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

511–520 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#511

Post by loandbehold »

nikkwong wrote: post #504
loandbehold wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Tesla has some of the highest customer satisfaction scores among car brands. I'm not sure what you are referring about "tens of thousands of angry customers", you need to look at percentages and not absolute numbers. Tesla has had quality issues and problem with services but overall people are very happy as far as car brands go. And you have to be reasonable with your expectation for customer service of an internet service provider. There's only so much you can do to help an individual customer. Maybe it doesn't work in your area for some specific reason, you can't expect their engineers to spend time investigating that single case. If it was a broader issue i'm sure they would look. Did you try getting new Starlink receiver?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#512

Post by nikkwong »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #497
nikkwong wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then tell the customer that, rather than string them along for 8 months promising fixes (software or hardware), that never come in

If they don't put people on the ground they don't have the insights required. It's like trying to diagnose WiFi next to a radar station remotely when you don't know the user is next to one

Again... the logistical structure of the company is not something that the customer should have to be privy to when trying to figure out if the product is going to workout for them, or not. If the product is not going to be working, the company should not be charging the customer $100 a month for 8 months promising a fix that will never come in.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#513

Post by taeric »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #494
taeric wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people don't have any real understanding of how wealthy people have been in the past. The Walton family is a fun case. Split the fortune among the family and there are still billionaires in the mix. Edit: should add that Elon is still valued at a good percentage of the US gdp. So, not unreasonable to say that is incomprehensible, as well. By that measure, is similar to Rockefeller, I think.

I wouldn’t use the Waltons in this example, considering Walmart is eclipsed by a few companies, and even by 50% by one business that Musk has a significant share of.

Silly comparison, all told. Walmart is the single largest private employer. 1.6 million in the US. Literally 10x what Tesla and SpaceX have. Such that it is clear valuation is tough.

Look, Elon is worth a lot. Walton family is worth as much, as well. Just split among several people. None of which should be scoffed at. None are made more impressive by pretending the others are less.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#514

Post by RobotToaster »

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…

SpaceX bought up competitors like Swarm Technologies to kill them.

It's a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive practices, and should be broken up.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#515

Post by modeless »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #507
zo1 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My understanding is Standard Oil provided good service for low prices in most cases. It's not always the case that monopolies provide super expensive or bad service.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#516

Post by ablation »

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?

I am by no means an expert on this, but I think it works because satellites at 500 km altitude have a much wider line of sight than ground-based LTE towers. Throw beamforming and steerable antennas into the mix and I think you’re then getting to why. It’s a “cell tower in space” optimised for wide coverage, not urban capacity.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#517

Post by inemesitaffia »

tgma wrote: post #73
lupusreal wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink and SpaceX have an even closer relationship than most other Musk companies; Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX.

> Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX. Starlink is not a separate entity — it's a division of Space Exploration Technologies Corp. From Terms of Service[1]: > Your order for two-way satellite-based internet service (“Services”) and a Starlink antenna, Wi-Fi router and mount (“Starlink Kit” or “Kit”) is subject to the terms (“Terms”) of this Starlink agreement for the United States and its territories. The…

Outside the US, for Internet, your agreements are with Starlink Services LLC. Not with SpaceX

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#518

Post by inemesitaffia »

tgma wrote: post #408
jazzyjackson wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realize SpaceX was just a nickname for Space Exploration Technologies Corp, TIL So the Terms of service is with SpaceX but apparently there is such a thing as Starlink Services LLC, but I'm just going off Wikipedia, all this corporate structuring is opaque to me.

> SpaceX was just a nickname for Space Exploration Technologies Corp It's slightly more than that: it's a legally recognized nickname for the actual entity, technically called a "Fictitious Business Name" (aka DBA, "doing business as") registered with the state. > there is such a thing as Starlink Services LLC One might register a bunch of shell companies in various jurisdictions, holding various assets and contracts…

It's for users outside the USA

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#519

Post by inemesitaffia »

starik36 wrote: post #465
umeshunni wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They will ask for a variance

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#520

Post by bhouston »

m463 wrote: post #209
samwillis wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's similar (ish), but I think unfortunately the comparison distracts from your core point and observation. Musk Inc. is, in essence, a privet equity company. He raises a fund, and invests it along with his own cash into a business he knows well, and with which he believes he can disrupt the status quo. He's very hands on, understanding all the important core details, setting culture, and pushing hard . But he also…

I agree with you, yet in a somewhat different way. He is an investor investing in science fiction. This isn't even implied, he comes out and says it again and again. I'm reminded of xerox parc's "The best way to predict the future is to invent it" and I think that's his philosophy. As to "businesses he knows well" I do not agree. He didn't go into electric vehicles, rockets, robots or neural interfaces as "business h…

With Twitter/X he definitely did act like a PE firm with deep cuts and a simplified operating model (eg. no moderation.)

Although strangely he destroyed the revenue model at the same time, which is something a PE firm would be careful to avoid.

Post reply on HN