", so it's going to launch on Ariane 6, a rocket that was obsolete before it launched (and it was not a successful launch).

The idea that you can launch mass on Ariane6 to challenge Starlink is like saying you can win NASCAR on a horse and buggy. I'm not even exaggerating, that is literally the price differential between Starship and the rest. This initiative is a joke.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#354

Post by [deleted] »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #337
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.

[deleted]

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#355

Post by rcpt »

jebarker wrote: post #5
bhauer wrote: post #3

I switched to T-Mobile at the last upgrade interval because of this. My family looks forward to no longer relying on Garmin InReach devices when out hiking.

Initially I thought the same re: hiking, skiing etc. The only issue I see is that cellphone battery life is terrible compared to inReach like devices. Not sure I'd want to depend on it for longer than a few hours.

I take my inreach kite surfing and I don't have to worry about it getting wet.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#356

Post by jazzyjackson »

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.)

Ukrainian army wanted geofence to be lifted, their attack wasn't sabotaged like the rumor mill framed it. Starlink was not, at that point, party to a contract with the state department that gave them permission to provide uplinks to IEDs. They do now, for what it's worth (via "starshield"). Imagine whatever company you work at getting a call asking for an extra license immediately because they need it to bomb North Korea, you might say, hold on while I get legal on the phone.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#357

Post by mensetmanusman »

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…

Would be interesting to measure the amount of Ku-band ghz noise near your property.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#358

Post by ethbr1 »

infobot wrote: post #343
nikkwong wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> most successful businessman in the history of the world

You're ranking Musk above Jobs, Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Disney, Toyoda, Walton, and Buffett?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#359

Post by mensetmanusman »

piyh wrote: post #292
nehal3m wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, organizational slack and a willingness to spend on r&d is required for labs to exist. Monopolies can afford expensive r&d.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#360

Post by Zambyte »

piyh wrote: post #292
nehal3m wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Would we have had Bell Labs without the AT&T monopoly?

The implication here is that Bell Labs was a good thing. While I find it hard to say I wouldn't have loved to have been a part of something like that, I think we may have been better off without it, considering what it squashed.

Post reply on HN