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

641–650 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#641

Post by notpushkin »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #281

This is the nomad dream. Have a single phone service and wander anywhere on the planet with it. No more having to swap SIMs out on every border, being unable to use text-based 2FA, forcing friends to contact only via messaging apps, system messages in a foreign language, etc. It's not the coverage; that's mostly good. It's not the price; mostly SIM cards and plans are cheaper when travelling than they are at home. It…

There are travel SIM cards already. Many work in most countries, some even on planes and ships.

Personally, I still buy SIM cards (or, more recently, eSIM plans). Not so hard, but way cheaper, and you can get a local number and use with local services that require one.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#642

Post by matwood »

nikkwong wrote: post #308
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…

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…

I use Starlink in Italy and it's been flawless. To be honest it's like magic with how easy it was to setup and use.

One my colleagues tried Starlink at his cabin in the PNW and he had to return it. He just couldn't get a clear and wide enough line of sight through the tree cover. I wonder if that was your issue?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#643

Post by Salmonfisher11 »

verzali wrote: post #547
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or when they built their own GPS system and it ended up being far more accurate than any other system in use? Or when they built their own Earth observation system and it was also better than anyone elses? Or when they built their own weather monitoring constellation and forecast model and it ended up superior to all others? Or when they built the world's most powerful particle collider and discovered the Higgs boson…

> Or when they built their own GPS system and it ended up being far more accurate than any other system in use?

It actually is. But yes - that project was a shitshow for a long time.

Galileo HAS now offers 30cm accuracy with less than 100s convergence time not needing additional correction servers/stations.

Also spoofing resistant thanks to cryptographic signing (Galileo Open Service Navigation Message Authentication).

Both free for use. Forever. Classic GPS doesn't offer this.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#644

Post by starspangled »

einichi wrote: post #620
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…

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

Because I heard he was going to have some advisory or executive capacity on government operation. There's a significant conflict of interest there if he's running and owning these companies at the same time.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#645

Post by notpushkin »

hedora wrote: post #320

Am I the only one thinking I need to upgrade my TV before they start including cell modems that use this to upload surveillance data and download ads?

Unless you have no cell coverage at your house, they can do this right now. I assume ads aren't economically viable unless the viewer pays for the traffic here.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#646

Post by perlgeek »

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...

Any consortium that includes Deutsche Telekom is doomed to failure.

We've seen that when Germany introduced the Autobahn toll, it was a complete disaster.

If I had to guess who's going to have a Starlink competitor up next, I'd point to China.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#647

Post by nwienert »

jonplackett wrote: post #630
rm445 wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree a (temporary) monopoly is totally OK. Normal in fact. But the parent comment was specifically celebrating a long term, unassailable monopoly.

If you read it uncharitably. If you read it charitably, the “it’s awesome” can be referring to how quickly they made something work that otherwise wouldn’t for many more years.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#648

Post by fatata123 »

LightBug1 wrote: post #622
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…

Odd. You seem to be overjoyed at the possible birth of a monopoly situation? I think your emotions and tribal instinct would be better served towards something more benign, like football or baseball ... Lest your voting intentions become equally malignant.

[dead]

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#649

Post by starspangled »

vbezhenar wrote: post #596
starspangled wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You believe the FAA, FCC, OHSA, EPA, FDA, etc., will cease to regulate SpaceX, Tesla, Nuralink operations? That seems pretty outlandish.

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.

"National security" obviously gets significant concessions from regulators. That doesn't mean military and adjacent industries or significant industries and works are above the regulators, it just means the necessity of the activity and input from military and other interested parties would be duly taken into account by regulators.

That's not unique to SpaceX and I don't think that's wrong as such, although people argue that military interests in general get too much leeway.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#650

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

nikkwong wrote: post #308
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…

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…

I think this is quite perceptive. Musk is a narcissist, and the driving motivators of narcissists are a bottomless need for praise and attention and contempt for others.

Musk is famous for being contemptuous of his employees, and he's starting to show more and more contempt for Rest of World. Cybertruck and X both reek of it.

Everyone here is assuming Musk is rational and SpaceX and Starlink will continue to develop rationally.

I don't think they will. He appears to be becoming more and more unhinged, and that's going to have negative effects on his fledgling empire.

Post reply on HN