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

421–430 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#421

Post by shkkmo »

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…

Generally, sky to north is what matters. I've done a fair bit of boondocking with starlink and found it to be very sensitive to tree cover in the wrong part of the sky.

I don't think that starlink's support or documentation is particularly great, but it still seems better than my experiences will cell phone and internet service providers.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#422

Post by rafram »

okdood64 wrote: post #414
spacebanana7 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s something of a parallel with the last hikers who walked in unmapped territory. We may be the last hikers to walk in unconnected territory.

Satellite phone and communicator devices have been around forever.

And they’ve been very expensive, subscription-based, and limited: no direct access to the internet, just location pings and text messages (which sometimes have to be preprogrammed). Nothing at all like what Starlink is talking about.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#423

Post by highwaylights »

tgma wrote: post #382
ethbr1 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most successful businessman in the history of the world You're ranking Musk above Jobs, Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Disney, Toyoda, Walton, and Buffett?

This characterization isn't entirely unreasonable. Isn't Musk objectively the richest businessperson ever in nominal dollars? Inflation-adjusted, I think only Rockefeller or Carnegie may come close, but the variety of businesses Musk has is impressive, and it appears he is just getting started with a long way to go.

Inflation-adjusted I believe Rockefeller was worth more than $400b at the peak of his wealth.

The Walton estate now is worth over $350b, but it’s not a fair comparison as it’s had much longer to compound.

The other thing is that while SpaceX is incredibly successful, the other companies he’s started aren’t. Tesla (despite its massive growth) is in a market of rapidly growing competitors, and he’s on record saying the company lives or dies on tech his own engineers have suggested in court isn’t coming (FSD).

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#425

Post by tgma »

highwaylights wrote: post #423
tgma wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This characterization isn't entirely unreasonable. Isn't Musk objectively the richest businessperson ever in nominal dollars? Inflation-adjusted, I think only Rockefeller or Carnegie may come close, but the variety of businesses Musk has is impressive, and it appears he is just getting started with a long way to go.

Inflation-adjusted I believe Rockefeller was worth more than $400b at the peak of his wealth. The Walton estate now is worth over $350b, but it’s not a fair comparison as it’s had much longer to compound. The other thing is that while SpaceX is incredibly successful, the other companies he’s started aren’t. Tesla (despite its massive growth) is in a market of rapidly growing competitors, and he’s on record saying the…

Google Search says Elon is at 334.3 gigadollars so not that far off and he's not dead yet.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#426

Post by repiret »

ChumpGPT wrote: post #256
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…

$25-$40 is insane. Spypoint offers 250 pics for free a month and 1000 for $6 a month. As long as you can connect to a cell tower (1 bar is enough). That probably covers 80 % of hunt properties. https://www.spypoint.com/en/spypoint-experience/plans

At least in the Western United States, most hunting is done on publicly owned land, and there's enormous swaths of public land with absolutely zero cell phone coverage.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#427

Post by NoPicklez »

Nursie wrote: post #396
NoPicklez wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate you have had a bad experience, but to then think that's the overall experience is myopic. There are many highly remote areas where people can't speak more highly of Starlink.

And not that remote. Internet provision not all that far out of major Australian cities can be abysmal. I'm only 30 minutes drive from the centre of Perth and my options are currently 5G (operating at about 4Mbit), Wireless Broadband (performance promise - the download speed will reach 25Mbit at least once in any given 24 hour period!) or Starlink, at a pretty stable 120/20. I'd love to not have to pay for it, to use…

Absolutely, I've had 5G modems within the metro area of an Aussie city and it was horrible.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#428

Post by latentcall »

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

Elon is successful yes but why do other men feel the need to stroke him off online all the time? Strange behavior. Are you expecting a kickback?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#429

Post by fasteddie31003 »

sd8f9iu wrote: post #411
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Nazi party was not socialist, it was just in the name. The Nazi party had a leftist socialist wing, which was expunged on the Night of Long Knives. Hitler himself generally stayed above such economic debates, and instead promised a sort of hazy race-based utopia that had elements of capitalism and socialism. Once the Nazis came to power, they did not try to seize private ownership of the means of production, but…

Volkswagen was created by the Nazis. It translates to "People's Car". It sounds pretty Socialist to me.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#430

Post by treyd »

Zambyte wrote: post #360
piyh wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A research environment like Bell Labs freed from the behemoth of AT&T would have been a great boon to society had it stayed around in a similar form to today.
Post reply on HN