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

671–680 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#671

Post by badpun »

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 conpetition is there already. In Europe you can get satellite Internet for around $40 a month. It’s slower than Starlink (transfer is decent, but the latency is in the hundreds), but much cheaper.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#672

Post by throwaway290 »

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.

I believe by the time Starlink arrived in Ukraine Crimea was already occupied and post "referendum" and providing service there would be like providing service to Russia, no?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#673

Post by mschuster91 »

starspangled wrote: post #619
mschuster91 wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 whee…

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

Well just reading through Project 2025 is very sobering. It's not like old times where what they wanted had to be read through the lines any more, it's right out in the open what they want to do - and even getting a quarter of their plans actually passed through is a very, very troubling perspective.

> 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.

A sad consequence of people no longer debating policy on a shared common ground based on facts, but on tribalism, lies and propaganda instead.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#674

Post by torginus »

verzali wrote: post #556
torginus wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Small cell size is actually a feature for cell phone communications. You have to share bandwidth with everyone in your cell - the smaller the cell, the less crowding. This is a general starlink issue, which is why I don't understand how is it economically or physically viable in crowded areas, such as cities, where the majority of human population lives.

It's not. They don't have the capacity to cover densely populated areas and it will always be cheaper to build out infrastructure on land in those areas than to launch something into space.

Honestly try as I might, I have failed to undestand your reply. Who is 'they' in your post?

Aren't you actually agreeing with me in actuality (in that cells are better than satellites for densely populated areas)?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#675

Post by _heimdall »

smolder wrote: post #597
hsuduebc2 wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I follow the same reasoning as you. This is actually nothing really "new". Patronage from politicics is something that is publicly criticized but is quite common among politicians and business.

It's too bad no one in government will ever step up to undo the citizens united ruling. At least we didn't have legal-but-opaque bribery, prior. The difference is substantial when people can't report on where campaign financing comes from without someone first talking too loud about it in a public setting.

The good news, at least, is that Citizens United was only a legal ruling and can be overturned by another ruling. Laws are much harder to undue, with rulings we don't need anyone in the government to step up (other than judges trying the case).

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#676

Post by _heimdall »

starspangled wrote: post #644
einichi wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its hard to determine a conflict of interest when the role isn't clear though, and the problem there is that everyone can really go off of what they heard through the grape vine.

If the role truly is advisory I wouldn't personally see that as a conflict of interest. Regulators are often asking for advise from those they are meant to regulate without it getting flagged as a conflict of interest (for better or worse).

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#677

Post by rplnt »

michaelt wrote: post #636
LightBug1 wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps they merely mean it's awesome to have one global satellite broadband service, and one semi-affordable launch option, instead of zero which is what we had before?

This part could have been phrased better in that case.

> It’s over. And IMO it’s awesome.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#678

Post by thelittleone »

mrandish wrote: post #189
Reason077 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink would need to license LTE spectrum in every country it operated. Much easier to work with local carriers and piggyback on their existing bandwidth.

> license LTE spectrum in every country I think this is the biggest reason. All nation's governments will absolutely ensure, overtly or covertly, that their national regulators limit any space-based supra-national system from being able to threaten their national telephony and data carriers. Why? Preventing losing national capabilities, government revenue (taxes, licenses & other domestic carrier fees, lobbying, kick…

An example is flying over India. Satellite internet service is not permitted. It cuts off the moment your flight crossed land in India and usually re-actives immediately after leaving.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#679

Post by EGreg »

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…

Angela Merkel is upset that Elon owns 60% of all satellites in space now: https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/22/angela-merkel-...

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#680

Post by pyrale »

perihelions wrote: post #616
pyrale wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... (…

There aren't tens of thousands of Starlink satellites over China, and I suspect the issue would be solved or escalated way before the whole constellation gets down.
Post reply on HN