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

611–620 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#611

Post by irusensei »

jedberg wrote: post #214
geepytee wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh lines the pockets of Tim Cook. Hard pass.

If I have to choose, I'd rather line the pockets of the gay man who believes in people's rights and whose only ambition is to get me to buy into his ecosystem of well engineered but overpriced hardware, instead of the man who just bought himself a President so that he can direct government spending towards his businesses and away from his competitors while disowning his own child for their sexuality, and whose ambiti…

> I'd rather line the pockets of the gay man

Maybe its about time people stop mixing sexuality with identity and character.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#612

Post by teamonkey »

kaliqt wrote: post #367
cmdli wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are right and Starlink will have no competition, then why would it not be regulated? Generally speaking, monopolies are regulated to prevent price gouging, including natural monopolies. And if its not a monopoly, then clearly the game is not over.

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.

Just because you like a company (and as a consumer, I like Steam) doesn’t mean it’s not acting monopolistically.

Valve is certainly abusing its position. It charges extremely high rents for the services it offers because of its dominance as a marketplace.

It does provide a host of services and does them well, but whether they are value for the platform fee is another question. Using those services creates lock-in and friction to port to other platforms. By providing them as part of the package, Steam has extinguished companies that used to provide those services, meaning that it’s even harder to provide the same functionality elsewhere.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#613

Post by tirant »

mirekrusin wrote: post #574
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…

Even if you like Elon and his companies monopolies are still bad. He is not going to live forever, somebody else will be in charge sooner or later and that person/group may not adhere to same principles.

Monopolies due to the State granting permissions to only one company, or gaining advantages due to coercion or lobbying are indeed terrible.

But monopolies due to excellence in the development of the product, like Starlink, are not bad at all. In any case these are extremely rare and tend to last very little time.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#614

Post by rm445 »

jonplackett wrote: post #603
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…

You think it’s awesome that there’s a monopoly? And it’s owned by a single, politically derelict insane man? I agree the pace of change is amazing. I marvel at everything spacex does. The starship catch was ridiculous. But no competition always leads somewhere really bad eventually

A (temporary) monopoly is not as bad in something that wouldn't otherwise exist. If Elon Musk concentrated only on cars, or SpaceX had had another couple of launch failures and gone bust, this functionality might be 40 years away.

Not to say you're wrong, we all benefit from competition in the long run. We get it from a level playing field and preventing natural monopolists from locking the gate behind them.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#615

Post by b112 »

hhh wrote: post #608
vbezhenar wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink is the most important military weapon in the world right now. Those civilian organizations have no say when state security is at hand. It's like disarming nuclear rockets because some green guys care about birds. Will not happen.

Starshield != Starlink

Parent should have said "SpaceX", Starlink is just a subsidiary.

SpaceX has more military applications than Starshield alone. For example, SpaceX's assembly line will be pumping out (eventually) a rocket a day. That's the plan.

From a military perspective, Starship is supposed to be able to send 100+ people on long space trips. If that is instead to deliver troops to other parts of the planet, I'm sure hundreds could be packed in. Imagine a fast deploy with parachute capability for personnel and cargo, just as with planes, but with immense range and deploy speed.

You may wonder why, but aircraft carriers and their fleets are considered less usable as deploy platforms, due to increased vulnerability. If the US continues to withdraw from the world stage, its ability to deploy could be affected by a reduction in 'friendly' regional countries and thus leased bases. I don't see any issue with this now, but once a large conflict breaks out, who knows... and this could vastly enhance Starship or equiv as a deploy platform.

I'm sure some reading this will balk at "large war" and "never happen" and so on, but Starshield is an example of a platform for such a large conflict. So considering the use of Starship itself as a lightning speed, emergency deploy platform is important.

There are all sorts of gotchas, such as being shot down, but of course those same issues exist with planes or ships.

Frankly, with the state of AI, the close-to-real Android + military robots, along with drones, Starship would be best served by mass fly-over and deploy of 100k small drones, or hundreds of military robot platforms, or.. well, lots of things.

This really isn't about Starship of course. It's just that we've gotten to the point where this sort of platform is very usable. I can't imagine sending in a large-cost asset like this for general troop deploy, but I can for special ops, weapons platforms in low-risk flyovers, and a variety of other use cases.

And in times of war, things get nationalized too.

Interesting thoughts on the logistics side.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#616

Post by perihelions »

pyrale wrote: post #154
heywoods wrote: post #121

Does this allow the ability to circumvent LTE networks in countries like China? Do we have the capability to send messages to any/all phones in China if we (USA) wanted to?

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…

- "I don't see what would prevent China from shooting down Starlink's constellation."

They absolutely do not have tens of thousands of anti-satellite missiles, or any other credible (non-nuclear) way to dismantle a constellation of that size. If you look at their own news media[0], they (Chinese defense) consider it a major weakness, and priority.

[0] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3178939/chin... ("China military must be able to destroy Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites if they threaten national security: scientists")

- "Researchers call for development of anti-satellite capabilities including ability to track, monitor and disable each craft The Starlink platform with its thousands of satellites is believed to be indestructible"

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#617

Post by DanielHB »

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.

> vertically integrated monopoly is the cheapest option

I would like to remind you that you can use google, gmail, google maps, google drive and a bunch of other services for free (and the best consumer value even if accounting for their data gathering).

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#618

Post by MaxikCZ »

leoh wrote: post #586
paxys wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already have the option of escaping internet access, anywhere in the world – by turning off your device.

Heroin addicts have the option to escape heroin any time they want. Just ignore the heroin.

Funny how while you mean it ironically, it still is true.

Its time people take responsibility of their actions.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#619

Post by starspangled »

mschuster91 wrote: post #588
starspangled wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't know what Musk has been appointed to do and it's a laughably blatant conflict of interest, but conflicts of interest seem to be what the entire government is built on. Politicians involved with energy and military companies are involved in decisions to go to war, generals get lucrative consultancy jobs at military firms, congress makes billions of dollars insider trading, foreign aid somehow finds its…

> The idea that he'll just be above the law is fearmongering hyperbole though Is it? If there is anything the 45th and the aftermath has shown is that there are people clearly above the law. And even without the 45th, Musk himself has escaped justice many many times - especially the SEC whose explicit orders he openly defied multiple times.

Yes I think it is, and I think the rhetoric around Trump is hyperbole and fearmongering too.

Not that you can't criticize them, I just don't see exaggeration being interesting or helpful there. Also I think caring about certain corruption or conflicts of interest when it happens to politicians one disagrees with is fairly easy to be seen as being divisive or politically motivated even if it's not. I thought that wheeling out the architects of the Iraq war to denounce Trump's corruption/incompetence/bad foreign policy/etc was particularly ironic and sad, for example, even if they might have been technically correct.

Musk isn't going to be immune to federal regulators. I'm sure he'll get the kinds of favors that come with buying politicians as all the rest of them get though.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#620

Post by einichi »

starspangled wrote: post #480
btilly wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk was just appointed by Donald Trump as being in charge of firing half of the government. He won't likely do that. But any regulator who gets in his way? Yeah, not many will volunteer for "the firing line."

I really don't know what Musk has been appointed to do and it's a laughably blatant conflict of interest, but conflicts of interest seem to be what the entire government is built on. Politicians involved with energy and military companies are involved in decisions to go to war, generals get lucrative consultancy jobs at military firms, congress makes billions of dollars insider trading, foreign aid somehow finds its…

How can you determine a conflict of interest if you don’t know what he’s been appointed to do?
Post reply on HN