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

361–370 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#361

Post by TheAlchemist »

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

That depends on how you define successful businessman.

If we look at valuations, then yeah. If we look at how much money all of his ventures make ? The picture is very different.

SpaceX - may or may not be profitable in the last year - it's hard to know. Until recently definitely no profitable

Tesla - really profitable since 2021, with great 2022 / 2023. Trending in the wrong direction recently

Twitter, xAI, boring, neuralink - all are money furnaces.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#362

Post by vajrabum »

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?

AT&T was heavily regulated (common carrier) through much of it's history and was a big part of the reason that BellLabs was so influential. Not true of SpaceX and Starlink.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#363

Post by nordsieck »

modeless wrote: post #297
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 e…

IMO, one of the central problems is the cost of launching stuff into space.

Today, SpaceX offers world leading low prices to launch satellites: $4 m / tonne[1]. But Starlink has access to launch at cost, which is $0.86 m / tonne[2]. Which is a huge advantage when launching an enormous number of satellites.

One thing to keep in mind, especially for these LEO constellations: the lifetime of these satellites is 5-10 years. Which means the operators can never stop launching. It's an ongoing operational cost.

For smaller operators like OneWeb, they don't have to launch that often, but for a serious competitor like Kuiper, they'll be constantly launching some satellite every year.

IMO, launch cost will be a problem even for China. The cost of an LEO constellation is so high that even if it's partially subsidized by the military it'll be a serious cost for the country.

That could change pretty soon, though - various companies and organizations in China are aggressively working on getting reusable rockets working.

---

1. $70 m / 17.5 tonnes == $4 m / tonne

2. $15 m[3] / 17.5 tonnes == $0.86 / tonne

3. The $15 m number is not public info, but it is widely believed that it is in the correct ballpark.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#364

Post by torlok »

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…

US tax dollars at work.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#365

Post by cmdli »

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…

If you are right and Starlink will have no competition, then why would it not be regulated? Generally speaking, monopolies are regulated to prevent price gouging, including natural monopolies. And if its not a monopoly, then clearly the game is not over.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#366

Post by doctorpangloss »

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…

Yeah but if they were like, "Lemme tell you how to provide Internet for boats and Iranians in the most expensive way possible," it doesn't sound like that exciting of a business anymore now does it?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#367

Post by kaliqt »

cmdli wrote: post #365
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…

If you are right and Starlink will have no competition, then why would it not be regulated? Generally speaking, monopolies are regulated to prevent price gouging, including natural monopolies. And if its not a monopoly, then clearly the game is not over.

Because it is not abusing its position. Monopolies are not an inherent bad, they just tend to start abusing their position, and when they do then they get handled.

This is more common with public companies than private companies though.

Founders have their own life, honor, ethics, desires, etc. which usually help strongly keep the company on a positive track. e.g. Valve Corporation.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#368

Post by GeekyBear »

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.

There is a difference between having a monopoly and having a lower cost per unit of mass put into orbit.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#369

Post by GuB-42 »

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 would even go to say that the reason Starlink exists is to use up SpaceX excessive launch capacity. With its idea of building assembly lines and reusable rockets, can launch more stuff than there is market for. So they create their own market. Starlink launches are almost free besides the fuel, as they have rockets lying around that are already paid for.

A state-funded competitor could come up though. China for instance may want their own satellite internet for strategic reasons, and fund that. I am sure Russia would be interested too. This in turn, will pay for development of a reusable rocket program.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#370

Post by sgnelson »

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…

Mitutoyo isn't a monopoly, not even close. Just because a company offers a product that is arguably just slightly better in one aspect than others does not make it a monopoly. (I say this with a 10 year old pair of harbor freight calipers on my desk that easily have a 2 year battery life with regular usage. Also, Dial Calipers.)

But to answer your question, must they? No. Do they tend to be bad? Yes. Does their behavior get worse over time? Typically.

Post reply on HN