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

461–470 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#461

Post by jrflowers »

rafram wrote: post #371
jrflowers wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now we get wilderness livestreams! What will that do? My guess is there will be some more wilderness livestreams streams, largely made by the people that are already going out to these places to produce content. Are you particularly worried about a group of people that so far had no interest at all in taking pictures or videos in the wilderness but will now show up in droves to make competing bits of strictly-live…

It was an example, and maybe not a very good one. My point is that this will allow anyone to be an active content creator while they’re in the wilderness, which makes it quicker, easier, and much more appealing to create that type of content.

In another comment you pointed out overtourism but in this comment you seem to be saying your concern is that it will be easier to create content… for the people that are already there? Who cares if people make content or not while they are there?

Your issue is either not wanting people on their phones in parks — which you cannot control — or not wanting people in parks at all, which not only can you not control but that would also be a downright insane desire.

The reason why parks exist and are maintained is that people go to them. If nobody goes to a park, there is no incentive for upkeep or staff. Much (or virtually all) of the wilderness that you have enjoyed in your life is available to enjoy because people before you enjoyed it and made it accessible to you in some way. That is how parks work

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#462

Post by bigfatkitten »

greenavocado wrote: post #446
modeless wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We civilians aren't going to get anything useful from foreign militaries launching payloads

Unless you're in Brazil

https://www.wired.com/2009/04/fleetcom/

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#463

Post by 01100011 »

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…

Tesla fanatics espouse the same sort of thinking. Tesla will figure out FSD and will capture the entire automotive market leaving competitors to close up shop and give up. I don't get it. Otherwise intelligent people have told me some version of this with a straight face. It's like they've somehow blocked how the economy functions out of their minds in an effort to further exalt Tesla.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#464

Post by rpmisms »

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…

My in-laws live in your county, and Starlink is the only Internet that actually works. Thankfully the TN side runs fiber on the power poles.

Additionally, Starlink was a complete lifesaver during Helene.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#465

Post by starik36 »

umeshunni wrote: post #263
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #41

I really wonder if anyone is going to be able to catch up to SpaceX anytime soon. Kuiper seems dead in the water, the legacy operators seem unwilling to expand into LEO constellations.

Why do you think Kuiper is dead in the water?

Not sure if they are dead in the water or not. However, they have until July 30, 2026 to deploy half of their fleet or they lose the FCC granted frequencies. The fleet is 3232 satellites.

So far they launched 2 test satellites. They contracted most of the launches to either new rockets or ones in development, like New Glenn, Ariane 6, ULA Vulcan. They actually had to contract three Falcon 9 launches to help out with that. In reality, I think SpaceX will end up launching a lot more than that.

Unless FCC is willing to be lenient, 50% of the satellites will be hard to accomplish by the deadline.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#466

Post by teruakohatu »

djsnoopy wrote: post #318
teruakohatu wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work with researchers that deploy all sorts of solar powered sensor equipment in remote parts of New Zealand. Realistically Starlink would need to support NB-IoT and LTE-M which is what these kinds of devices are moving towards (if they need cellular connectivity). These are low power variants of 4G and 5G. Even if you have solar and a fixed platform, you usually want to deploy as little solar as possible. Especial…

Ridiculously niche comments from experts like this is why HN is so special. Thank you.

No problem. It’s also why I love HN.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#467

Post by hattmall »

dboreham wrote: post #400
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…

Realistically Starlink is not going to diagnose RF issues at your site. Microwave either works, or gets expensive fast (because you need an expensive person with expensive test equipment to properly investigate). A wild guess based on the available information is that reflections off the water surface are the cause.

Yeah I'm not really sure what issues you could reasonably expect a satellite internet provider to be troubleshooting at all. It's very much a 0 or 1 situation.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#468

Post by rpmisms »

pmarreck wrote: post #216
altcognito wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12 children, 3 billion dollars companies, "advising" the government on cutting millions of jobs", yet he is "very hands on"

don't forget his diablo IV streams Seriously though, if he's primarily in a delegation mode these days, good for him, I think he's earned it Bias disclosure: I feel like I could be a Musk if I actually had zero laziness and a few extra connections. We are similar in intelligence and interests and worldview (other than his edgy tweets of the last 1-2 years)

Don't let your dreams be dreams.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#469

Post by adastra22 »

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…

With respect, I’m not sure you understand the scale of what we are talking about. No other organization — including national space agencies and military contractors — has the life capacity to compete with Starlink at ANY cost. Even if money were no object, the other contenders literally don’t have the launch capacity and can’t reasonably scale up.

It’s as if Intel released the Pentium Pro back in the 50’s when everyone else was working with vacuum tubes. Yes, in theory there is room for competition. But the gulf is so large in practice.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#470

Post by hattmall »

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…

I would think 5G could really improve that situation. In the states we have the 600 MHz spectrum on T-Mobile and can pull down decent speeds 30-150mb through trees 15 miles from the tower. Upload is not great.
Post reply on HN