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

501–510 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#501

Post by griomnib »

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’m sure they have the official MAGATEL licenses ready to go for the FCC as well.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#502

Post by hmottestad »

loandbehold wrote: post #492

Can anyone explain how it's possible given that Starlink satellites are at 500 km altitude while LTE tower has coverage radius of only around 5km?

Dunno if that’s maybe a typo?

Could be that the signal strength is really weak so they have to use a very directional antenna to transmit and receive signals. I would bet that receiving a signal from a cell phone is the hardest part. You can always omf up the transmit power, but to receive you really need to have a sensitive and directional antenna

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#503

Post by inemesitaffia »

scotty79 wrote: post #449
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 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. Don't forget over $15bln of tax money they got for doing barely anything so far.

Barely nothing? Are you out of your mind?

pLEO, Starshield, SDA, NSSL, Commercial Crew, Commercial Cargo?????

Only HLS is in view. And it's less than 5 billion.

Everything listed above is delivered and has more expensive alternatives.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#504

Post by nikkwong »

loandbehold wrote: post #483
nikkwong wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My family had starlink installed at a remote house we own for internet access. While we could get it up and running, the connection wasn't reliable and we encountered many issues. When we tried to contact Starlink for help, support was non-existent; sent us to multiple dead ends, and often wasted our times with repairs promised weeks into the future, over and over, which never surfaced. After 8 months of pain, we end…

Your experience is not typical. Starlink has been working flawlessly for me for the last few years. It revolutionized Internet access in my remote area. HughesNet was the only game in town with speeds under 3Mbps and 10GB monthly data cap. Now everyone has Starlink with over 100 Mbps speeds. Never heard of issues.

I stated in a neighboring comment that our experiences could be anomalous. Based on how frustrating it was talking to them on multiple occasions with multiple different service reps I assumed it was endemic to their culture; a la Comcast. At the very least, Telsa seems to be trailing tens of thousands of angry customers online who are struggling with defective vehicles.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#505

Post by griomnib »

mullingitover wrote: post #478
ryandrake wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For obvious reasons I think it's pretty safe to say we can count on at least the next four years of zero regulation or government scrutiny of any company Musk is involved in, monopoly-related or otherwise.

Safe to say? You sure about that? I’d say it’s just as likely that six months from now there will be a falling out, Musk will be called a pathetic loser, government agencies will be turned against him, etc. If past behavior is any kind of indicator, it’s more likely than not. I would not be surprised if we see Musk doing a perp walk within 12 months.

There can only be one Main Character, and Trump doesn’t share the spotlight with anybody.

Elon will fuck up and his money won’t save him from what comes after that.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#506

Post by inemesitaffia »

sd8f9iu wrote: post #416
omeid2 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't want private businessmen making decisions like that.

He agrees with you. Believe it or not.

You're also arguing SpaceX should have waited for a Pentagon contract to deliver to Ukraine

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#507

Post by s1artibartfast »

zo1 wrote: post #489
nrmitchi wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And this is why we can't have nice, cheap things. Instead we usually get that "cost" pressure solved by giving it on a silver platter to worker-rights-leading China. There has to be a better way to prevent abuses in the market without crippling it. But following from that, at what point did we assume this kind of (monopolistic) abuse would happen automatically anyways? I haven't seen it yet, so let's maybe hold off t…

it is a fascinating outcome when a vertically integrated monopoly is the cheapest option, and best consumer value. The challenge is figuring out if the firm is really providing the best value, or just a local minimum.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#508

Post by inemesitaffia »

dyauspitr wrote: post #381
hcurtiss wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn’t put it past him? Can you offer even a single example?

2022, cut out crimea.

Not true and still off today.

I've not seen anyone claim they used to be able to use equipment in Crimea at some point in the past and now it doesn't work.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#509

Post by ANewFormation »

ethbr1 wrote: post #358
infobot wrote: post #343

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

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

IMO it depends on what you see as the point of business and entrepreneurship. I don't see money as the goal, but rather on creating great things. So Buffet wouldn't even rank for me, while you would have omitted Musk's closest competitor - Thomas Edison.

Put another way, if in 30 years Musk has 10 trillion in wealth would seem, to me, to be much less relevant than if he succeeds in making humanity a permanently multi-planetary species.

Advancing humanity in so many different revolutionary fields all at once is something that had not been achieved in a very long time.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#510

Post by rdm_blackhole »

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...

That's not going to happen.

Remember when the EU wanted to build it's own internet browser? Or it's own search engine? Or it's own sovereign cloud?

None of these initiatives panned out. This is just political posturing when they have literally zero plans on how to achieve that.

Post reply on HN