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

531–540 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#531

Post by openrisk »

scotty79 wrote: post #456
latentcall wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

You might be onto something but we need a proper "evolutionary theory of bootlicking" before we get carried away.

Its pretty clear that the all-too-common in space and time hierarchies, oligarchies, command-and-control pyramids etc. rely on trickle-down privilege to sustain.

But the feeligs of disgust and disbelief at how a person can diminish themselves in the hope of some crumbs falling their way must also have strong evolutionary basis?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#532

Post by palotasb »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #510
CodeArtisan wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation) panned out and that's a closer analogue.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#533

Post by flanked-evergl »

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...

The EU's one skill is to turn my tax money into shit ever better than my socialist government. If any private company was as reckless with its customer's money as European governments, they would be fraudulent.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#534

Post by quailfarmer »

adastra22 wrote: post #471
sudosysgen wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not actually necessary to use reusable rockets to get at a similar cost per launch. Long March 5 is at 2.8M$/ton (so less than SpaceX commercial price). Also, 15M$/launch is not widely believed to be correct. There is much creative accounting SpaceX could be doing with Starlink (is at-cost account for booster depreciation? If so how, since we don't know how much reuse a booster can be expected to give? Or is it…

Boosters don’t depreciate. They are actually considered more valuable with more successful launches.

They do depreciate, even if the later launches are more valuable, that increase in value is marginal compared to the per-launch capital cost. Airplanes, cars, buildings, everything depreciates.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#536

Post by pandemic_region »

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…

> This would open up hunters,

Christ what more do you guys need to shoot a rabbit.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#537

Post by 8n4vidtmkvmk »

cmdli wrote: post #377
kaliqt wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it is not abusing its position. Monopolies are not an inherent bad, they just tend to start abusing their position, and when they do then they get handled. This is more common with public companies than private companies though. Founders have their own life, honor, ethics, desires, etc. which usually help strongly keep the company on a positive track. e.g. Valve Corporation.

Companies always abuse their position. Its basic capitalism; markets only thrive and are fair when both buyers and sellers have multiple options, and it would be odd to assume this time is the exception.

So start drafting up the policies if they need time, but don't enact them yet. I'm not a fan of the owner, but if the product is good and the price is fair, leave it be until it becomes a problem. Let's not punish innovation.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#538

Post by schiffern »

chrisco255 wrote: post #277
schiffern wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really feasible. The only reason Starlink DTC works is because it's not trying to supply coverage inside dense cities. Musk mentions this in the very first announcement of Starlink. https://youtu.be/AHeZHyOnsm4?t=191

That was 9 years ago and a lot has changed since then. They're moving to 3rd generation devices which have higher bandwidth and now have thousands of satellites deployed. Once Starship is able to deploy payloads, they'll increase the number of satellites even more quickly.

A lot has changed, but the calculus of fiber vs. satellites hasn't. Fiber (and fiber-served cellular) is good for high density, satellites are good for low density.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#539

Post by squilliam »

griomnib wrote: post #505
mullingitover wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Great fanfic material

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#540

Post by inglor_cz »

OutOfHere wrote: post #134
inglor_cz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kessler syndrome is a theoretical construction, yet too many people speak of it as a certainty-beyond-any-doubt, like you do.

Some people aren't smart enough to appreciate theory. These people don't even learn the hard way either. They take their disbelief and excuses to their grave. For the rest of us, good theories aren't just admired from afar, they're acted upon before they materialize.

"Appreciate" yes, but if you want to act on it by stopping a budding global industry in its tracks, I am afraid that the burden of proof is on you, not everyone else.

I would point out that it is in interests of the satellite owners to prevent their destruction, and that they act upon it already.

With some rules, the risk of satellites colliding can be significantly reduced, much like the risk of cars colliding in traffic.

Post reply on HN