Live data from Hacker News

Starlink Direct to Cell

starlink.com

451–460 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#451
post #20

What I wonder about the Starlink constellation is, how secure it is physically? There are people burning down 5G towers. How plausible would be for a conspiracy nut to create a rocket to take out the satellites? Maybe starting a cascading effect?

The overlap between people who are irrationally afraid of 5G and are capable of building orbital rockets is probably pretty low.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t tree cover a problem for propagation of wavelengths used in satellite comms?

Having had starlink before, yes. I needed a direct line of sight to the sky to receive service.

This service uses a different radio link using LTE. That’s why you don’t need the dish. They had to launch new satellites with the extra radio gear. So your past experience is not necessarily representative.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is saying it will decline to zero. But it will decline such that Starlink is likely to be more of a niche product similar to how satellite internet services are today.

Niche? Millions of airline and cruise passengers have been using Starlink. Industries, militaries and governments are Starlink customers. Millions of users in the rural areas. That’s some interesting definition of niche. Are you really that ignorant?

0.07% of internet users are on Starlink.

By every definition that is niche.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly not sure why they would want to. The world is continually moving towards being centred around cities where it makes sense to simply rollout fibre. Especially with gigabit speeds being the new standard. And even in Australia they are starting to move remote areas onto fibre.

Are the also rolling out fibre to ships and planes?

If Starlink is a technology just for ships and planes then that's great.

But I assume we are talking about use cases beyond tiny niches.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#455
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that, Starlink would have to use the frequency band that the phone (and, therefore, the relevant operator) is using. Such frequencies are assigned by states to operators, and using them from space would be extremely easy to detect. That is why Starlink either has to make a deal with in operators, or acquire a licence to use a frequency band in every country it wants to operate. I assume that if Starlink was tryin…

> If the USA did not, I don't see what would prevent China from shooting down Starlink's constellation. Except China, does any other country have the ability to do this? With US government permission, Starlink could ignore the radio licensing rules of Iran, South Africa or even the EU.

> Except China, does any other country have the ability to do this?

Any country capable of launching satellites or even sounding rockets could almost certainly do enough damage to majorly disrupt operations. Certainly the EU or Iran, possibly South Africa with the recent resumption of rocket launches at OTB.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think this is a psychological thing. Humans during evolution were highly rewarded for seeking and keeping powerful allies. So by imagining that Elon is my friend (because I'm his friend) and Elon is really intrinsically powerful (instead of just a lucky, well positioned grifter that can fall from grace at any moment) I can feel better about my own safety. I can feel more powerful by extension and the indirection somehow muddles that fact that it's all made up. The same mechanism works in religious people.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ye…

In the past this at-cost dealing would have been considered monopolistic enough to force divestment (ie, almost exactly the same as Boeing and United Airlines divestment due to the Air Mail Act). > Air Mail Act of 1934: > This legislation prohibited the common ownership of airlines and aircraft manufacturers to prevent conflicts of interest and promote fair competition in the aviation industry.

Now that Starlink owner Musk effectively runs the US government from Trump's ear no divestment of any kind will happen that negatively impacts Mr. Musk

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#459
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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN